An Argument for Eternalism
Hi folks. It’s an argument in two parts. First I argue time has a start, then I argue eternalism (believe that past, present and future are all equally real) is true.
Time had a Start
If we assume time is infinite, then there are only two possible models of the origin of the universe:
X. ‘Can get something from nothing’, IE matter is created naturally. With infinite time, matter density would be infinite. So this is impossible.
Y. ‘Can’t get something from nothing’, IE matter has always existed. Meaning the matter had no temporal start. So this is impossible too*
So that exhausts the possibility space; time must have a start.
* A more detailed proof by contradiction:
1. Assume a particle does not have a (temporal) start point
2. If the particle does not have a start, then it cannot have a ‘next to start’ (because that would qualify as a start)
3. So particle does not have a next to start (by Modus Ponens on [1] and [2]).
4. And so on for next to, next to start, all the way to time start+? (IE now)
5. Implies particle does not have a (temporal) end
6. Implies particle never existed
(So it works exactly the same way for time as space: if an object has no identifiable spacial start point, it does not exist).
Eternalism is true
A. Assume only now exists (presentism)
B. So before the start of time there was nothing
C But creation ex nihilo / without time is impossible
D. So something 'other' than only now exists
E. The ‘other’ must be timeless (else we end up in a infinite regress of time1, time2, time3 etc...)
F. The ‘other’ must have created our time (at time=0)
G. So the ‘other’ ’sees’ time=0 and time=now simultaneously (its timeless)
H. Hence eternalism must hold
Time had a Start
If we assume time is infinite, then there are only two possible models of the origin of the universe:
X. ‘Can get something from nothing’, IE matter is created naturally. With infinite time, matter density would be infinite. So this is impossible.
Y. ‘Can’t get something from nothing’, IE matter has always existed. Meaning the matter had no temporal start. So this is impossible too*
So that exhausts the possibility space; time must have a start.
* A more detailed proof by contradiction:
1. Assume a particle does not have a (temporal) start point
2. If the particle does not have a start, then it cannot have a ‘next to start’ (because that would qualify as a start)
3. So particle does not have a next to start (by Modus Ponens on [1] and [2]).
4. And so on for next to, next to start, all the way to time start+? (IE now)
5. Implies particle does not have a (temporal) end
6. Implies particle never existed
(So it works exactly the same way for time as space: if an object has no identifiable spacial start point, it does not exist).
Eternalism is true
A. Assume only now exists (presentism)
B. So before the start of time there was nothing
C But creation ex nihilo / without time is impossible
D. So something 'other' than only now exists
E. The ‘other’ must be timeless (else we end up in a infinite regress of time1, time2, time3 etc...)
F. The ‘other’ must have created our time (at time=0)
G. So the ‘other’ ’sees’ time=0 and time=now simultaneously (its timeless)
H. Hence eternalism must hold
Comments (116)
Both of these arguments have been repeatedly rejected in other threads. Do you have any new justifications for them?
Quoting Devans99
Here your argument assumes a start of time in a scenario without a start of time.
Quoting Devans99
B doesn't seem to follow from A. I also don't see the justification for F and G
No it assumes an 'end' of time: now. Thats all.
Quoting Echarmion
If there is only now and then you take away that there is nothing left at all. Nothing to create/cause time to start. So that is an impossible something from nothing (no time even).
No it wouldn't. We could have a universe with infinite time and two elementary particles and that's it, for example.
Quoting Devans99
"Matter had no temporal start" isn't impossible.
Quoting Devans99
What does "next to start" refer to? It's difficult to evaluate this part of the argument when I don't know what it's referring to.
Quoting Devans99
Just by fiat, or what?
Quoting Devans99
If time was created it had a start, but per your C, that wouldn't be possible.
But how did they come into being? Or they existed for ever? See below:
Quoting Terrapin Station
The point in time following the start. It would qualify as the start if the start did not exist. So you can extend that argument through the entire life of the object to establish it never existed.
Quoting Terrapin Station
Well creation with:
- No time
- No space
- No matter
Seems impossible?
Emphasis mine. Your argument refers to a "start" that doesn't exist.
Quoting Devans99
But presentism doesn't assume the present started at some point. "Now" has no temporal extension, and hence neither a temporal start nor a temporal end.
It's just imagining a possible universe. There's no need to stipulate its origin (or lack of the same).
Quoting Devans99
If the start doesn't exist there can't be a point in time following the start.
Quoting Devans99
It doesn't seem impossible to me, just counterintuitive.
The fact that the start does not exist means the rest of the object does not exist (so my argument goes). So time seems to behaves like space in this regard (IE if an object has no identifiable start point in space, it is not an object).
Quoting Echarmion
Yes I was merely pointing out that 'a start of time' and 'only now exists' are incompatible.
Yes so the whole thing does not exist then. There has to be a temporal start point like an object has to have an identifiable spacial start point.
If that is your argument, then you should present it without referring to a start (except to exclude it). It's easy to demonstrate that an object with infinite extension cannot be perceived. But an object with no start need not be infinite (as the surface of a sphere is not bounded but finite). And even if we did need an infinite time, that we cannot perceive such a time doesn't mean it doesn't exist.
Quoting Devans99
Then why does your argument concerning presentism even refer to a start of time?
Nor can it exist IMO. Infinity is not logical. Nature is logical. Therefore infinity does not feature in nature.
It is not a quantity so it cannot be the value of real world quantities like the size or the age of the universe.
Interesting point about a sphere. Time could circle around. Big Crunch causes big bang in an eternal but finite circle. That would technically have arbitrarily many start/end points; the choice is arbitrary on a circle (often 0?).
Quoting Echarmion
If you read the start of the OP, there is an argument against infinite time given first. So I was presenting the argument as a 'what if you buy there is a start of time' argument.
Someone has surely pointed this out to you, but you might have said, "Nothing precedes time's start," as your current implies a misunderstanding of time. That is, that time is always occurring at the same speed, or at the very least progressing at some speed. This would be a fallacy. The problem though is that your argument hinges on this (without any accusations of intentionality) "straw man" of presentism, that does assume time always progresses without beginning or end. Rather the real epitome of presentism lies in the substantial belief that time is an illusion of place, and when there is no place, there is no progress. By this logic, time needn't have begun and it need not end.
If time is not progressing at some speed, that would seem to lead directly to eternalism?
Quoting Roland
How would you then counter my argument in the OP that time has a start?
How would you explain the low entropy state of the universe?
"time start+?" in your point number 4 contradicts point number 1. You're identifying a start point when you've already said none existed. The proof itself assumes that the truth about reality itself has to conform with what makes sense in our organic brains. Maybe something came from nothing because that's just how it is even if it qualifies as a logical contradiction. It could be one of those "too bad, it is what it is" things.
Step 4 is just steps 2 and 3 repeated an infinite number of times. If you object to step 4, you should object to something in steps 2 and 3. I don't see a problem, I'm using the absence of a start point rather than the presence of a start point in my argument.
If something cam from nothing, the that falls under case [X] in the proof.
Hi, back at you, Devans,
Having a bit of difficulty understanding the certainty of your assertions in your arguments, but I want to leave that for a bit and ask you:
What is the point of all this?
If you are correct that "Eternalism is true"...what, in your estimation, are the inferences of that on the "human predicament?"
How, in your estimation, does it impact on the nature of REALITY?
In a universe with eternal time before now there would be no such thing as a moment an infinite amount of time before now because it's not possible to traverse an infinite amount of time. There would be a moment a million years ago, a billion years ago, or any other number of years ago. But not a moment "infinity" years ago. While at the same time having an infinite amount of time before now.
It sounds like you're projecting backward to a starting moment from "now" and then saying you cannot reach "now" from the starting moment because it never would have reached "now" from the starting moment. But premise 1, defines that no starting moment exists. It's a red herring because moments that exist an infinite amount of time ago do not exist anyway even if the univerrse were eternal in the way I framed it in the previous paragraph.
Yes, you have to come to the conclusion the age of some moments is greater than any number which is a contradiction. You cannot have past eternity without actual infinity.
Quoting coolguy8472
What I am doing is starting from the non-existent start point and adding infinity moments to it to get to a non-existent end point in the present.
You can have no upper limit to the amount of time before now while at the same time having any number of age of any moment in history. So a million years ago exists, 10^434343 years ago exists, but "infinity" years ago does not exist because it's a malformed value. But any finite number of years ago exists.
Quoting Devans99
If the starting point is non-existent in your scenario then it serves no purpose to use it within that hypothetical reality to arrive at a contradiction.
Can you get into this with a bit more detail.
It seems to me that if "any finite number of years ago exists"...that is infinity...because for any finite number of years ago...there is always a year earlier. It can never end.
Infinity is a description of a set of numbers. Any finite number is a number. If you count from 1, you'll never get to large because "large" is not a number. Using "infinity" as a number like that to disprove some claim doesn't work for that reason.
Wow!
That was an excellent explanation, Coolguy.
So, using it the way Devans is using it (as a number) can make for an illogical conclusion. (Using it in many supposed logical inspections does go astray...as in the algebraic "proof" that 1.9999..to "infinity" = 2.)
BUT (and this is a question)...do you suppose infinity exists notwithstanding current ability to describe it (numerically or otherwise)?
You are trying to make an actual infinity (past eternity) into a potential infinity. That's not possible, past eternity actually happened; implying whatever number we choose will be smaller than the number of moments elapsed; but there is no number with the quality it is bigger than all the others (there is no largest number X because X+1>X). Hence the nonsensical conclusion that the number of moments elapsed is not a number.
Quoting coolguy8472
But that is the defining characteristic of objects that have 'always existed' - they have no start, so I am perfectly entitled to use that fact in a proof.
I get what you're saying but it's special pleading that it's not possible to traverse an infinite amount of time. When you try to prove eternal time is a contradiction by first assuming an infinite amount of time exists before now, we can prove that traversing any amount of time is possible with a proof by induction.
1) an infinite amount of time can exist before now
2) it is possible to traverse 1 second of time
3) if it's possible to traverse x seconds of time then it's possible to traverse x+1 seconds of time
4) therefore it's possible to traverse any number of seconds of time
That means that you can name me any number and it's possible for that second to exist. That is why the number of seconds before now that can possibly exist is "greater than any number". Since you cannot show me a single moment of time that cannot exist in an eternal universe there is no contradiction here. Because we're granting an infinite amount of time before now in 1), that allows for all moments before now to be traversed.
Another way to approach this problem is use another system of math like hyper reals. Maybe using real numbers to explain the universe is invalid and something else like hyperreals would work better. The archimedean property of real numbers says infinity and infintecimal numbers cannot exist but other number systems allow for their existence.
But there is an actual physical property of the system, the age of the universe, which takes a numeric value. It must have some value. That value has to be greater than any number. Contradiction.
I think that reality is logical so it would not include illogical concepts like infinity.
But when you try to form a logical argument of an eternal universe you're assuming the age of the universe is an infinite value or without a value right away. Finite values and infinite values are opposite concepts. It does not need to have some finite value within a logical argument where it is assumed the value is infinite. An infinite regress is not something that is logically justified but not seeing a contradiction either. It would be one of those "is because it is" facts of life if it turned out to be true.
Look at it this way, say our eternal universe has a clock (its just a thought experiment). What time would it read?
In a universe without a beginning, that scenario shouldn't be possible. A clock that begins from the beginning of that universe could not exist if a starting point of that universe does not exist.
“Eternal” means “outside of time” where an eternal being would experience all of our time (past, present, and future) as an eternal present time to her. That’s how Boethius explained it anyway.
Fair point, but I can then argue that the universe itself could not exist either. If matter cannot exist forever (IE a clock) then nothing can.
matter can exist forever. It's just that you're trying to extract an age from something that would be of infinite age. Infinity is not a number.
I give more arguments against the possibility of 'infinite existence' here:
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/5242/infinite-being/p1
So the line of philosophising that you adopt is fraught with potential error. A better way, the physicist way, is to find a language that describes what is going on... to do experiments and theorise using mathematical models that suit what you see.
The style of argument you use in this OP - and elsewhere - is that adopted by medieval monks to show that God exists. Just as with those arguments, no one was convinced except the monks.
Putnam attempted to make a case for this regarding so-called quantum logic. Is that what you're talking about?
Physicists do attempt to describe, but being prepared to embrace some counter logic is problematic. How would we know when to choose another logic and when to persevere looking for answers that fit the logic we have?
There was a time when physicists aimed for recording data and limited theorizing. It's pretty clear that those days are gone, though.
So no, I think you're wrong.
Refreshingly direct.
I'm not sure what a "counter logic" is. What I'm referring to is the various sorts of mathematics that are drawn into the mix. Nor am I suggesting that they somehow limit theorising... anything goes, if it works.
I think there is an assumption in my argument that the universe won't do anything deeply illogical or magical. I think you will find the same assumption is used very extensively in science and in our everyday lives. Without this 'no magic' axiom, we would have made little progress in science.
Quoting Banno
I've given a theoretical argument; its true some empirical evidence is needed to back it up. I can point to the Big Bang; time slows down the closer we get to the Big Bang; so that looks like supporting empirical evidence for a start of time. We then can look at the low entropy nature of our universe and take that too as evidence for a start of time. It would be better to have more empirical evidence than this but it is hard to collect empirical evidence for something that happened 14 billion years ago.
Quoting Banno
You are referring to the prime mover / first cause arguments of St Thomas Aquinas? These arguments have stood the test of time. I believe they are still valid: once you allow that quantum fluctuations lead to infinite density so are impossible as a cause of the universe then cause and effect is back as an axiom and so there is no reason to doubt the prime mover / first cause argument except in its general abstractness. It shows there must logically be a first cause. That it not the same thing as demonstrating the existence of God I grant.
You mentioned a choice, so I thought you were picturing numerous options. As Devans99 pointed out, we wouldn't get far trying to arrive at fundamental logical principles empirically. And scientists don't proceed that way. Both relativity and quantum mechanics have thought experiments in their ancestries. So we start with reliance on logic.
Where we end up with conclusions that defy common sense, we still at least hold out hope of discovering underlying logic (of the ancient sort).
If we someday give up on a logical approach, we'll probably wonder if we're intellectually limited and in need of some evolution. IOW, we dont think in terms of options for logic that we choose by empirical justification. We think that if ancient logic is wrong, we'll begin a quest to discover the truth, without knowing how we will find it.
I agree, more or less, but I would explain this rather than accept it as a sort of miracle. When the universe acts in ways that are a bit odd, what scientists do is to change their theory to match. So when Jupiter is found to be the centre of its own little solar system, or when particles act like waves, we don't just accept that this is contrary to what we expected, but instead we change what is being said to match what we see. It's not an axiom, it's a way of using words.
Meh. Your science here is questionable. Let's leave that as moot.
No, I'm referring to the general style of arguing from any sort of first principle to a self-serving conclusion. They are examples of confirmation bias, not of philosophy. If you assume there is a first cause, it will not be surprising that you can conclude, validly, that there is a first cause. But no one else need agree with you. They are dreadful arguments.
We can't "give up on logic" and still be saying anything interesting.
I was not trying to reach a self-serving conclusion - I am not religious. I'm just trying to discover the truth.
Aquinas did not assume a first cause; he argued from cause and effect to a first cause. I do not assume a first cause or even cause and effect in my arguments. Why do you say a first cause has been assumed?
If you would be kind enough to point to where I assume a first cause?
It is an example of the sort of argument Wittgenstein described as an engine spinning without engaging with the road.
Quoting Devans99
Not in an infinite space.
Quoting Devans99
If time has no beginning, why couldn't matter also have no beginning...
But now I am playing your word game. None of this is significant. It's not physics.
IT would be simple to take this argument's logic and show that there are no integers. Assume there is no first integer. Then there cannot be any next integer...
But matter is appearing in every possible place in the universe - Big Bangs are occurring all over through natural processes. It does not matter if space is infinite, it still reaches infinite density everywhere if time is infinite.
Quoting Banno
No you cannot do that; there is a first integer.
If you assume only now exists, then there is no past, and hence no start to time. The argument falls apart.
Exactly... a start of time is impossible with presentism... so the argument moves on to consider eternalism.
This makes no sense for me. There are no big bangs going on in my lounge-room; I would have noticed. And simple mathematics shows that your last sentence here is problematic. The sequence of reals contains infinite positive numbers, while leaving room for infinite negative numbers...
Really? What is it?
So your argument becomes: Devans thinks there must be a start time, therefore presentism is wrong.
But we are assuming that 'something comes from nothing' naturally. So for arguments sake, I've said that matter is created during Big Bangs. They would be very occasional events but with infinite time, there would be an infinite number of them so matter would reach infinite density.
And it is your maths that is letting you down; if you have a fixed volume of space with infinite matter in it then density is infinite. It does not matter that space is infinite - matter is appearing everywhere.
Quoting Banno
The first integer is conventionally chosen as 1 or 0.
Quoting Banno
The first part of my argument proves there is a start of time. Then that result is used for the proof of eternalism.
You could try reading it before criticising it.
You might enjoy reading up on Steady State theory. The calculations you want were done last century.
What calculations?
This appears incomplete. if you have a fixed volume of space with infinite matter in it then density is infinite - sure.
Hm. Have you ever visited Hilbert's Hotel? It will help with the mathematics.
Says who? Devans?
Well, no. It shows instead that for presentism there is no start to time.
'In cosmology, the steady state model is an alternative to the Big Bang theory of the evolution of the universe. In the steady state model, the density of matter in the expanding universe remains unchanged due to a continuous creation of matter, thus adhering to the perfect cosmological principle, a principle that asserts that the observable universe is basically the same at any time as well as at any place.'
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steady_state_model
I would point out that the universe cannot expand 'forever' - there would be a point in the past where it was not expanding - so with infinite time it can best be oscillating. Then with continuous matter creation we would still reach infinite matter density.
Quoting Banno
Yes and its marsh gas. Such a hotel could never exist in reality so we can banish any considerations of such a monstrosity when considering the universe.
Quoting Banno
What is the point you are trying to make?
Quoting Banno
No the first part shows that for presentism and eternalism there is a start of time. You have still not read the OP properly.
Physics presently has no over arching description as quantum theory is yet to be reconciled with relativity in a way that suits everyone. Sometimes we just go without a description. But as we change, logic is source of confidence that we're changing in the right direction, so its something more fundamental than any particular description.
You sound like an indirect realist.
"God works in mysterious ways" explains everything, at the expense of explaining nothing.
We rely on logic to help us avoid the wrong direction.
Quoting Banno
I don't understand the significance of this.
Instead I'd recommend working within this best explanation of infinity - this best logic of infinity.
I asked what it could mean to go in the wrong direction; Your reply is that logic helps us avoid the wrong direction. So the wrong direction is to go against logic. In rejecting our best logic of infinity, @Devans99 is going in the wrong direction...
"Because God likes it that way" will serve as an explanation for anything.
But it puts an end to any ongoing conversation.
I do not regard ?+1=? as a valid logical proposition. I think the bijection procedure in set theory yields the wrong results. I think set theory has other flaws around handling of infinite sets. Set theory fails to pass muster as logic IMO.
I have. It was a short conversation.
Addition:
Quoting Devans99
But this leads me to think you do not know what validity is. There are clear ways in which this proposition can be used to set out the mathematics of infinities coherently. Rejecting a mathematical theorem because it fucks you pet theory will not do, unless you can replace it with something of equal or greater power.
Maths can do perfectly well with potential infinity only (limits); actual infinity (transfinite numbers) is not required.
Yeah I get it. The contradiction you tried to point out doesn't work. I suppose the best way to describe the reality of an eternal universe is that it would exist with an actual infinite age but any attempts to quantify it would fall within potential infinity. Within your proof you try to disprove it by appealing to the actual infinity which doesn't work within real number math.
If there is no "start", then there is no "start"+1, etc... then say you'd never reach "now" therefore it's not possible. But there is no "start" because there is no beginning. Also would it not be possible for a universe to be created with infinite age by a god?
The age of the universe is a numeric property; it takes a single numeric value. Actual infinity has no fixed value. Having a fixed value is the defining characteristic of a number. So Actual infinity is not a number. So it cannot be used for the age of the universe, size of the universe or any other real life numeric property.
Quoting coolguy8472
Actual infinity has its own mathematical rules like:
?+1=?
Which make no logical sense. An object that when you change it, it does not change? There is no such object so the actual infinity concept flies in the face of our everyday experience and logic.
Quoting coolguy8472
It does not matter if it's called 'start' or 'beginning', objects must have one in order to exist.
Quoting coolguy8472
I'd argue that infinite beings are impossible:
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/5242/infinite-being/p1
So God it he exists is timeless rather than of infinite age.
Pretty close to agreement. It's more like "if age of the universe is finite then it has a numeric property". By proving the age of the universe does not have a value in an eternal universe does not contradict that statement because it's a conditional.
Quoting Devans99
not in conventional math. At best we could say as x approaches infinity x+1=(no limit) or infinity as a symbolic value to mean no upper bound.
Quoting Devans99
Maybe this is where you're tripped up on the whole thing: https://artofproblemsolving.com/wiki/index.php/Conditional Within logic "if A then B" is considered true when A is false. A="anything that begins to exist" and B="needs a cause". Proving the universe did not have a cause in an eternal universe does not make the statement false. It makes A false but not "if A then B" false.
I could say if the universe does not have an age; it is not a universe. Having no age implies the universe has no temporal start implies none of it exists.
Quoting coolguy8472
Yes I was referring to transfinite mathematics.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transfinite_number
I consider a limit from calculus to be an example of potential infinity. Set theory is the only place in maths I know of that deals with the Actually Infinite.
Quoting coolguy8472
You have lost me. An eternal universe would not have a cause makes sense.But apart from that I not sure what you mean?
Having an age of 0 and an infinite age are 2 different things in case you're conflating them with the phrase "no age". Universes that have a beginning need a temporal start but that does not mean that universe that don't have a beginning need a temporal start.
Quoting Devans99
Say you have the statement "If it's a raven then it's black". This statement is not disproven with a white dove. It would need to be disproved by finding a raven that's some color other than black.
Similarly if you have the statement "if something begins to exist then it needs a cause". This statement is not disproven when you show the universe had no cause. We can take the contrapositive and say "if it does not need a cause" then "it does not need a beginning"
The OP contains an argument that a particle needs a temporal start to exist. For particle you could read universe.
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/5302/an-argument-for-eternalism/p1
Quoting coolguy8472
My stance is that the universe has a cause and has to have a beginning. No beginning lead an impossible infinite regress (as well as not existing due to having no start). Having a beginning gets around these two logical problems.
I think we might be going in circles at this point.
Yeah I'm sure we are going in circles. Looked at this OP argument again:
Here's a proof that Santa Clause exists in the north pole using this same argument form:
1. Assume Santa Clause does not exist at the North Pole
2. If Santa Clause does not exist at the north pole then there does not exist a place next to Santa Clause at the North Pole
3. So Santa Clause does not have a place next to Santa Clause at the north pole
4. And so on for next to place, next to Santa Clause at the North Pole, all the way where to I exist right now
5. Implies that I don't exist
6. implies I never existed
Therefore Santa Clause exists at the north pole.
The argument form used in your proof has at least 2 ways to correct the argument that can be pointed out similarly in the Santa Clause argument. Either from referencing a non-existent location (Santa Clause at the north pole) against a real location (my location). Or from assuming the place "next to" the North Pole doesn't exist because Santa Clause doesn't exist there.
Using these same types of corrections arguments your proof, either this premise can be disproven:
The point of time where any would-be starting point may not exist but that particular point of time still exists except does not have the property of being a "starting point". Any point in time next to this point of time also exists. So we could say the point of time "next to start" does exist except the point it's next to does not have the property of being the "starting point". Like the North Pole and the place next to the North Pole still exists regardless of whether or not Santa Clause exists there.
or this point could be disproven
Referencing our universe from a non-existent point of time or a point of time in parallel universe. It's invalid because for the same reason why I cannot compute the distance between myself and Santa Clause if Santa Clause does not exist.
Your argument shows that Santa does not exist. That does not show my argument is invalid.
Quoting coolguy8472
Just because time still exists, does not mean that the object existed at that time. We know the object has no temporal start point so the object will not exist at the next point in time (even though that point of time exists).
Quoting coolguy8472
I am not; it is a fact that the start is connected to the end. So if the start does not exist, the end does not exist. All that is required is to know that the start is missing.
If ONE THING had no cause...that ONE THING could be EVERYTHING.
This entire discussion can be resolved into: We do not know the true nature of the REALITY of existence...and anyone asserting "the universe is eternal and infinite" OR "the universe is NOT eternal and infinite"...is doing nothing more than sharing a blind guess.
The arguments that pretend to have logic, reason, math, or science as a basis...are bogus.
Correct. The timeless prime mover has no cause. That is what started everything else off.
Devans...you have no idea of what "started everything else off"...nor if "everything else" was actually started off...or if it always existed.
You are trying to pass off your blind guesses on these matters as the result of logic, math, and analysis.
In the interests of truth...you ought really to stop.
Then we have the start of time (see OP); that requires a timeless first cause too.
So I would argue my position is the most logically coherent model for the start of the universe.
Silencing the debate is not in the interests of truth.
it actually shows that santa clause does exist with a proof by contradiction. I used the same form of argument you used to show what it doesn't work.
Quoting Devans99
Within your argument you're using the absense of existence of a start point to spread that non-existence to infinity to "now". That's the same concept as me using santa's non-existence at the north pole to spread his non-existence to where I'm at now to prove I don't exist therefore santa must exist by contradiction.
Quoting Devans99
Within your proof you we assume a start point does not exist but then invoking the existence of it anyway when doing "start+infinity". If we assume an eternal universe in our premise then we are assuming the start does not exist.
You cannot use Santa's non existence to prove you don't exist.
Quoting coolguy8472
It is a fact that the start is always connected to the end so it is always valid to traverse from start to end proving non-existence.
Correct, that's why you can't use the non-existence of a start point of an eternal universe to prove now doesn't exist either.
Quoting Devans99
That hasn't been proven. If there exists a scenario where a start does not exist then that would be false.
Saying something is true because it's a fact is still question begging.
I think you have to think about the topology of objects in space and then transfer that thinking to time. In space, saying something has no identifiable start point is equivalent to saying it does not exist - if it has no start point, it has no length (end-start) or breadth so it can't exist. It is exactly the same thing when you come to consider time.
For me, things without starts are in an infinite regress and thus are impossible. If you think about a moment, it defines the following moment. So infinite time forms an infinite regress. But there is no overall starting moment, so none of the moments in the infinite regress can ultimately be fully defined. Each moment makes sense by its own, but overall infinite time cannot be because the whole think is undefined.
If you think about the set of negative integers:
{ ..., -4, -3, -2, -1 }
The ... means the set is partially defined. Strictly speaking that means undefined. Anything without a start is undefined.
One...there is NO debate. There is you pontificating about the true nature of REALITY...and others explaining some of the inconsistencies of your "reasoning."
Using your "reasoning" either NOTHING exists...or at least one thing has always existed.
But you then go to the totally illogical conclusion that the "one thing"...cannot be everything that exists. You insist there must be a creator being "or creator something"...and I think that is because your intention always has been to show necessity for a Prime Mover/First Cause...which will then resolve itself into a god.
Not trying to stop debate. Pointing out there is no debate happening. And attempting to inject truth into the discussion.
Quoting Frank Apisa
'Always' existing in time is impossible; rather it is that something has permanent existence outside of time.
Quoting Frank Apisa
If we assume that everything that exists, exists in time, we always end up with an infinite regress. So there must be something outside of time that caused everything else. Something beyond cause and effect so needs no cause itself. Sorry if I'm repeating myself, but it's the only possible solution to how the universe started.
As to whether the first cause is God, I think you have to define 'God' first. If the definition is the traditional religious definition then that reduces the likelihood that the first cause is God - the 3Os do not follow logically from anything - so it's hard to logically argue for the traditional view of God.
Then you are not succeeding.
I suspect that has to do with selective blindness. But let's let that be for a moment...and concentrate on something else...if I can persuade you to do so.
This is all bullshit.
I want to tell you what I suspect about your thesis...and if you can take an honest view of those suspicions...we might get past that stuff I mentioned "putting aside" up above.
I suspect you are either hiding...or are unaware...of your true motivation here.
I suspect that the existence of a GOD is something that means a great deal to you...and that you have devised what you consider a brilliant plan to argue for the "GOD" while pretending not to be. In fact, while pretending that to be the furthest thing from your mind.
Internet arguers do this often...not necessarily for the existence of a GOD...but for political and moral notions also. Abortion, capital punishment, extreme left or right politics...all come immediately to mind.
The only person who can actually talk to you with any authority about this...IS YOU.
YOU have got to come to the realization of what is happening (if I am correct in my suspicions)...in order to deal with it.
Some questions I might ask to aim you towards thoughts in that direction:
Have you ever argued for the existence of God...expressed that way? (Not for the possible existence of gods...but for "God.")
Are you convinced that a God exists...expressed that way? (Not for the possibility of a god or gods...but for "God.")
On the spectrum of guesses about whether or not "God" (expressed that way) exists...where do you fall? Is it more toward "Yes, God exists" or more toward "No, God does not."
Deal with these questions without concern for "traditional views of God" (that very wording you used already answers some of the questions)...or about the 3 O's nonsense.
Hope you can respond.
I have argued for God's existence in the past but I have come to the conclusion it is more productive to discuss whether there was a creator or not; that question is amenable to logic; the question 'is there a God?' is ill defined and probably not answerable.
I think it is unlikely that a traditional God exists but likely that there was a creator of the universe.
That may or may not include a god, Devans! A god or gods...not God. At least that is the way it should be worded if you truly are working on what you say you are working on.
- - - - - -
I think you are kidding yourself.
You are still seeking ways to argue for the existence of "God"...something you have in mind, whether traditional in the sense of "the god of the Bible"...or as a "creator GOD" concept.
- - - - - -
That is a FINE blind guess about the REALITY...and MAY BE CORRECT.
But it is a blind guess...and you truly are not treating it as a blind guess.
You are doing to the question, "Does God exist"...what the people who argue for Intelligent Design are trying to do to "Creationism."
I don't know about the topology angle. You'd have to link me to something like why things without starting points don't exist, or exist as 2 objects, etc.. Is there a reason why you're preferring to evaluate the nature of time under those constraints?
I'm trying to formulate an argument from a different angle:
1. Can’t get something from nothing
2. So something must have permanent existence (else there would be nothing)
3. That something in itself has no cause
4. To have no cause; something must be beyond cause and effect; IE beyond time.
5. So time must have a start and eternalism holds
I've already mentioned this; when talking in the singular; as in someone's name, you use the capitalised form, for example: God may exist. When using 'God' as just another noun and not someone's name, you use a small letter: He was a god, gods exist etc...
Quoting Frank Apisa
It's hardly a blind guess. Omniscience for example; knowing the status of every particle in the universe would require a brain much more massive than the entire universe. That's very unlikely hence my conclusion that such a God probably does not exist is not a bind guess.
Quoting Frank Apisa
I am changing the question from something unanswerable to something answerable with logic and science. Intelligent Design is an inappropriate analogy as that is not logic/science; it purports that God was somehow involved in evolution which is ridiculous. All I am arguing for is that the Big Bang was caused deliberately which is not ridiculous (at least a 50%/50% shot).
You are talking about "God"...a specific entity or supposed entity.
The difference in wording I am calling to your attention has NOTHING to do with grammatical rules...and I think you realize that.
All you are talking about it a blind guess. None of it is the result of logic. You are simply searching for something that looks like logic...hoping to bolster your blind guesses about the REALITY of existence.
You are being duplicitous.
You are attempting a back-door shot at answering the question "Does God exist?"...and you are talking about a specific type of god.
Get real.
How exactly is that a blind guess? How would a brain exist of such dimensions? It would take years for distant parts of the brain to communicate with each other... not a viable brain... so not a viable god.
Or omni-benevolence... that requires getting it right all the time, but clearly things go wrong in the universe, so again we can use LOGIC to rule out the traditional view of God.
Quoting Frank Apisa
I am not a deceitful person. I see nothing wrong with answering the question 'was the universe created?'. It would further human knowledge if we had an answer.
One...you are making a blind guess that it would take a brain that size...fabricating the guess from essentially NOTHING.
Secondly, you are constantly pontificating "this cannot be" "that must be" kind of nonsense that is PURE BLIND GUESSWORK.
THAT...is exactly how it is a blind guess.
Then get off speaking of what you are looking for as a variation of the "traditional view of God"...which is another wording error if you are doing what you pretend you are doing.
You are being duplicitous whether wittingly or unwittingly...and whether toward your audience or toward yourself.
Do not rule that last part out. You may have convinced yourself that you are doing what I see as pretense...and have done such an effective job that you have fooled yourself.
Neither do I. And I can give you the definitive answer to that question: There is no goddam way we can determine that! The greatest minds ever to live on this planet have toiled endlessly over that problem...and have come up short.
To think that YOU have made major determinations about it says more about ego than about logic and research.
It would...and I suspect "human knowledge" has a very long way to go.
But the stuff you are tackling is as far beyond you as it was beyond people like Albert Einstein, Stephen Hawking, Carl Sagan...and their like.
Explore it. Don't claim victory over it even in modest amounts.
You can't fit a pint in a half pint pot. That information (on all the particles in the universe) has to fit somewhere. This is logical.
Besides, to be truly omniscience would require a nervous system that encompasses every particle in the whole universe. How likely is that? We have not noticed such a thing empirically (CERN etc...). So we can inductively conclude it's unlikely. Again, that's using logic.
Quoting Frank Apisa
Hardly... I'm being perfectly straight-forward in saying a think there is probably a creator and its not like the traditional God. What is dishonest about that?
Quoting Frank Apisa
I am exploring it. You are not helping a great deal. Specific counter arguments to my points would help us get at the truth rather than this endless rant about me having a hidden agenda.
What's wrong with time having a beginning but was not caused by anything beyond time or otherwise? It would be time began when time began. There's would be no such thing as "began" without time afterall.
Humans contemplating the REALITY of existence are like ants contemplating the extra-galactic cosmos, Devans.
Your ego is larger than the hypothetical brain you are suggesting.
It is using blind guesswork to present a pretense argument.
Your need for the 3 O's is too much.
I have no quarrels with what you think or suppose.
But claims that X has to be...and Y cannot be...are an absurdity.
That is what I am talking about. Stop beating around that. It won't work.
There are people here MUCH smarter than I who are giving what I suppose to be decent counter arguments to your pontificating. I am interested in a different kind of fish...the texture of your argument and your motivation.
My guess is that I have already nailed it. You are attempting a backdoor "There is a God" thesis. I further suspect a young, intelligent, ambitious, zealous, egotistical guy thinking he can do what people like Einstein, Sagan, Degrasse, Hawking and others could not.
Well...will see what your spine is made of.
What I am sending your way is peanuts compared with what knowledgeable peers will heave. You are not handling the easy stuff very well. Imagine the more difficult.
You seem to be denying 2000 years worth of scientific progress.
Quoting Frank Apisa
I am middle aged if you must know. Look at it this way; why would you bother with philosophy if you did not think you had a chance of discovering something? I certainly would not. And I am not claiming to have discovered anything, I am just floating arguments for consideration. If someone shoots down one of my arguments; I shut up about it. That's the way it works. Why do you have a problem with it?
You seem to be denying how little ants know about the cosmos outside our our galaxy, Devans.
First I want to acknowledge an error. I left Neil Tyson's last name off in my list.
Anyway...you are doing a lot more than "just floating arguments for consideration" (you are making unwarranted assertions about what is and is no)...and a lot less than "just shutting up" about it when nailed.
The reason I am doing what I am doing is: It should be an imperative for every thinking human to to battle against anyone heading toward where I perceive you to be going. (This should be fun for you.)
We'll do more battle. Use it wisely. Not all your "peers" will play nice. Get use to punches coming from all sorts of angles...and maybe some illegal kicks, so to speak.
[b]I do not know if gods exist or not;
I see no reason to suspect gods CANNOT EXIST...that the existence of gods is impossible;
I see no reason to suspect that gods MUST EXIST...that gods are needed to explain existence;
I do not see enough unambiguous evidence upon which to base a meaningful guess in either direction...
...so I don't.[/b]
Sure for some reason we aren't aware of. Like a hidden undiscovered universal constant. Something came from nothing for the same reason Pi starts with 3, because that's just how it is. When nothing exists something must exist then "poof", now something exists. Seems easier to believe than religious texts.
The unmoved mover was not originally associated with Christianity, it goes back to Aristotle. You are thinking of St Thomas Aquinas? Of the Summa Theologiae, Wikipedia says:
'Although unfinished, the Summa is "one of the classics of the history of philosophy and one of the most influential works of Western literature."'
Sure some of it is wrong, but that is always the case when dealing with old sources.
"(So it works exactly the same way for time as space: if an object has no identifiable spacial start point, it does not exist)."
When you get into the 4th, 5th and higher dimensions this sort of thing doesn't apply the same way. Check out "10 dimensions explained" on youtube.
As to what you said about eternalism, from what you said that appears to be true to me. Please lets not argue about the fine points. I'm to dumb and/or lazy right now to argue about the fine points. I'm not sure we even really disagree.
"(So it works exactly the same way for time as space: if an object has no identifiable spacial start point, it does not exist)."
I think if you move into higher dimensions like 4th, 5th and beyond you stop dealing with exact positions (10th dimension for example) and start dealing with existence itself as in all positions of an object exist at once.
I'm not sure why my previous reply to this was deleted because it wasn't the slighest bit adversarial towards you nor was it controversial.
When you talk about eternalism i would have to agree with that.
It seems to me that the members of this site are mostly presentists.
I am often outnumbered when debating the issue. Maybe we should have a poll of presentism Vs eternalism?
Maybe i'll do that when i come back from my thing i'm doing.
I believe when youtube videos explain the higher dimensions that they are supporting eternalism.
is there a special way to do a poll? Is that something that is typically done on this site?
I think it's contradictory to say that time had to start. I say this because change is analytic to time, i.e., time is simply the measurement of change. There would be no "starting" without time, that is, there would have to be some type of change to start the mechanism of time. In my view time is eternal, it's a necessary part of reality, this reality or any reality. The flow of time may be different in different places, but still there could not have been a time when there was no time or change.
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/5242/infinite-being/p1
There sure isn't anything contradictory in saying that time could be everlasting. You couldn't have time if at some point there was no time. You would have to go from no change to change, how could that be possible? You couldn't get a universe from a completely static state.
Matter can't be eternal. Time cannot be everlasting. There are lots of ways to prove this. One is in the OP. Here is another:
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/5704/poincare-reoccurrence-theorem-and-time
The only way to avoid an infinite regress of time is to have a start of time with a timeless first cause. As you say, this implies that change takes place timelessly. It is possible to move in spacetime without moving in the time direction, so some types of change without time seem possible.
There is basically a choice here of how the universe could start. There are two options:
1. Everlasting time. This is ruled out because we can prove its impossible
2. A start of time + timeless change. This has not been ruled out
I think because [1] is impossible, it has to be [2], even though it's not exactly clear how timelessness works.