<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Other than resolving Zeno's paradoxes, I don't see what advantage you are seeing.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
I see no advantage. I'm trying to comprehend your point of view by the answer you give to various Q's. For my part, I see no problem with ex nihilo theories provided they are non-religious.
There are only four options here:
1) The universe has a beginning and an end.
2) The universe has no beginning and no end.
3) The universe has a beginning and no end.
4) The universe has no beginning but has an end.
We might also have more than one of these true simutaneously or none true depending on how we define "beginning" and "end" and "universe" but that would be splitting hairs.
Number 4 seems exceedingly odd but that is because it would be number 3 in reverse. My preference is number 3 because it has a "direction" while yours is number 2 which you prefer because it requires no "miracle". I wouldn't say we can rule out an alternative (by logic) because our understanding of logic itself is unsettled. Hence, as a tool it is unreliable at its extremes ... particularly when it is called upon to examine itself ... which is what one is doing when examining the concept "universe".
I choose "direction" criteria rather than "miracle" because of entropy (the observed directional aspect of the universe which is overwhelminly, scientifically documented from every conceivable angle). It is the strongest indication against a universe infinite in both temporal directions. We have then to discover a logic of "miracle" which is does not offend our sense of rationality.
On the other hand, you must posit a way to get around entropy by resorting to "scales" or other places where entropy is reversed so that the universe can go on indefinitely. There is no experimental evidence to support the scales hypothesis. Rather, the preponderance of evidence (at the quantum scale) is that a search for even lower scales is impossible. To me, such lower scales are equally miraculous. They are 'deus ex machina' to retain number 2's viability with respect to "experimental observation" (not necessarily big bang which may be a flawed conception but of entropic observations which cannot be flawed).
This is philosophically evasive. You would assert the same for my part, i.e. "ex nihilo" is evasive because it denies what to you is a logical absolute. I assert that "miracle" is less evasive than "scales" because it does less violence to Newton's "Rules of Reasoning in Philosophy" particularly ...
Rule IV
In experimental philosophy we are to look upon propositions inferred by general induction from phenomena as accurately or very nearly true, notwithstanding any contrary hypotheses that may be imagined, till such time as other phenomena occur, by which they may either be made more accurate, or liable to exceptions.
This rule we must follow, that the arguments of induction may not be evaded by hypotheses.
Thus, the argument of iniduction is for a beginning which is what conservative "mainstream" advocates. The "scales" that you posit are the contending hypothesis which must be presently rejected because it conflicts with the argument of induction (a "beginning" or, as you put it a "miracle"). This does not mean your hypothesis is falsified. Rather, it is set aside till other evidence surfaces which would make the present "argument of induction" appear to be falsified. And, in fact, this is what mainstream physics has done.
To make it acceptable to them you must show "observational evidence of entropic reversal". This has never been done before in the history of physics, but then ... it's history is quite brief.
