Does everything have a start?
It seems that everything has a start. A simple enough proposition, yet with important implications if its true. For example, time and the universe ; do they have a start? Can you think of anything without a start?
What do I mean by start:
- Everything has spacial start point(s). For example, a human you could choose head or feet
- Everything has a temporal start. This might be a window of time rather than a point. An example for a human would be birth.
And the definition of a thing? A collection of related parts (could be just one part).
Is there anything without a start? I can’t think of anything from the natural world without a start. As far as concepts go, all I can think of is Negative infinity. But negative infinity does not actually exist:
There is no quantity -oo such that -oo < all other quantities because -oo - 1 < -oo.
So there does not seem to be anything without a start (a circle has multiple start points).
What does it mean not to have a start? It means that the object is partially undefined; which means it is actually undefined and can’t exist.
What would it mean to exist without a start? Would you exist if you were not born? Would the universe exist if the Big Bang did not happen?
If the proposition is correct, it follows that:
- The universe has a start in time and space
- Time had a start
- Matter/Energy had a start
The related proposition, 'everything has an end' is also worth a mention.
What do I mean by start:
- Everything has spacial start point(s). For example, a human you could choose head or feet
- Everything has a temporal start. This might be a window of time rather than a point. An example for a human would be birth.
And the definition of a thing? A collection of related parts (could be just one part).
Is there anything without a start? I can’t think of anything from the natural world without a start. As far as concepts go, all I can think of is Negative infinity. But negative infinity does not actually exist:
There is no quantity -oo such that -oo < all other quantities because -oo - 1 < -oo.
So there does not seem to be anything without a start (a circle has multiple start points).
What does it mean not to have a start? It means that the object is partially undefined; which means it is actually undefined and can’t exist.
What would it mean to exist without a start? Would you exist if you were not born? Would the universe exist if the Big Bang did not happen?
If the proposition is correct, it follows that:
- The universe has a start in time and space
- Time had a start
- Matter/Energy had a start
The related proposition, 'everything has an end' is also worth a mention.
Comments (133)
If the universe=spacetime, then the universe didn't start IN time and space. Rather, there is a start of time and space.
that may or may be true, but you would be leaving science's best understanding of the origin of the universe. I may be behind the times, but i believe that the best understanding is that it is finite, and had a beginning.
Only things which are 'embedded' in time can be said to have a start. Because we are trapped into temporality, everything appears to have a start for us.
In fact, science can never establish a "beginning" to the universe. It's not a science question, but a philosophical one. No matter what science comes up with, like the Big Bang, one can always ask the question, and what existed before that? And on and on it goes, so whether the universe had a beginning is a philosophical issue, and the best argument I know of is that since out of nothing, nothing comes, something must have always existed.
http://www.hawking.org.uk/the-beginning-of-time.html
In this lecture, I would like to discuss whether time itself has a beginning, and whether it will have an end. All the evidence seems to indicate, that the universe has not existed forever, but that it had a beginning, about 15 billion years ago. This is probably the most remarkable discovery of modern cosmology.
This means that the state of the universe, after the Big Bang, will not depend on anything that may have happened before, because the deterministic laws that govern the universe will break down in the Big Bang. The universe will evolve from the Big Bang, completely independently of what it was like before. Even the amount of matter in the universe, can be different to what it was before the Big Bang, as the Law of Conservation of Matter, will break down at the Big Bang.
Since events before the Big Bang have no observational consequences, one may as well cut them out of the theory, and say that time began at the Big Bang. Events before the Big Bang, are simply not defined, because there's no way one could measure what happened at them.
Although the laws of science seemed to predict the universe had a beginning, they also seemed to predict that they could not determine how the universe would have begun.
This is the problem with the new-atheist movement, rather than encourage people to learn real science by reading actual textbooks, they write some pop-fiction and pass it off as real science.
That leads to an actual infinity of time which is not allowed.
Or put another way, if the universe has no temporal start, then it has no temporal middle or end so we are not here. For example, if you take away Monday could Tuesday still be said to exist? No, so the time and the universe must of had a start.
That's compatible with the 2nd law of thermodynamics which tells us that a universe that had always existed would be in heat death by now (and we are not so time had a start).
I'm claiming things can't exist without a temporal start. If the big band did not happen, would the universe be here? If you were not born, would you be here?
So take it easy on me - my physics knowledge is limited, my astro physics is non - existent.
If I understand you correctly - you would call the big bang T 0, and your position is that there is an infinite time T minus - during which there existed something - as we would define something - matter, mass, energy - something measurable.
If I understand you correctly, then I have 2 questions - the first is just a step back question,
1. than where did that matter, energy come from ?
2. is there any significant difference between a theist explaining your time t minus as God, and you calling it yet to be explained science ?
Seems to me we are both using faith to explain an unknown - me with a faith in God, you with a faith in science
But you have not defined what you mean by space nor time. If you are using the scientific concept of each of these terms then how is this philosophy rather than scientific dogma? No offence intended.
Also, exist is ontologically ambiguous.
- Imagine an eternal being
- Impossible to exist; he would have no start in time so could not exist
- 'Being' is possible so we conclude Eternal is not possible
So that reenforces the idea that time has a start?
I concur. Quantum Field Theory describes the universe's existence as an amalgamation of the probability of it existing at any specific point and, even if you remove the universe from existance, that potential is always present, however infinitesimal it might be. Therefore, this potential is both an intrinsic part of reality and can neither begin nor end.
The "truths" @anthonyshinex would work in a similar way.
Yes, I should of called the article 'everything real has a start'. There are concepts that do not have a start for example, like 'love'.
Quoting SnowyChainsaw
Its impossible that an actual infinity of time has past so time must have a start. Put another way, say you have an eternal being. He cant exist because of no temporal start. Being is possible so Eternal can't be.
Quoting Wayfarer
Numbers only exist in our head as a potential infinity; they don't exist in reality as an actual infinity.
You are talking about a mathematical abstract as if it were real, you need to learn the difference. A logical proof will only show it in the abstract, in reality it is an impossible task to count out infinite primes. It cannot be done and it does not exist.
Oh really? I understand our latest formulation of the big bang as something emerging from nothing, if 'quantum foam' is nothing.... :chin:
Everyone believes that, but I think they’re mistaken. Mathematical reasoning discloses otherwise unknowable facts about reality. When you learn maths, you’re leaning about something real, and something which enables you to understand things you can’t understand by other means. They’re not simply subjective or ‘in our heads’, that is one of the prime delusions of modernity.
From nothing, nothing can be obtained thus the universe always existed, just in different forms.
The universe always existed outside of time.
If the universe is eternal (inside time), it has no temporal start point, so it can’t exist.
Also if the universe is eternal (inside time), an actual infinity of seconds has past, which is impossible.
Also:
- Could an event have occurred infinity long ago?
- No, because there is no way for the effects of the event to ever reach today (-oo +1 = -oo)
- So nothing can have occurred infinity long ago
- All events must of occurred finitely long ago
However, there are other views as well: existence may very well be a brute fact, without beginning, without end, an eternal wheel. In that sense, perhaps Time itself is the one thing that requires no start (though this does take a very simple view of Time or Change as being something which exists independently of any observer).
However, a contrary view is that worldly existence may also be an illusion, in which no Time or causality exists in-itself, but is just a by-product of the complexity of the present reality we eternally exist in (e.g., block theory of time, boltzmann brain). In this view, the past and future are not real, time does not actually exist, and we exist in a static universe where nothing ever happens because time does not actually exist, we are just deceived into believing it does by how our mind is constructed in this reality of the "present moment" in which we are stuck like a broken record that does not realize it is playing the same moment over and over. If you remove time, you eliminate the need for a start, for causality, because if time does not exist, nothing ever passes or comes into existence, everything just is as it always has been and always will be. You need not ask for a "how" or a "start" in a timeless universe since without time, nothing ever happens, things just exist. There is no need for someone to put them there, for you would need time in order for that to happen and time never was, nor will it ever be, a feature of noumenal reality in this theory.
Having said that, I still find a timeless theory a bitter pill to swallow and would like to believe our experience of time has some validity but I think many assumptions we have of basic reality, especially related to quantum reality and specifically, entanglement, will need to be better understood in order to pave a new theory that will make everyone go "ah-hah! How could I have not seen that before?".
The answer may very well be out there, I just think we are not there quite yet (unless of course the timeless interpretation is real and we are stuck in Plato's cave admiring the shadows).
I disagree. Would a moment exist if the moment before it was removed? Surely not. In fact all moments after the moment removed are undefined/cannot exist. So you actually need a first moment for a time series to be valid. That's the problem with eternity; it has no start so none of it exists.
So I still hold time has a start. Thats completely incompatible with Presentism BTW.
However, the argument states that if you remove time, then causality itself is an illusion.
If you remove time, there is no prior moment, or subsequent moments. There is only this present moment. The only reality, in this theory, is the present moment. Think of a photograph. It is a snapshot of a static universe. What if, in this static universe, certain things were constituted in such a way that they had a brain with a memory, with expectations of things to come, and even an experience of a world that has passed and is now moving and full of life when in reality, nothing happened or is actually happening as it is, in fact, a static universe like a photograph?
This static universe does not need a cause or a start because in order for it to have one, time would be required, but if time is not a fundamental structure of this reality: then it simply is.
Although we may "experience" things are happening and that time is real much as Plato's cave-dwellers worship the shadows on the wall as reality, we do run into several issues if we assume reality as we experience it is reflective of the actual and fundamental structure of reality, qua, questions such as how can something come from nothing, how can anything exist without a start or causation, or why is there anything at all instead of nothing?
Consider this: What is the past if not memory? What is the future if not what we expect? Can you prove the past or the future have occured or will occur? You can only fall back on this very moment of "right now", all else could be an illusion. Even what you just read may only be a result of the complexity of the reality you find yourself in "believing" in such a past when in fact there is only "right now" that has any reality, a now that never passes but exists timelessly (not eternally for there is no time). See the Boltzmann Brain hypothesis for additional elucidation of this theory.
This is not some half-baked theory, but something derived from quantum theory, specifically the Wheeler-DeWitt equations, which offer a description of a world where time is not required in order for a world to exist.
Having said that, this is a theory (and not my own). There are many others which assume time is real that I find very appealing as well but no other theory that I have come across can best explain the problem of first causation in a temporal universe as the one that eliminates time.
You can't completely remove time; there is 'something' there, whether you call it time or not, that allows movement and supports cause and effect. I will call it time. It must have a start because without a start the present moment is undefined. Think of it as the initial starting positions of all the particles in the universe. If that was removed, what is left? Something completely undefined. So eternity is rather like negative infinity; the start is undefined so the whole thing does not exist.
Also:
- If time did not have a start then an actual infinity of seconds has passed so far which is impossible
- Imagine an eternal being; he would have no start in time so could never exist. Being is possible we therefore conclude Eternal is not
- Intense gravity causes the passage of time to slow so time came to an almost stop at the Big Bang (strong candidate for start of time).
- A moment cannot of occurred infinity long ago, because there is no way for the effects of that moment to get to today (-oo + 1 = -oo), so all moments happened finitely long ago
For the other points, I do not believe you understand the argument as you are still assuming time in your premises. This is understandable, I had the same objections when I first encountered this theory but the more I reflected on it, the more I came to see that it could be true.
To take your argument and assuming what we experience as time has "external" reality or reflects change, re: the singularity hypothesis, I am not sure that is a good candidate as you still run into problems explaining how that singularity came to be (as for anything to come to be, time would be required). I suppose one could argue that within a singularity where the laws of physics may not apply, things can occur in ways we cannot currently comprehend that can cause time to start, however, that is still right now as much a flight of fancy as imagining a world without time. It does remind me of one theory that suggested the big bang is actually the explosion of a black hole in another universe, and that each black hole in our universe spawns its own universe, and that we do not see black holes as exploding due to time dilation (if we were to speed up time, we would see them explode like supernova if billions of years were viewed in seconds).
Everything must have existed forever otherwise you arrive at massive philosophical contradictions.
So no, nothing has a start. It all has existed forever. And that includes you, me, and God.
What contradictions?
I am assuming presentism in my premises and then disproving it. For example:
Imagine an eternal being; he would have no start so could never exist. Being is possible we therefore conclude Eternal is not.
I've not mentioned time in the above proof.
Look at it this way: if your moment of birth was removed somehow, would you still exist? Everything, time and the universe included, needs a start.
Or maybe there always was change and never absence of change.
Time is fundamental to the universe. The speed of light speed limit (speed = distance / TIME) is obeyed by every particle in the universe and exists independently of change.
We observe change, not time, time is just a tool, there is no such thing as time beyond the clocks we use, the time that shows up in physical equations has no meaning beyond that of corresponding to a clock measurement. We don't know whether everything obeys the speed of light limit, also the theory of relativity can be formulated in a way where light travels at different speeds in different directions (it's called the Lorentz ether theory), and that theory matches observations equally well.
It's also possible to formulate physics by taking velocity as the fundamental thing (rather than distance and time) and then time doesn't show up explicitly in equations anymore, and it becomes clearer that time is just a reading on a clock.
But to be a normally functioning universe, a speed limit is required. Else it's possible to accelerate objects to infinite velocity and thus straight out of the universe. This was a flaw in Newtonian mechanics that is corrected by relativity.
So we must have a speed limit theoretically; empirically it is maybe the most well tested scientific constant. So the universe has time built into it.
I think you're adding implicit assumptions there, why would a speed limit be required if the universe is infinite? (the universe could have been infinite at the time of the big bang already)
What we measure empirically is the average speed of light over a round-trip, we are unable to measure the speed of light in one direction because that requires synchronizing distant clocks, and we do that by assuming a speed of light from one clock to the other in the first place. We can have physical theories as accurate as the current mainstream ones without a universal speed limit.
Also light doesn't actually always travel at the same average speed, light moves slower in presence of gravitation (that's called the Shapiro delay), Einstein assumed that the speed of light was a universal constant which led him to a complex description of curved spacetime, but without taking that postulate it's possible to formulate a theory with a varying speed of light and without curved spacetime yet equally consistent with observations (in such a theory clocks do not go slower in presence of gravitation because "time is curved", but because physical processes go slower in presence of gravitation).
The universe is finite:
- The universe is expanding so it cannot be infinite in space else there would be nowhere to expand to
- The universe started with the Big Bang 14 Billion years ago and has been expanding since then; it must have a finite radius
- Actual infinity is an impossibility (covered here at length: https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/4183/do-you-believe-there-can-be-an-actual-infinite/p1)
Quoting leo
Light has a constant speed; I understand the Shapiro effect to be spacetime dilation, which increases the path length the light has to travel; its does not slow down the speed of light.
What is expanding is the distance between galaxies, that's all we infer to expand, we don't actually observe some space substance expanding, the distance between galaxies can increase in an infinite universe, it's a bit of a misnomer to say that it is the universe that is expanding, even though that's a widespread misconception.
These things used to drive me crazy some years ago, but I thought about it long and hard and I realized how many misconceptions are spread regarding the concept of expanding universe and expanding space, even in research journals, it's the distance between galaxies that we infer to expand, that's all, the universe doesn't have to have a finite radius.
Quoting Devans99
The second law of thermodynamics is based on assumptions so that's not necessarily true, and again the universe could have been infinite at the time of the big bang.
Quoting Devans99
I haven't read that thread but even though it's impossible to measure infinity empirically, that doesn't mean the universe can't go on forever, this infinity would simply be out of reach.
Quoting Devans99
This is the interpretation within the context of general relativity, which postulates the universal constancy of the speed of light, so of course in that theory the speed of light doesn't change and one has to invoke a curved spacetime, thus a longer path length, but again the observations that are considered to be tests of general relativity are equally explained in a theory with a varying speed of light and no curved spacetime, so one can assume a varying speed of light and remain consistent with observations.
What reason do we have to think that an actual infinite is impossible?
It can't be logically impossible since the statement "every natural number has a successor" entails an infinite series of natural numbers.
Don't you see how mad infinity is? It's larger than any possible thing. Yet we require it to expand; implying it was not larger than any possible thing.
Quoting leo
That's not science, that's believe in magic. I'm a materialist and I do not allow science and magic to mix.
I suggest you read some of the infinity thread; actual infinity is marsh gas. For example, actual infinity, if it existed, would be a quantity greater than all other quantities, but:
There is no quantity X such that X > all other quantities because X +1 > X
Further, actual infinity does not follow common sense or mathematical rules:
oo + 1 = oo implies
1 = 0
Its just a mental concept and a mad one at that; actual infinity does not exist in the real world.
Well I agree it kinds of boggle the mind, but then if you don't want infinity you can think of an arbitrarily large universe and an arbitrarily large speed limit, and time doesn't have to be encoded as some fundamental entity.
Infinity is a tool, it comes with different mathematical rules which only defy common sense because we don't actually observe infinity.
We don't have to believe the universe is infinite, but we don't have to believe either that time is something fundamental that is a prerequisite for change, instead of simply saying that we observe change and time is just a measure of that change, a comparison of various processes relative to what we define as a standard process (a clock)
https://www.skepticink.com/reasonablyfaithless/2013/03/25/infinity-minus-infinity/
What do you think of this mathematician's defense of actual infinities?
They want to show that there is no logical problem with an actual infinity
There is a logical problem with something you can add to and not change. Nothing in the real world behaves like that.
Cantor and co associated the spinning head feeling you get when you think of infinity with god and they wanted maths to include infinity because of their faith. Unfortunately, the spinning head feeling is just due to the contemplation of something very illogical and not anything to do with God. We are left with a spiritually inspired branch of maths (rather than logically).
This is the problem, you are thinking about infinity in the same way that a toddler might count her fingers.
Here is a wonderful summary of why that is wrong which invokes set theory:
"Lane Craig uses an argument ... to ‘establish’ that time cannot be infinite in the past and still proceed into the future, on the ground that an actual infinite cannot exist because, among other reasons, if it did it would be impossible to add to it. But this claim is vitiated by the facts that (i) in contemporary set theory it is easy to show that there exists a sequence of infinite discrete ordered sets each with a greatest but no smallest member, each set extending its predecessor by an additional largest element; and (ii) the things in the domain of any consistent theory, as set theory is thought to be, are possible existents. " -Philosopher Colin Howson
This is really all covered on the infinity thread; I don' t really want to repeat it all here.
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/4183/do-you-believe-there-can-be-an-actual-infinite/p1
In the case of Cantor's paradox, Galileo's paradox, Hilbert's hotel, the Measure Problem, the underlying logic error is the assumption that actual infinity exists.
Where are you getting your information from?
-In christianity in a start, according to Bible, you are born, and never die. Also if you end in hell, you still live.
-Budhism is different. Is like a circuit, when you come at the same point. Circle.
-Mathematicly said, could be both.
When I am finished, I will post the result here, and then we'll finally know for good and all.
You can answer the question without induction:
- Temporal. Would an object exist if its temporal starting point was removed? That would be like a human having the moment of conception removed. Remove the temporal start and everything else is undefined.
- Spacial. If an object has no identifiable start, it has no middle and no end. So it can't exist.
Of course, one can hold an opinion that such things are true, or an opinion that such things are false, but there's not much discussion to be got out of a pure opinion.
I am not making assertions, I am making deductions.
Thats just plain not true:
- Something has no temporal starting point (time=0) in time
- then time=1 is not defined
- then time=2 is not defined
- etc..
- The object does not exist
- Something has no identifiable spacial start point (x=0)
- then x=1 does not exist
- or x=2
= etc...
= The object does not exist
Lining up a bunch of statements in a sequence and putting 'therefore' in front of all except the first does not turn it into a deduction.
Same logic for space.
1. PREMISE: Something has no temporal starting point (time=0) in time
2. DEDUCTION: Then time=1 is not defined
If an object does not exist at time=0, how can it exist at time=1? Thats a valid deduction.
Think about if your conception (time=0) was removed, would you exist at your birth (time=1)?
Time is a series of moments. Take away one moment and the following moments are undefined/cannot exist. Imagine Eternity, it has no starting moment, so none of it can exist. Think of the initial starting positions of all the particles in the universe. If that was removed, what is left? Something completely undefined. So eternity is rather like negative infinity; the start is undefined so the whole thing does not exist.
It is a very interesting question. I suggest to you a lecture: the first Antinomy(abut the beginning of the world or not) in the Critique of Pure Reason you may find pdf online in an accurate edition.
LOGIC AND PHYSICS
The reason why the infinite regress is rejected, in regard to the beginning of physical things, is not logical, but physical: to us the cognitive process involves a « discretion» of matter in unities which can be worked up until reflection let us have awareness of the distinction between ourselves and what is and object to us. This requires some kind of continuity in the physical process of working up data.
Now, if you think the data are selected THEN recognized, you recognize a structure of recognition as basing the process of selection. If you think the other way, you think that recognition is sufficient to elaborate data, but the elaboration is necessary to recognition and independent from it.
In the first case you can't say that the physical WORLD(as a whole) as a beginning whatsoever, because you must first account for the origin of the structure which made to you possible to distinguish two states at all, where a beginning would be the recognition of a thing in a certain state, within the recognition of the absence of any thing like that in a precedent state.
In the second case you can't say that something has or not a beginning, but just that something there is or not, or that something comes before or after(iff you recognize the indipendency of the data, though not existent, in the same form you attribute to them, independently); and this because you have no recognition at all until a certain thing make you recognize something at all. In this case the most accurate thing to say may be: about those data, that I recognized, I can establish a scale to measure them(let's call it: the complexity of them). Furthermore, assuming you know the somehow independent being of them, I can find which complexity is necessary to generate a being like myself(and finding such a correlation alone would be an heroic work).
REFERENTIAL TIME AND SPACE?
Time is, indeed, a definition: it defines the interaction between us and the world insofar we distinguish the property of irreversibility(the infamous example of the egg which breaks but not unbreaks). This is due to the fact that the parameter indexed by the Boltzmann constant designates something the physical effect is enough big to us, that it results in a certain mode of perception of events. Thus time isn't properly a reference, being a reference that indicates any beginning, through the reference of which distinguish a before and an after.
It remains space. Space, in general, presupposes just homogeneity. But, as we perceive, we presupposes other properties, which may varies within our evolution. At now, we perceive the (macro)world as euclidean, whatever the reason may be. There is, however, a book titled "Twelve examples of illusion" (I liked it) in which there is a reference to the work of a mathematician, which disposed a set of exercises to learn to perceive the world in more than 3d..
Hence, not even space has that referential structure that we were searching for: homogeneity alone it is not sufficient to distinguish any beginning(different parts of space are in a relation of difference(or identity) but not of succession).
DEFINITIONS
As Poincaré said somewhere: that the light travels in straight lines is a definition of straight line. That is to say: definitions presupposes a criteria of identifying objects. But in order to do so, we perceive them in space and time. But space and time are not referential, i.e. those alone do not let to identify more than a ordered multiplicity, and not an object for a subject. Therefore, the definitions too rely on a referential structure which does not identify with the criteria of perceiving object, and even less with the actual modes in which they are perceived.
INFINITY
It is a well known topic in mathematical logic and in analysis. Let's just say: Infinity it is not a number, it is a relation: infinity means that no matter how many units you add(how many times you apply an operation): you will never obtain a result, such that the operation can not recur on it. Of course, if the operation is not recursive there is no such problems of establish an end or not to its application through a series. Infinity is, in this sense, a relation between a unit and a correlative operation.
In analysis it is a concept used to establish a hierarchy in respect to the set of natural numbers. I hope nobody thinks a hierarchy has a beginning, just as the laws that regulate the behavior of waves has none.
HAVING NOT A BEGINNING
As in the last analogy, with all its limits, I tend to consider beginning as relative, insofar as it depend on a referential structure which imply a certain mode of recognition. That is: x has begun equals I recognized x and y in respect to z.
It may be the case, that having a scale to measure the complexity of matter, we could establish a necessary(and perhaps sufficient in some respect) value of complexity to the possibility of such beings to become a form of life.
The physical world (=universe) must have a temporal beginning. How can something exist without a temporal beginning? If you take away the Big Bang, the universe no longer exists. So deductively its impossible for the universe to exist without a temporal start.
Quoting Ikolos
I would argue that everything real has a start, so a real world hierarchy has a start (eg the left leaf node). The laws of the universe, their start and end coincide with the start and end of the universe.
Do you agree that without change there is no time?
If so, the temporal beginning of the universe would be the beginning of change.
That beginning of change could have been arbitrarily far in the past, but before it there was no change and thus no time.
We could say there was something that had the ability to bring change to itself. And when it used that ability is when the universe began to change, what you call its temporal start.
It's difficult to conceive, but then again it's not something we see every day.
What troubles you about that?
I see time as fundamental to the universe: The speed of light speed limit (speed = distance / TIME) is obeyed by every particle in the universe and exists independently of change. To be a normally functioning universe, a speed limit is required. Else it's possible to accelerate objects to infinite velocity and thus straight out of the universe. So time is not emergent; it is fundamental to the universe.
We talked about that on the 2nd page of this thread, I thought I had convinced you, I addressed all your points regarding that.
Then look into the Lorentz ether theory, it is empirically equivalent to Special Relativity, no experiment distinguishes between the two, yet in the former one light can go arbitrarily fast. But we measure its velocity to remain constant because all we are able to measure empirically is its round-trip average speed. Look it up. You are basing your reasoning on assuming Special Relativity is true, but it's just one out of several possible theories that match experiments equally well. So you're saying if Special Relativity is true, then time is fundamental to the universe. But at least one other theory is equally accurate as Special Relativity and does not imply that time is fundamental to the universe. So why keep assuming that time is fundamental to the universe? If you stopped assuming that I think you would find some intellectual peace on that matter.
In the Lorentz ether theory light does not travel at infinite speeds, but can travel arbitrarily fast depending on the direction. Again, absolutely zero experiment is able to measure the speed of light in a single direction. All we ever measure is its average speed on a round-trip. You can assume light goes at whatever speed in a given direction so long as its average is equal to c, and that contradicts zero experiment. In many aspects the Lorentz ether theory is more intuitive than Special relativity, there are no apparent paradoxes in it such as the twin paradox.
I could go into length explaining how it is that we cannot measure the speed of light in a single direction, how all we ever measure is its round-trip speed, how the Lorentz ether theory is more intuitive than special relativity, but if you accept the possibility that this is the case then what remains of time besides a tool we use to measure change?
But the universe is finite so we cannot have anything traveling at an infinite speed else it would not be in the universe.
Arbitrarily fast is not infinite, and the universe can expand arbitrarily fast too.
Really? What rule of inference does it use? Modus Ponens? Modus Tollens? Double negative elimination?
Every moment must have a moment before it else its not valid. That's a self-evident axiom, and it implies time is circular.
It ties in with the physical evidence: The only place in the universe to get enough energy for the Big Bang is the Big Crunch so time must be circular.
Imagine an eternal being; he would have no start in time so could never exist. Being is possible we therefore conclude Eternal is not.
Well, I would say: if you think beginning as a l o c a t i o n in a certain instant, and not of a recognized difference in reference to an identified state, then there is no reason to think there is a beginning of the world as a whole, because the whole is a mere concept, through which we think a complete regress.
But it is wrong to say: « Time is a series» for a mathematical series is n o t characterized by an o r i e n t a t i o n: you can go back and forth just the same. We do not, as a fact, perceive time this way: we see irreversible event(because of the effect called time, i.e. interaction with is designed by the Boltzmann parameter), t h e n we determine this perception causally, i.e. we consider it as an effect, and a cause is to found. Otherwise, we presuppose a referential structure, i.e. recognition of meaning as Kemp Smith call it, to have the possibility itself to distinguish, in time, what is changed but still was there in other form, and what is present in a certain instant and was not before. With time alone you can n o t establish if you see the same sun every time you look at it, nor you can say there is at all if you are not perceiving it. Hence, time presupposes, as to be meaningful, and not a brutal sequence of events unconnected, a structure(an a priori, as Kant called it).
You are too smart to think that there is an absolute beginning in time, since 1 there Is no difference between mere instant and then no reason to distinguish a beginning instant from others and 2 we perceive time just because of certain constitution of ourselves: time is the effect of our interaction with the physical world insofar as we were capable of describing it in terms of thermodynamic: just because the parameter indexed by the Boltzmann Constant is big enough we perceive an irreversible direction of events. This means: time is relative as it implies a certain perceiving of things. If you by 'Time' mean a law of increasing complexity a n d some kind of correspondence between certain degrees of complexity(however it is to be measured is a interesting and hard problem) and the p o s s I b I l I t y of certain configuration as forms of life, welcome on the ship. If you do I advise you to read Reichenbach, the first to present a clear account of time as an effect(causal theory of time).
The fact that there is an hypothesis, i.e. Big Bang, to explain the actual development of the universe, does not mean that the universe itself begun at that point, but only that just so far our knowledge has been capable of establish an explicative hypothesis.
I think this is implicitly a definition of beginning similar to that of Kant in the Dialectic: «Beginning of a thing is the recognized difference between a time in which a thing does not exist and a time in which it exists.»
Yet, Kant is more precise elsewhere: this definition leaves out the cases in which we perceive the S a m e thing as changed( to perceive such a thing we need a structure of identification which 1 presupposes the permanent 2 it must be referential, because we perceive change from a certain point of view, which is given).
Time is a series: Now (t=0) only exists because t=-1 had existence. t=-1 only exists because t=-2 had existence. So all moments must have a moment prior to them. The only topology that fits is a closed loop IE circular time.
Actual infinity, if it existed, would be a quantity greater than all other quantities, but:
There is no quantity X such that X > all other quantities because X +1 > X
The non-existence of actual infinity implies negative actual infinity does not exist. Negative actual infinity has the same structure as past eternal (in time):
{ …, 2015, 2016, 2017, 2018 }
{ …, -4, -3, -2, -1 }
IE past eternal (in time) is impossible. IE time had a start. The start is coincidental with the end; IE Circular time.
How else can you explain the Big Bang except the Big Crunch?
Time is Time is fundamental to the universe. The speed of light speed limit (speed = distance / TIME) is obeyed by every particle in the universe and exists independently of change. To be a normally functioning universe, a speed limit is required. Else it's possible to accelerate objects to infinite velocity and thus straight out of the universe. So time is not emergent; it is fundamental to the universe.
You are adding a causal relationship that there is not in mathematical series, and that is not a mere order: it implies a difference in physical state( not mere numerica diversitas).
Infinity is not a quantity: infinity is a concept: as the infinity of skirts(if this be actual) would not be a skirt. In Logic infinity is defined presupposing a concept(i.e. of a set) as the cardinality of this set, in order to establish a hierarchal order on numerical sets(I.e. sets which contains numbers of limited properties). The ordinal infinity, instead, differentiates between finite and infinte sets, being infinity a property of a set, inasmuch it contains a number of elements such as no one is the bigger in regards to the operation which close that set(as you correctly indicate). You atre talking just of ORDINAL infinity.
In analysis this logical acquisition leads to use a hierarchy of infinities to solve calculus problems.
In topology, which does not presupposes time at all, infinity is either some kind of iteration with preservation of a certain kind of space(but time is not the iteration of the operation of succession, as you rightly said) or it is indetermination: you can proceed indefinite in a given space of any kind.
I do not think is necessary to deny negative actual infinity to deny actual infinity(if this be the case), because the regress is stopped because of PHYSICAL reason: we do not not the whole universe, hence our hypothesis is limited, either because of that or because our-certainly- incomplete knowledge of the physical world. While the actual infinity is not concerned with time: actual infinity would not be a series, but simultaneity of existence. But since we can not state anything but relative in regards to simultaneity, then an actual infinity is just the hypothesis that there are infinite many systems, with their respective conditions, operating harmoniously(some kind of Leibnizian theory). One thing is certain: being time and space just condition to perceive things relatively to our subjective constitution, it can not be said that they-or other forms of them- enclose the world. But this just imply the the world is not finite, not that is infinite. Newton considered finiteness or not in regards to matter and denied the infinity of the universe because, if that be the case, we would have not experience the world as we do. But, in regards to concepts, at the question whether the universe is finite or infinte we could just answer: it is neither finite nor infinite, but non finite. To establish the infinity of the physical world we would need to have its quantity determined as a whole, and as a whole that quantity would have to be an object for us. Which is impossible.
Like I said before, The Big Bang is an Hypothesis to explain the actual condition of the universe in so far as we know physics, relatively to our possibility of interacting meaningfully(cognitively if you want) with the physical world, as, presumably, certain physical processes rendered possible our (relative, sensible) subject of cognition. Thus, the Big Crunch it is(but no everyone agrees) a consequence of an hypothesis. While the Big Bang accounts for the actual condition of the universe, with the above mentioned limitations, the Big crunch is more a prevision based on the possible continuity of physical processes, as regulated by the laws we have discovered so far.
Speed is distance divided by the time IMPLIED TO RUN THAT DISTANCE. This is not the Time you were talking about(a series) and not only this consideration of time presupposes matter(the difference of velocity is a difference in physical states) but also SPACE: you are unwillingly saying that space is more fundamental than time!
All forms of infinity are impossible. The concept itself is fatally flawed, for example:
? + 1 = ? implies
1 = 0
Surely the mother of all proofs of contradictions. So infinity is not a mathematical concept. Maths models nature strongly suggest we will not find infinity in nature.
Actual Infinity is deeply illogical (see above, or as in the existence of an actually complete infinite set) whereas nature always follows logic, so again we will not find infinity in nature.
Believing in Actual Infinity is IMO akin to belief in magic. IE No place for it in science.
When you acknowledge Actual Infinity is impossible, the start of time follows logically.
First you argue something like:
"All obey to speed of light"
"Speed depends on time"
"Everything depends on time as it obeys to the speed of light".
The speed of light is ARBITRARILY defined infinite, but this is an improper use of the term: the velocity of light is a reference, in so far as it defines a referential PHYSICAL criteria to determine whether something is or is not moving in certain trajectories.
I pass on your silence on your incorrect exposition of the formula of speed.
Quoting Devans99
It Is! And you too stated in a comment above, saying that a series is infinte because no terms of it is bigger than every terms of the series(i.e. always exists a bigger one)! I think you have no clear idea of what time is, because sometimes you say it is a series, sometimes you rely on the formula of speed to argue the necessity of the obedience(?) to time and thus(?) a beginning. Time, as perceive, is an effect defined thermodynamically(high school physics).
Quoting Devans99
Actual infinity is not the assertion that you recognize an infinte number of beings, but the sole consideration of the fact that, being us bounded to certain conditions, being those conditions logically irrelevant, it follows LOGICALLY that an actual infinity it is, under the assumption the the finiteness we perceive is due to unessential condition. Still we can not ASSERT actual infinity, because we need more than logic to say that something exists: logic abstracts from differences in objects, while is because of objective differences that we can talk of knowing something at all.
1. I proved twice it does not exist in maths. What was wrong with those proofs?
2. It's impossible to construct, geometrically or otherwise.
3. It's not found in nature.
4. It's deeply illogical.
5. Actual Infinity does not exist.
1. if the universe was temporally infinite, then there was no 1[sup]st[/sup] moment
2. if there was no 1[sup]st[/sup] moment, then there was no 2[sup]nd[/sup] moment
3. if there was no 2[sup]nd[/sup] moment, then there was no 3[sup]rd[/sup] moment
4. ... and so on and so forth ...
5. if there was no 2[sup]nd[/sup] last moment, then there would be no now
6. since now exists, we started out wrong, i.e. the universe is not temporally infinite
Here's a more elaborate version:
1. if the universe was temporally infinite, then there was no 1[sup]st[/sup] moment, but just some moment, t[sub]1[/sub]
2. if there was no 1[sup]st[/sup] moment, then there was no 2[sup]nd[/sup] moment, but just some moment, t[sub]2[/sub]
3. if there was no 2[sup]nd[/sup] moment, then there was no 3[sup]rd[/sup] moment, but just some moment, t[sub]3[/sub]
4. ... and so on and so forth ...
5. there was a 2[sup]nd[/sup] last moment, t[sub]now - 1 moment[/sub]
6. there is a now, t[sub]now[/sub]
Notice how 4 masks a switch from non-indexical to indexical? Bad. :)
t[sub]1[/sub] could be any past moment, and the duration between any definite t[sub]1[/sub] and now is finite, there were just infinitely many past ts instead.
The former rendition misses the latter rendition, hence showing that 1 does not imply a contradiction.
Then t1 is the first moment and the universe is temporally finite.
No. The premise was "the universe was temporally infinite", "no 1[sup]st[/sup] moment".
That's impossible I'm afraid. Actual Infinity does not exist so negative Actual Infinity does not exist so past eternity does not exist (same structure).
If it's impossible, then derive the contradiction.
After all, simply saying so doesn't make it so.
I tried (the former rendition) and failed (as shown with the latter rendition).
Actual infinity, if it existed, would be a quantity greater than all other quantities, but:
There is no quantity X such that X > all other quantities because X +1 > X
Further, actual infinity does not follow common sense or mathematical rules:
oo + 1 = oo implies
1 = 0
Nothing in the real world can you add to whilst it remains unchanged. This logical absurdity implies infinity is not a mathematical quantity.
Quoting Devans99
Quoting Devans99
This are the two argument you set forth. I explain why they are incorrect.
Mathematical infinity is RELATIONAL: infinity is a property of the relation between an operation and the unity selected to operate on. Thus infinity OF THE OPERATION is non sensical, because there is no quantity of an operation except you identify operation with its results. In this case, there would be INDEFINITENESS of replying the operation or applying others, but no infinity. Infinity regards the results: there is none of the results that is bigger than ALL the possible results.
Your first argument is incorrect, because it treats infinity as a NUMBER.
Your second argument is incorrect because of the above reason and because It mixes mathematical infinity with others conception of it, concluding form the impossibility of an actual infinity in maths and from the impossibility of a negative infinity in Physics, the Logical impossibility of an actual infinity(which is factually false after the works of Church, Turing, Godel among others).
ACTUAL INFINITY would be LOGICAL or PHYSICAL. In so far logic concerns variables, being their infinite(see the results of Church Turing) there is an actual infinite in logic, and this is so true that the first order predicative logic is undecidable. In so far physics is concerned, given we do not know completely the universe, and that is because we need to refer to our conditions as observers(it doesn't change the argument if you add instruments to observe), being those conditions relative to our subjective constitution, an actual infinity does not make sense. Yet, we can't even say the universe IS finite, because the boundary under which we investigate it are relative. Hence, we could say: universe is not bounded by itself to the same conditions we are bounded to in order to know something about it, while interacting within it.
SUMMARY
I think I answer 1: why your arguments were wrong;
2: it is not to be constructed as an object, but it is a rule to follow in order to not stop constructing: here is INDEFINITE, not INFINITE. Furthermore it cannot be constructed because it is a RELATION: you can construct terms of a relations, following the conditions stated by the relation only AFTER recognizing the relation as a possible way to relate terms.
3 Right: physical actual infinity is not claimable to exist. But this imply only that physical world is not infinite(in so far as we can understand natural phenomena) , not that it is finite(being infinite or not, we interact significantly with a certain kind of phenomena: hence it may be that there is actual infinity in nature, but the question itself is nonsensical to us, because we consider nature as it has effects on us, not in regards to how big it is).
4 It's just the opposite: it is perfectly logical(cfr. Leibniz, and recently Church, Turing, Godel et alii), and only because logic is insufficient to account for our view of reality It is not correct to infer from logical infinity a physical infinity.
5 Existence is either a logical quantifiers with reference to variables(which are infinite but we cannot say they exists: they are just logical variables that stands in waiting for an interpretation) or a physical existence, and of course not a single existence it is perceived somewhat infinite, nor we have a complete account of everything that exists(for a classical writing on the topic see Quine, From a Logical point of view, essay 1: "What there is?")
1. So we agree it's not a number. All physical quantities including time as space can be represented by numbers. Numbers reflect reality and they do not include infinity. So reality is not likely to include infinity.
2. It's meant to represent physical quantities so it should be physically constructible. If it's not constructible, it's probably impossible.
3. It would be pure magic if actual infinity exists so that's why it's not found in nature. You can't actually believe that space goes on 'forever' can you? How is that possible? That's just believe in magic.
4. What about all the paradoxes of infinity? Hilbert's Hotel for example. Utter madness. You can't really claim such a hotel could exist?
5. You are the one with the irrational belief here. Infinity is magic. Burden of prove that it exists is on you
That helps to clarify where the differences lie between your position and that of others. That is a proposition that you regard as self-evident and that you take as an axiom. Others do not regard it as self-evident and do not accept it as an axiom. Unsurprisingly, different conclusions are reached depending on whether one accepts such an axiom.
Quoting Devans99
That is a condition whose first member is a very big, but rather vague, assumption. The second member of the conjunction, i.e. numbers do not include infinity, is misleading, for we consider sets of numbers, but numbers are not sets. Hence the relation of inclusion can not be applied to them. It just does not make any sense.
REALITY IS NOT A SET OF NUMBERS
From: numbers reflect reality and numbers exclude infinity you cannot conclude that reality excludes infinity unless you make numbers and reality equal. The argument is however ill founded because of the above reasons.
WHAT IS INFINITY ABOUT
Quoting Devans99
This is hard to believe, for infinity is a RELATIONAL concept, between an operation and a unity in regards to the possibility of generating, for any given result, another who is greater. Infinity IS NOT QUANTITATIVE.
Moreover, this wouldn't follow anyway:
Quoting Devans99
Because we use theoretical entities to represent physical ones, but this does not mean that we physically construct theoretical entities.
Furthermore, constructibility is not possibility, and this is so counter the use of the term that actually what is constructible presupposes the concept of possibility, but not the other way: the concept of a world in which the laws of physics are inverted is possible, for it is not self contradictory; but it is not constructible insofar as we have yet understand its possibility(logical possibility). You need to distinguish in greater detail, because it is never clear one thing, that I am going to ask you explicitly:
WHAT DO YOU MEAN BY 'INFINITY'? Since I gave a very clear and unambigous account on my view, and you, so far, did not.
Quoting Devans99
Again: existence is either a logical quantifier or an attribute of reality. If it is a logical quantifiers it does not distinguish differences in object, and, in principle, the possibly bondable variables are infinite. It's just misleading and nonsensical distinguish actual and potential infinity. It makes sense distinguishing logical, mathematical infinity and physical infinity, which we CAN NOT ASSERT NOR DENY, BECAUSE OF OUR WAY OF KNOWING THING, since it is conditioned de facto, hence the relation between our knowing subject and its objects is one of restriction and not one similar to that of infinity.
Claiming to be magic the «existence of actual infinity» it's just rethoric, without distinction of what do you mean by existence(logical or ontological) and between logical,mathematical and physical infinity, instead of actual and potential(a concept rather vague, which in fact you carefully decided to never expose).
Quoting Devans99
Again: first: the so called hotel is a rather confusing example to explain CANTOR'S Hierarchy of infinities, as intended in set theory as cardinality of sets. It is a theoretical account of problems like: even numbers are infinite. odd numbers are infinite. Hence integers are double infinite. And it is a successful account of explain it. Integers have a. cardinality of Alef, and whatever set of number which may be corresponded 1-1(biunivocally) with the set of integers is infinite of a value Alef, i.e. has cardinality equals to that of the set of integers. Other sets of number, e.g. real numbers, has a cardinality bigger than alef. Hence the idea of a hierarchy of infinities. Read something of set theory and Cantor. It is unbelievable that you don't know anything about set theory, which is the accurate theoretical set of infinity, more than 100 years after Cantor's pioneering work.
Quoting Devans99
This again is mere rhetoric. I offered a distinction and an exposition of the treatment of infinity in set theory. You keep going on because you didn't clarify your use of terms, and on that I have little burden, except inviting you to consult the actual RESULTS obtained in the treatment of infinity, which you, ignoring, are keeping to treat poetically and mystically, claiming that someone say that it(what, a concept? say that a CONCEPT exists is a grammatical, not philosophical, error) exists is just a straw man fallacy.
Real life parameters like the size/age of the universe are quantities. Infinity is not a quantity. Hence the universe is finite.
You say infinity is a concept; I agree. Quantities cannot take on the value of a concept. The size of the universe is 'love' makes no sense.
Quoting Ikolos
It is not rhetoric. Something that goes on forever is more magical than say pulling a rabbit from a hat.
Quoting Ikolos
There is no hierarchy of infinities. The definition of infinity as the larger than anything else precludes more than one infinity.
I maintain I have offered plenty of proof for non existence of actual infinity and you have offered no proof that actual infinity exists.
You presupposes universe is the parameters of our relation with it. This is anthrpocentrism and anthropomorphism. Furthermore, saying universe IS a quantity is a very big assumption.
Quoting Devans99
But the concept of quantity is studied in topology. It is not a study ranging the answers to: how big is x? but: which properties define a certain kind of space, if the transformations are continuous? Hence infinity does not mean: Quoting Devans99
But it is a Relational concept as I said many times, and the you, after pointing it out correctly, strangely went far away from it.
Quoting Devans99
This is factually false. It is just you don't know enough calculus nor enough logic.
Quoting Devans99
You keep intending infinity as a quantity and not as a relation. Infinity is the REASON why, for some operation, it is true that there will never be a result which would be THE BIGGEST/HIGHEST. It is not that one highest, insofar as unreachable, nor it is this (reificated) impossibility.
Quoting Devans99
I don't think 'actual infinity' is a syntagma which means more than a medieval use of words, which are offering a distinction(between actual and potential) which has been clarified by the results on computability by Church and Turing. They proved the so called 'actual' infinity to exist, because we can not compute effectively all the tautologies in first order predicative logic, unless it is certifiable if a certain formula is a tautology if it is actually a tautology.
When you will get acquainted with this unavoidable conquest of human thought you may understand how the problems linked to the concept of infinity were very well solved almost a century ago- or at least clearly stated. And you will perhaps modernize the vocabulary.
Relations don't exist in the real world, quantities do. If infinity is a relation it is not part of the real world.
Quoting Ikolos
That's a potential infinity. Anything related to computers is potential rather than actual. Computers compute over time and have a finite memory capacity so cannot by definition deal with actual infinity.
Actual Infinity was introduced into set theory for spiritual not logical reasons. Cantor was very devout and believed God was infinite. He thought the whole trans-finite nonsense was dictated to him by God!
Quantities rely on a relation i.e. parts external to one another.
Quoting Devans99
I think you keep confusing the RELATION which infinity is and the RESULTS of an operation, which are not infinite, but indefinite, i.e. as long as you operate you get results, and you make a contrasting view in infinity just on this latter plane.
It is irrelevant whether or not a computation rely on limited faculties, for an abstract method of compute infinitely many proposition there is: compute each single one. The problem is how to DECIDE among those INFINITE proposition those which are tautologies(entscheindigung problem).
Your misleading use of words hides that what you call 'actual' regards variables, but to you that means 'results'; while 'potential' regards algorithms(effective procedures discovered, i.e. something which we HAVE the potential to compute. In principle is antiscientific and antirational to believe there exists some problem which is undecidable not just because we have not yet discover the method to solve it, but because it is absolutely unsolvable. I think you might agree with me on this Rationalism, which opposes itself to this mystical unsolvability.)
While you by potential means 'not real'.
Quoting Devans99
Very true, but it is pathologic to deny that the application of transfinite reasoning brought to you ACTUALLY EXISTENT machines, and procured great advances in a large variety of fields in technology.
If Newton had said God suggested him his formulas them would not have been the less(nor the most) true, regardless of the author's believe about them or their source.
In advance, in the original formulation of set theory(with no axioms, hence it was not properly a theory explicitly formulated) you could choose how many elements you wanted, as to consider arbitrarily large sets(infinite elements) and treat them as the object of your enquiry. THIS was the reason that Cantor gave of the actual infinity and not a spiritual one. It is an ONTOLOGICAL one.
What operation with an indefinite result do you refer to?
Quoting Ikolos
Just because there exists an 'infinite' number of something in our minds, does not imply an 'infinite' number of something is possible. Our minds are simply in error. The concept/relation of actual infinity does not translate to reality.
Quoting Ikolos
Potential infinity (calculus) has brought us much. Actual infinity (set theory) has not. The first reflects nature, the second does not.
Quoting Devans99
Any theories you like which produces theorems by inference.Quoting Devans99
That's false. The first axiom of modal logic (axiom by Alfred Tarski) is: p?? p which means: if p is given, than it is possible that p.
Quoting Devans99
That's false. Computer science is based on set theory. Classical mathematics is based on set theory after the development of mathematical logic. And, since you yourself(as anybody who is not insane) admit that classical math brought many results to as, especially in physics, for physics without math is a mythological novel, and since calculus is part of classical maths, it follows that Set theory brought as much as classical maths does, inasmuch this latter is based on the former.
Just because it exists in our minds does not mean it exists in reality. Talking trees existing my mind for example.
Quoting Ikolos
Computer science may use set theory but it is finite set theory. Maths could do just fine without infinite set theory because infinite sets do not exist. For example, the set of naturals:
{1, 2, 3, 4, ... }
is partially undefined (the ... bit); IE it is not defined so it can never have a cardinality and you can't treat it like a finite set. Set theory tries to treat finite and 'infinite' sets the same, an obviously inappropriate polymorphism. Set theory is broken IMO.
You need to clarify your thought on set theory, because saying there exists no infinite set is incredibly wrong. And saying that
Quoting Devans99
Is not even wrong: it's non sense.
Quoting Devans99
Finiteness and Infinity of a set are very well defined properties of set in set theory, actually. Your cited sentence it is somehow not grammatical: of course you can't treat natural numbers as a finite set, because it is not a finite set.
Your argument rely on a naive epistemology. In fact your argument, except for the imprecise definition of universe and the wrong definition of time is identical to that stated in the thesis of the first antinomies of pure reason in Kant's Critique(1781 first edition).
Your definition of time is wrong, for 1 time is not a measure 2 is not a series of events, nor the order of a series of event: the order of a series of events is a CONSEQUENCE of time as an effect. Time has been studied, and defined successfully in regards to the direction of events in late 1800 by Carnot, Gibbs, Clausius, Boltzmann and others, by thermodynamical laws.
But maths tries too do this. The set concept encompasses two different object types:
- finite sets. Fully defined. Have cardinality
- infinite sets. Partially defined. No cardinality.
Maths tries to treat these two different object type the same which is an error. They even invent magic numbers for cardinality - thats all nonsense IMO.
it is non sense 'partially undefined'.
Quoting Devans99
But not at all. Considering a collection as an object is not considering a collection as finite.
Quoting Devans99
Infinite sets and finite sets are no different object type, for they are both sets.
Quoting Devans99
You definitely need to clarify-or to understand- set theory.
Frankly, remembering Hawking, I don't know how to constructively respond to such a stream of consciousness.
You wrote: "No matter what science comes up with, like the Big Bang, one can always ask the question, and what existed before that?"
However, if we assume that time itself has a beginning, the question of what was before the beginning of time becomes irrational, hence invalid.
It must, if it is to be called a thing. How could there be that which is called a thing if it did not have an instantiation belonging to it necessarily. Without regard to the pure form of the thing a priori (the thinking of it) or the experience of it a posteriori (the perceiving of it), the methodology for its attention to mind invokes its own singular dedicated temporal occassion. Neuroscience aside, of course.
While it is reasonable to suppose that which has not yet come to the attention of the mind in form or experience is at least possible and at most probable, the mind has neither legitimate rights nor means to cognize apodictically with respect to it.
A start of time rules out presentist models of time; it does not rule out eternalist models.
Quoting Devans99
Please advance a rational argument to prove what you assert.
With eternalism, past present and future all exist eternally with no need for creation or destruction, so space-time can exist eternally even though time has a start.
In addition, you can posit that the start of time was preceded by the end of time (Big Bang preceded by Big Crunch).
Quoting Devans99
How would you define "eternally" in this context? In other words, what is your definition of "eternal" or "eternity"?
The dictionary gives two definitions of eternal:
- eternal inside time. This is presentism. Requires actual infinity to exist.
- eternal outside time. This is eternalism. Does not require infinity.
So I believe the 1st is impossible whereas the 2nd is possible.
Quoting Devans99
Interesting. And do you know any rational explanation on how could anything be "eternal outside time"?
Besides the transcendental you prefer to discount, there are states which are considered eternal but are not bound by time at one end or the other, or both. For example, life after death, whether it actually exists or not, has nothing to do with any particular time measure at the far end, it is simply considered eternal.
Similarly, statements of a PRIORI TRUTH, again whether you consider them real or not, are eternal. Like maths. But not bound by time in any way, simply eternal. And theres things like eternal love. And thats why the definition exists in a dictionary. It may not appear entirely rational to you but humans are not known to be purely rational in their meanings.
1. Can't get something from (the philosopher's) nothing
2. So something must have permanent existence
3. Time is finite *
4. So something must have permanent existence outside of time.
* Proof via contradiction time is finite:
1. Assume time is infinite
2. So some events must have taken place infinity long ago
3. These events must have been caused by prior events
4. But thats impossible by the definition of infinity (nothing before time = -?)
5. Contradiction; time must be finite.