Why the universe likely is predeterministic
My reasoning goes like this:
I can see three different possibilities that roughly explains the idea on why time and space exists:
1) Time and space has been in motion without a starting point.
2) Time and space came into existence by chance.
3) Time and space emerged through an infinite state.
a) I exclude 1 considering physical measurements would not be possible in such circumstances. Why? Because physical measurements need a starting point, which 1 lacks.
b) I see 2 as a possibility, but unlikely, as it contradicts the fundamental observations of cause and effect in the universe.
c) 3 is based on cause and effect. If everything is based on cause and effect, it ultimately leads to something that has its own cause of exstience; an infinite state.
If everything originates from an infinite state: everything that has existed, exists and will exist has always existed. This leads to the universe being deterministic.
What are your thoughts?
I can see three different possibilities that roughly explains the idea on why time and space exists:
1) Time and space has been in motion without a starting point.
2) Time and space came into existence by chance.
3) Time and space emerged through an infinite state.
a) I exclude 1 considering physical measurements would not be possible in such circumstances. Why? Because physical measurements need a starting point, which 1 lacks.
b) I see 2 as a possibility, but unlikely, as it contradicts the fundamental observations of cause and effect in the universe.
c) 3 is based on cause and effect. If everything is based on cause and effect, it ultimately leads to something that has its own cause of exstience; an infinite state.
If everything originates from an infinite state: everything that has existed, exists and will exist has always existed. This leads to the universe being deterministic.
What are your thoughts?
Comments (38)
Time and space exists because we humans need to put an order inside our chaos. These are complex and abstract concepts. Living a life without both time and space would be very difficult because we are used to live like this since we are born. I don’t know if it is good or flawed how we see the time and space considering how vast the Cosmos is (amazing).
Quoting Tombob
True. It is completely determinism. But I would like to debate with you if “everything” as you say could be timeless. I guess this another character we just give to “everything”. It always been there and will be. Our time perception passes but inside everything don’t because it is like an omnipresence subterfuge. Universe will be still there during the centuries. We the humans will not. We are the deterministic ones.
Humans created the expression of 'time and space', but the motion of time and space itself exists regardless of human existence. I might have misunderstood you here, though.
Quoting javi2541997
If you would like to debate from the stand point that "everything" cannot be timeless, one of your starting points is necessarily the assumption that time and space came into existence by chance. And my only argument against that is that the assumption is counter-intuitive, considering the universe operates within cause and effect.
I guess by this you just mean that the past is infinite.
Quoting Tombob
The objection doesn't make a lot of sense. We choose the starting points for our measurements to be whatever we want, and the overall extent of time and space has no bearing on that - demonstrably so, because in no instance (other than traditional creation stories and such) do our measurements reference an absolute beginning of time and space.
And even if there was such a difficulty, that would not be a good metaphysical argument, unless you think that time and space have no mind-independent existence whatsoever. Reality doesn't care about our convenience.
Quoting Tombob
Quoting Tombob
I don't know what either the thesis or the response even mean.
Quoting Tombob
Quoting Tombob
Ditto. I have no idea what you mean by "infinite state."
Quoting Tombob
I don't know how that follows (since I don't know what "infinite state" is), but taken at face value, this is absurd.
Quoting Tombob
OK, now I don't even know what you mean by "deterministic." Since you constantly refer to "cause and effect" I took you to mean causal determinism, i.e. the idea that given the state of the world at some point (or slice) in time, everything that happens before and after is determined by causal laws. This notion of determinism is timeless, i.e. it does not depend on whether we are talking about something that has happened, is happening or will happen.
Why? I can see the starting point of time and space as something that is "beginning at the fingertips". However, I'm not sure what the expression fully means.
Quoting counterpunch
What does "adopting some absolotue promontory" mean? How would you expound on concepts like truth and justice, or determinism even?
Probably. It could be as you explained to me. But all of these terms are just human creations. Universe was and will be there despite human existence. We just established some criteria to understand what is around us. Something like time and space are so abstract if we compare it with universe. For example, when NASA says a random star could be 1,000 years of distance is just an order we put. That star was there in the vast universe and will be. It doesn’t matter at all the time/space but humans need it to understand all this complexity.
Here, the finite are the humans. The infinite the universe.
I suppose it depends upon what form your philosophy takes; mine is a narrative describing the evolutionary development of the human organism, civilisation and science, that aspires toward a prosperous sustainable future. I don't concern myself with the origin of life on earth, less yet the origins, and existence of the universe. From my point of view, the beginning of time is extremely distant and not particularly relevant to a middle ground scientific understanding of reality; which is, I'd suggest, the right starting point for philosophy.
The beginning of time is a superlative; an absolute that may be easy to imagine in some vague way, it's impossible to do so with certainty as to the absolute nature of reality, or consciousness, or any other such superlative imponderable. So why start with those? The idea of truth "starting at the fingertips" is meant to suggest knowledge developed over time, built from the bottom up. In the mean time; it's imperative, I believe - to acknowledge what we are and are not able to know.
Yes!
Quoting SophistiCat
An existential beginning is required to be able to measure time. If time and space would have an infinite past, motion would be impossible, and its state would be unchangeable. Change is happening, as time passes by.
Quoting SophistiCat
It means that time and space came into being without a cause.
Quoting SophistiCat
By infinite state I mean something that is existing with an infinite past. A framework that allows time and space, and everything in it to exist. It is immaterial, as physicality cannot have an infinite past.
Quoting SophistiCat
If something "emerges from an existence with an infinite past", that something must have an infinite past as well. To tell when in the sequence of time it emerged is impossible. An existing inifite past is a numberless infinity, thus something "emerging" from it shares the same infinity.
Quoting SophistiCat
Hm, yes. I mean predeterminism.
It's not wrong these terms are made out of humans. But some of these terms are observations that leads to certains assumptions, or truths even.
I agree that this thread is useless to science or any other area where improvement would lead to sustainability. However, my mind is occupied by this type of thoughts, and I want to discuss it with others.
And yet here we are, measuring time all the time (as it were) with no regard to any such existential beginning. So this can't be true. All we need to measure anything is a measuring device (a clock in this case).
Quoting Tombob
I don't see how this follows.
Quoting Tombob
Well, what would it mean for time and space to be the effect of a cause? We usually assume that causes precede effects, and that requires time to be already in place. No time - no causality. So if you are talking about the beginning of all time, rather than just the beginning of an age, then it must perforce be uncaused.
Quoting Tombob
You lost me here. Something "immaterial" - that apparently exists within some sort of immaterial (?) time - somehow (?) gives rise to the physical time? This is "language on holiday," I am afraid. You just said some words, waved your hands, and made like you've solved the problem. But what have you solved? Where's the solution?
I think you’re right, a deterministic world implies an infinite universe. If the present state of the universe is the effect of its anterior state, a finite universe would never arrive at any present state at all.
Dumb it down for me some. A newly built wall, and it's future state of ruin (provided it's not repaired as needed) both exist, just not in the same place or time, essentially? Kind of a trippy concept to wrap your head around. Is this similar to the "moving spotlight theory" of time? "It's all relative", etc?
To me, in a strictly scientific understanding of "reality" absent of anything spiritual, it would make more sense to me that somewhere "in a galaxy far far away" (lol) people really evolved billions of years ahead of us who have since been able to master time, space, gravity, and every force on Earth and beyond long ago and..I dunno just kind of mess with us every now and then. Or help, if in the right mood. :grin:
That's not really on topic but basically something related to your question is "how did the Universe start"? The big bang as evidenced by some massive explosion from what is called "the singularity". What created the singularity? What predated it? Was there just a white space like in some abstract philosophical cartoon? Are we really all in a black hole and what we call "black holes" are just punctures in it? Where do they lead? Are there multiple universes? Are they side by side, stacked on top of each other or in completely different realms we cannot (or at least I cannot) even begin to grasp? What are your thoughts?
That is why I exclude 1.
Quoting SophistiCat
Imagine a growing number with an infinite past, that has been increasing each second of its existence. In reality, the number can never increase, since it is infinity, hence its unchangeable state. However, the history of time can be approximated to a number, and that number is constantly changing.
Quoting SophistiCat
Can you break down and furtherly explain the last sentence?
Could an explanation of the cause of time and space be that it exists as its own cause? Abstractly speaking, an existing infinite past is its own cause of existence.
Quoting SophistiCat
It would be immaterial, seeing as it exists with no regard to time and space. But I have no real explanation how or why it gives rise to time and space, other than its setting makes it possible.
Hopefully my comments have made my definitions more clear. If not, I will gladly continue discussing with you.
At last someone who agrees! Are those thoughts from before, or did I inspire your thinking?
Indeed! Through a timeless perspective: something that is existing because of an infinity, is in itself the same infinity.
Quoting Outlander
Come and pick me up and take me to your civilisation, please!
Quoting Outlander
I wish I had the answers to your curiosity. In 1000 years we might have the answers. Living in the year 3000 would probably be awesome...
(this is just my theory)
If you agreed with what you quoted, you wouldn't have excluded (1) for the reason that you gave:
Quoting Tombob
That's what I've been objecting to, because it's manifestly false, it contradicts our common experience.
Quoting Tombob
I can't imagine such a thing: numbers don't have a past. And we aren't talking about numbers, we are talking about time. True, we use numbers and other mathematical concepts to model time, but it is up to us how we do that; physical time doesn't come with numbers already attached. If you run into difficulties while modeling time, that may just mean that you are doing it wrong.
Here is a model of an imaginary eternal process that doesn't seem to run into any such difficulties, one familiar to any elementary algebra student:
Let's say that the horizontal axis measures time in some units, and the vertical axis measures some physical property. Time in this model extends indefinitely into the past and into the future. There is a zero, but it is nothing other than our choice of a reference point for the coordinate system: it has no physical meaning. If you ask: "What time is it now?" the answer will depend on this conventional choice of the reference frame. Nevertheless, change is happening here and time passes. Indeed, if we could measure the physical property pictured, it could serve as a handy clock by which we could measure the passage of time.
Quoting Tombob
Our usual idea of causation is tied up with space and time: causation occurs in space-time, with causes preceding their effects. Therefore, causation outside of space-time makes no sense. Nor does it make sense to ask what caused space-time itself: it is not something that can be caused.
You can instead ask about causes of events, states or entities in space and time. But if you ask what caused something right at the beginning of time (if time has a beginning), then the answer will have to be that it doesn't have a cause, because there is nothing preceding it.
If you want to appeal to some unusual concept of causation, one that does not apply to events, states or entities in space and time, then you will have to develop that concept first and convince us that it is real. We may take familiar causation for granted within the context of a discussion, but you cannot expect us to take for granted something unfamiliar, just because you decided to call it "causation."
Quoting Tombob
Well then it's not an explanation, but something pretending to be an explanation. If we drop everything that doesn't have a commonly understood meaning, then all that is left is a placeholder where an explanation is supposed to be. Giving it a name, such as "infinite state," doesn't legitimize it as an explanation.
If something happened before, even with an infinite size, does not suggest that it will be in the future. Between 0 and -1 is the same infinity as between 0 and 1 - the only difference is in which direction we are considering it. :)
Why does it contradict our common experience? Besides, the idea of time and space relating to (1) contradicts scientific facts. I am simply expressing another viewpoint why the universe must have a beginning. This leads us to option (2) or (3).
Quoting SophistiCat
I was talking about time: "Imagine a growing number with an infinite past, that has been increasing each second of its existence." The concept implies physical impossibility, thus existing as an abstracticality, while our reality is existing as physical.
Quoting SophistiCat
The fact is, we don't know what caused Big Bang. To assume space-time cannot be caused, is to assume (1). While I am recognizing (2) as a possibility, I see it as highly unlikely. Where everything happens for a reason, it would be intuitively reasonable to assume space-time happened for a reason. I am not assuming cause and effect outside the space-time pattern. I am assuming that space-time was caused by something that is its own cause of existence [an infinite state]. This implies the effect being inside the space-time pattern, while the cause is outside the pattern of space-time. If space-time was its own cause of existence, (1) would apply, however, (1) is provably false.
Quoting SophistiCat
It's a possible explanation, not a legitimate explanation. And you seem to be dropping something essential, that has a commonly understood meaning; Big Bang.
Unfortunately, I have no proof of of my explanation, other than the saying that "everything happens for a reason" (and rightly so).
As beautiful as that theory is, it comes with two problems.
If we count this universe as one heartbeat, that could imply this is the latest heartbeat of its infinite cycle, but that contradicts the infinity. There cannot be a first heartbeat, hence there cannot be a latest heartbeat.
If this is not the latest heartbeat, and it just one number in its infinity of cycles, it would imply that we can put a number on the amount of cycles. This implies the cycle being finite.
I am not following your reasoning here. Elaborate, please!
Isn't a cycle or circle infinite by definition?
- SimpleUser
I am not following your reasoning here. Please clarify! [/quote]
You are simply mixing mathematics (abstraction) and physics (observable reality). We can tell how much time has passed since the beginning of our observable universe (between the "big bang" point and "now"). And this time is finite, not infinite. The reasoning given for the time "before the big bang" is just speculation. And, even more so, the assumption that "infinity in the past" implies "infinity in the future."
I am not denying the reality we are experiencing is finite. What I am proposing is that the past (the beginning), now and future has existed with an infinite past, if it derives from an "infinite state" that causes space-time. Time would be an illusion, in other words. But experienced as real, through our senses.
An infinite past implies an infinite future, seeing as something existing with an infinite past cannot cease to exist. It would contradict the implication of an infinite past.
Sure. But the concept is abstract, while our reality is physical. The cycle could potentially have a beginning of its existence, and travel around in circles for infinity. The number of cycles would be finite, but, increasing towards infinity.
Where did you get the idea that spacetime is infinite? What are you measuring? By the way, where will the "Planck constant" go?
Good point :sweat: If I go into "philosophy mode" things can get complicated.
It is based on the assumption that spacetime exists because of an infinite setting. With an infinite setting, I mean something that is existing as its own cause, a setting that automatically allows space-time. Some would call it God, I call it an infinite setting. It is not necessarily the truth, but a way for me to cope with why there is something rather than nothing, and why spacetime exists. I find it as a more satisfying answer than "there is no reason why spacetime exists", and I also find the answer plausible, and in line with causation.
Quoting SimpleUser
Can you elaborate?
I went to some pains to explain why.
Quoting Tombob
No, it doesn't. Our best cosmology hasn't delivered a verdict on whether the past is infinite, and it likely never will have a definitive answer to that question.
Quoting Tombob
Just because you managed to contrive a nonsensical model of an infinite past doesn't mean that you have proven a physical impossibility. I went to some pains to explain that, too.
Quoting Tombob
No, to assume that space-time cannot be caused is to use the word "cause" in its usual sense. Causation is something that happens in space-time. But there is no implication from here to the topology of space-time.
Quoting Tombob
"Reason" and "cause" are not synonymous. "Reason" is a much broader and vaguer notion. Even then, the proposition that everything happens for a reason is controversial, especially if you take it to its logical limit. I for one don't believe it.
Quoting Tombob
Huh? When did I do that? I didn't even mention Big Bang. Are you, by any chance, under the impression that Big Bang is your fantastical "infinite state"? It's nothing like that (not that there could be anything like that).
I will spare you the pain.
Someone comes along here to present much the same sort of "original" theory about once a month. It doesn't usually turn out well.
I assume you meant "notion" instead of "motion". Did you? Do you have any idea of what you are talking about? Just curious. :chin:
Time and space is in motion. For example: it is expanding.
The starting point of time is the present moment, simply because nothing may be measured sooner then “now”. “Now” is the zero point which gives the concept of time context. Time stretches out in both directions, past and future, for infinity, simply because the present moment is infinite. It’s always the present moment no matter what time it is! Like the end of a tape measure, “now” is the zero point which we use to measure any duration of time. The Big Bang happed so many billions of years ago from “now”.