@Doom,

OK, I can work off of that:

How did the universe start its cyclic nature? Aren't you stuck in the same spot?

@doom

"I believe in an infinitely long cycle of universes."

Why?

@Abge

It didn't start, it has always been. Yeah, it sounds like a cop-out, but only because we cannot conceive of anything without a beginning.

Mankinds biggest problem is not the inability to conceive of infinity as in "never ending" but infinity as in "never beginning". The idea that it has always existed eludes us because we ourselves have clear beginnings at our conception. There is no problem with having no ending to most because death isn't an end of the physical body, just a change to it's electrochemical makeup.

@Miro

I explained it on the end of the last page.

@Kreator - dual posting it seems. Glad we are on the same page there. :-)

@doom

"Yeah, it sounds like a cop-out, but only because we cannot conceive of anything without a beginning. "
- It´s totally unlogical that something like the existent of the universe has no beginning.

@Doom

In that case, isn't it possible that this universe had no beginning and will just keep expanding until heat death? If you aren't going to base your beliefs off of science, you might as well use the simplest answer and to me, 1 universe is simpler than a cyclic one.

@Miro

How so?

abgemacht - Note #1 "which represents an observer's knowledge of the system." An observer's knowledge of the system, according to the HUP, is necessarily incomplete (by definition). Therefore, the waveform does describe the observer's knowledge, but it does not describe the "completeness" of the system because that is not possible. That, however, does not mean the system lacks completeness, it just means it is not observable. This is what I have been talking about.

@abge

Well there had to be a beginning to that though. The singularity is way too unstable to have lasted infinitely long. Infinite time just doesn't make sense without a cycle.

Kreator of Doom - I did not respond to your question, so here it is. Material determinism can be true and absolute determinism false if there exists that which is not matter.

@Doom

Why? Is there a logic reason why this universe couldn't have existed forever?

@Nola

Are you referring to Cartesian Dualism, a higher power, or both?

@Abge

Well the lack of a cycle would imply that the time before the big bang couldn't have been infinite. It's hard to explain, but that just wouldn't work.

@abgemacht - I'm not KoD, but I would say the sheer fact of universal expansion would indicate that it couldn't have existed in the present state forever. If you trace back the universe's path, it will evntually come to a point. so if it existed in that point forever, then something must have triggered it's expansion ala the Big Bang. But if it has existed forever, either the curved dimension theory or expansion & collapse would contribute to the cyclical universe theory in that it would collapse or come back around to create a new singularity and explode like the universe's biggest a bomb over and over again.

Kreator of Doom - I am referring to our possession of an immaterial spirit not governed by material laws. Personally, I am Catholic (and one who agrees with the entirety of Church teaching, not just the parts I "like"), but I really don't want to debate that topic here (since I have done so enough in the last little while).

I don't understand what Draugnar said, but I'm sure he's explaining exactly what I mean.

@doom

1. You didn´t explain why the theory is true, you just claimed every other theory is god and that´s why you prefer your strange circle thing. A beginning universe needs no god.

2. Instead of following rules of logic you just BELIEVE in something that never begins.
It´s not logical to BELIEVE in something that stands against all experiences ever been made, everything has a beginning.

3. But instead of prooving it logically you say humans are too dumb to understand that it needs no beginning. Sorry you are praying believes not scientific evidence...

@Nola

So you would be a big fan of St. Thomas Aquinas? I'm sure as hell no Christian, but he is definitely one of my favorite philosophers.

@Nola

That is the danger of using wikipedia as a reference. That statement is poorly worded. If you're interested, you can look here: (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bell_Inequality)

To summarize: "No physical theory of local hidden variables can ever reproduce all of the predictions of quantum mechanics."

In other words, QM either tells the whole story, or nothing. It's complete, or wrong. Now, it may be wrong, as I've said, but it's not in-between as you suggest.

@ Miro

1. Well if you believe in determinism, which I do, a universe that has a beginning REQUIRES a god or higher power.

2. No, you misunderstand the concept of logic. I'm using pure and very basic logic, as opposed to logic that follows scientific experience. Scientific theories are prone to change, as they often do. Philosophical theories are entirely based on rationalism as opposed to empiricism, and that is why I believe that they are stronger.

3. Well I was answering a question, I wasn't trying to prove it correct.

@Draug

I'm still not buying it. If a cyclic universe doesn't need a beginning, then neither does this one. If you look at it going backwards, it could just be accelerating less and less, asymptotically approaching zero. In that case, it doesn't require a beginning and holds just as much water scientifically as a cyclic universe theory.

"and explode like the universe's biggest a bomb over and over again."

-where is the evidence for this?
To predict the outcome of a singularity is not possible, because of the nature of the singularity, so why should it do the same over and over again?

@Miro

The only proof I have is the logical proof I provided on the previous page. I am not infallible, and I do not expect to convince you, but I believe that I am correct, and I gave you the reasons why on the last page. Can you prove me wrong?

@Miro

Well it makes sense philosophically.

Also, it was mathematically proven by M-theory, but I don't put much credence into that.

@doom

"1. Well if you believe in determinism, which I do, a universe that has a beginning REQUIRES a god or higher power."

again why? i see no logical clue why a determined world should be made by god that?

"Philosophical theories are entirely based on rationalism as opposed to empiricism"

What theory do you mean? I know philosophy that fits your description, could you please tell me them?

I know (NO)philosophy*

@Miro

Haha That makes more sense; I thought you were just toying with him