[QUOTE=davar55;367040][I]I'm not trying to c[/I]onfuse. I'm just denying the concept of "initial
conditions" for the Universe as a whole. There was no "that point"
from which the Universe went on. "Initial" means "beginning", and
there was no beginning. That's a purely biblical idea.[/QUOTE]

Do you deny starting conditions for linear recurrence relations, too?:confused: The idea is the same in both cases.

[QUOTE=davar55;367040]And my cosmo monograph explains away the evidence purportedly supporting the big bang.[/QUOTE]

Was this in a tiny falsifiable sliver I missed?

[QUOTE=davar55;367040]
[I]I'm not trying to c[/I]onfuse. I'm just denying the concept of "initial
conditions" for the Universe as a whole. There was no "that point"
from which the Universe went on. "Initial" means "beginning", and
there was no beginning. That's a purely biblical idea.

And my cosmo monograph explains away the evidence purportedly
supporting the big bang. I don't have anything against little bangs,
i.e. supergalactic explosions that restarted parts of the Universe
throughout its vaster history.[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=CRGreathouse;367077]Do you deny starting conditions for linear recurrence relations, too?:confused: The idea is the same in both cases.
[/QUOTE]

Very crucially different. Maybe you think of the Universe as a
giant finite-state-machine, with a starting state and plugging
away into sequential states while obeying the deterministic
laws of physics? Hence your analogy to recurrence relations
which do require an initial condition? But this is erroneous on
several counts. First, the Universe has potentially uncountably
infinite number of possible states, due to continuity of space
and time. (See my earlier posts.) Second, time's necessity,
plus cause and effect, imply that time has an infinite regress
(see the monograph.) So the fact of the present Universe
"possessing" time implies it always has had "time", and that
word "always" means always -- throughout the past of
the Universe. If you posit a T==0, there must be a T-1, a
T-199, a T-1000 years, etc. forever back.

[quote]
Was this in a tiny falsifiable sliver I missed?[/quote]No, it's the stuff about the skin and how that explains so
much. Very high profile in the monograph.

[QUOTE=davar55;367087]Very crucially different. Maybe you think of the Universe as a
giant finite-state-machine, with a starting state and plugging
away into sequential states while obeying the deterministic
laws of physics? Hence your analogy to recurrence relations
which do require an initial condition?[/QUOTE]

No, you missed my point entirely.

Let's say you define the Fibonacci numbers by F(1) = F(2) = 1 and F(n) = F(n-1) + F(n-2). You've chosen, in addition to the recurrence relation, initial conditions at 1 and 2. But these aren't "initial" at all -- you can use the recurrence relation in reverse to find F(0) and F(-1) and F(-100) if you like. Just because you need to know initial conditions to compute terms doesn't mean you're claiming that there's anything special about that point or that choice of coordinates.

[QUOTE=davar55;367087][QUOTE=CRGreathouse;367077]Was this in a tiny falsifiable sliver I missed?[/QUOTE]

No, it's the stuff about the skin and how that explains so
much. Very high profile in the monograph.[/QUOTE]

Ah good, I was afraid you'd gone Popperian on me.

All this subsequent commentary seems to have drawn attention away from my point about the consequences of the second law of thermodynamics in a spatially finite system.

Could we return to that topic please? It is an extremely important one for cosmological models.

[QUOTE=CRGreathouse;367102]No, you missed my point entirely.

Let's say you define the Fibonacci numbers by F(1) = F(2) = 1 and F(n) = F(n-1) + F(n-2). You've chosen, in addition to the recurrence relation, initial conditions at 1 and 2. But these aren't "initial" at all -- you can use the recurrence relation in reverse to find F(0) and F(-1) and F(-100) if you like. Just because you need to know initial conditions to compute terms doesn't mean you're claiming that there's anything special about that point or that choice of coordinates.[/QUOTE]

I think this implies that you accept that your big bang was preceded
by an infinity of time and events, just that a (most recent) bang
occurred about 14 billion years ago and started in motion the
so-called expansion that we supposedly experience now.

I would agree with the infinity but disagree with the bang and
subsequent expansion of space.

[QUOTE=davar55;367109]I think this implies that you accept that your big bang was preceded
by an infinity of time and events, just that a (most recent) bang
occurred about 14 billion years ago and started in motion the
so-called expansion that we supposedly experience now.[/QUOTE]

Well, I certainly don't deny the possibility of a whole bunch of events before then, I just lack the information to determine what they may have been. It's also possible that the question itself is ill-posed. I'm simply making no claims about what might have been -- that's all.

[QUOTE=xilman;367105]All this subsequent commentary seems to have drawn attention away from my point about the consequences of the second law of thermodynamics in a spatially finite system.

Could we return to that topic please? It is an extremely important one for cosmological models.[/QUOTE]

Sorry. Back on topic now.

[QUOTE=CRGreathouse;367114]Well, I certainly don't deny the possibility of a whole bunch of events before then, I just lack the information to determine what they may have been. It's also possible that the question itself is ill-posed. I'm simply making no claims about what might have been -- that's all.
Sorry. Back on topic now.[/QUOTE]

Oops. My reply was deleted while being typed. I'll try again later.

[QUOTE=CRGreathouse;367114]Well, I certainly don't deny the possibility of a whole bunch of events before then, I just lack the information to determine what they may have been. It's also possible that the question itself is ill-posed. I'm simply making no claims about what might have been -- that's all.

Sorry. Back on topic now.[/QUOTE]

Which topic? Cosmology? The monograph? Entropy explained for
the Universe as a whole as being a constant infinite value hence
not producing any contradictory explanatory value, such that it
can always increase if you like and never produce a thermal
equilibrium? The shape and size of the Universe? The defunct
big bangup theory?

There's a whole universe of things to discuss.

[QUOTE=davar55;367443]Which topic?[/QUOTE]

xilman's discussion on the consequences of the second law of thermodynamics in a spatially finite system.

[QUOTE=davar55;367443]Which topic? ...
There's a whole universe of things to discuss.[/QUOTE]"The time has come," the Walrus said,
"To talk of many things:
Of shoes—and ships—and sealing-wax—
Of cabbages—and kings—
And why the sea is boiling hot—
And whether pigs have wings."