Presentism is Impossible
Presentism (believe that only now exists) is the opposite view of eternalism (belief that past, present and future are real).
Presentism posits 'only now always existed' so all forms of it require an infinite regress, which is not only undesirable, its actually impossible:
1. The number of events in an infinite regress is greater than any number.
2. Which is a contradiction; can’t be a number and greater than any number*.
Eternalism does not require an infinite regress; we have a prime mover who is beyond time (and thus beyond cause and effect) who creates time and the universe. It’s the simplest logical model.
Eternalism is the accepted view of the majority of physicists.
Time is just plain unintuitive; eg slowing down for motion near the speed of light or in the presence of gravity; intuition/gut instinct leads us to presentism but that's just wrong; logically it must be eternalism.
*(Infinity is a concept not a number, proof: Infinity, if a number, would be a number X which is greater than all other numbers. But X+1>X).
Presentism posits 'only now always existed' so all forms of it require an infinite regress, which is not only undesirable, its actually impossible:
1. The number of events in an infinite regress is greater than any number.
2. Which is a contradiction; can’t be a number and greater than any number*.
Eternalism does not require an infinite regress; we have a prime mover who is beyond time (and thus beyond cause and effect) who creates time and the universe. It’s the simplest logical model.
Eternalism is the accepted view of the majority of physicists.
Time is just plain unintuitive; eg slowing down for motion near the speed of light or in the presence of gravity; intuition/gut instinct leads us to presentism but that's just wrong; logically it must be eternalism.
*(Infinity is a concept not a number, proof: Infinity, if a number, would be a number X which is greater than all other numbers. But X+1>X).
Comments (226)
The definition of the first transfinite number is the cardinality of the set of natural numbers. No way is that a number. It's a conception of a mad man.
I should point out that there is only one kind of infinity; by definition it is the largest thing, so it's not possible to have two of the largest things; one of them would not be infinity. If you want to take a look at what sort of nonsense the opposite assumption produces, then bijection is the term to google. You will find that the procedure produces plainly laughable results such as the set of natural numbers being the same size as the set of rational numbers (the 2nd is clearly infinitely larger than the first).
What are we to make of the rules for working with transfinite cardinals:
?+1=?.
If you buy the first point about a single type of infinity, then the above expression immediately leads to 1=0. Even if you don't, there is something deeply wrong with it. In english, it's saying that 'there exists something, that when you change it, it does not change'. What sort of object behaves like that? No objects behalf like that, so does it deserve to be enshrined at the heart of a supposedly logical discipline (maths)?
With eternalism, isn't it the case that we experience a series of "nows"?
Quoting Devans99 And when exactly does physics do this? If physics don't realise that I am quoting you after you have posted and not before, physics is a dick. Obviously there is no reference frame in which there is no preferred reference frame.
It's logical thinking. Why don't you try to find a problem with it rather than posting rants.
Quoting unenlightened
Nowhere in physics is the concept of now enshrined... so I can't point you to where, it's nowhere.
So much the worse for physics. You are doing the same magical thinking again. Deriving the way things must be from the thoughts folks have. Actually, physics works the other way around. Look at what's around and let that guide your thoughts. The reason the particularity of the present of 'here' and 'now' does not appear in physics is that physics is abstract; so it is general and not particular. You are looking at a map, and declaring that because you and I do not appear on the map, we must not exist.
I think you will find that 'Deriving the way things must be from the thoughts folks have' is part of philosophy and science.
It is a fact that not everything you were taught at school is true. You need to be more skeptical and open minded.
Yes, but you think wrong. and because you think wrong and derive the way things must be from that wrong thinking, you get the world wrong. So as @tim wood points out you mistake your fantasy for reality, and talk bollocks and call it 'philosophy'.
Your deterioration in language is symptomatic of someone losing an argument.
Instead of vague generalities; can you not come up with any specific counter arguments against the argument in the OP?
There's an argument in the op? My argument is the very simple one that arguments cannot constrain the universe they can only constrain talk. The world does not have to do what you or anyone else says, so if you want your talk to be true you have to say what it does, rather than tell it what it has to do.
Incidentally, if you take every negative comment as proof of your correctness you will never lose. I'll leave you to it from here.
But logic predates, transcends and governs the universe, so yes, the universe has to behave logically. Any time we find absurdities (infinite regresses), we can use those to narrow down the true nature of things. This is just part of basic logic.
To say that logic predates the universe is clearly more an act of poetry than logic because one of the most defining human characteristics, logic, has been projected onto the cosmos, and thus the cosmos has become a synecdoche for man and his logic.
F=ma, e=mc^2, etc... when have we not caught the universe doing sums? It seems to follow purely mathematical rules. And thats what you'd expect; logic transcends everything and maths is just an extension of logic.
Is there not a moment when all that has happened has happened and all that will happen has yet to happen? There would be no motion in such a moment, and such a moment would be the present; any and all prediction can only be done in the present. Nothing has ever not happened in the present, nothing will ever happen not in the present. If we dig up documents (bones) of a dinosaur, it can only be done in the present. Quite literally, nothing can escape the present. There is mental time travel, which some consider to be magical thinking. Perhaps we can travel in akasha through time.
So you mean the universe has never been completely at rest? Yes I agree, an at rest universe would be a dead universe.
Quoting Anthony
There is the quantum eraser experiment (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_eraser_experiment). It seems to suggest retro-causality; IE signals travelling from present to past.
Well, in terms of what we experience, how else could we think of it? Does anyone experience no distinction between now and past/present?
There is also a variation, moving spotlight theory, which is eternalism with a presentness indicator.
I don't understand this. First of all, you say an infinite regress is impossible. Why. Physicists speculate that the universe may be infinite in size, there may be infinite multi-verses. I admit that doesn't make intuitive sense to me, but there's a lot in physics that doesn't.
Also, how long is now? It can't be infinitesimal, or I wouldn't be able to have the experience I do. I looked it up on the web. Somebody says 3 seconds, which makes a certain sense to me. So, the life of the universe is just 3 seconds. All my memories of the past; speculations about the future; and present perceptions, thoughts, and feelings are happening in the 3 seconds. Seems silly, but not illogical.
Quoting Devans99
Yeah, well, I don't think so. Show us some documentation. While we are at it, show us how presentism and eternalism can be differentiated by experiment or observation?
Not true.
Quoting Devans99
This is not true. Physicists say the universe is ~15 billion years old (past). They speculate on what will happen to it eventually, heat death? recollapse? (future). It's true there are different definitions of the direction of time and that the equations of physics work the same backwards and forwards, but it's also true if I drop a glass 5 feet onto concrete it will fall and break on the floor. (thermodynamic direction of time) It will then not spontaneously reassemble and jump back onto the counter.
Quoting Devans99
Yeah...no. You have provided no argument showing this is true. Which it isn't . It's been argued many times on the forum. I don't suggest you take this on here, or the discussion will go off on a big tangent. Personally, I think the idea is silly. If you want to open a separate discussion, I'm sure people will participate.
Quoting Devans99
Again, no. and for the same reasons. In this case, it's worse, because you have made an error. "F = ma" is an expression from Newtonian physics, which has been supplanted by relativistic physics. It makes a good approximation at human scale speeds, but as things approach the speed of light, it becomes less and less accurate. For you to claim it as an example of the universe's obligation to follow logical rules is a mistake.
So if we experience a stream, a linear sequence of nows, where we don't experience the past and future in the same way, how do we avoid an infinite regress in terms of our temporal experience?
There may be an infinity of numbers between zero and one. Zero represents the beginning, one represents the end. Therefor time doesn't have to begin or end.
Definition of "rude" - Offensively impolite or ill-mannered.
Please describe what I said that was rude. I made no comments about @Devans99, only the arguments that were made. Devans99 made statements that weren't backed up, that were wrong. Seems to me that you have too.
I see you are new. Welcome to the forum. Please believe I say that with no sarcasm or irony.
I gave a proof:
Quoting Devans99
Or think of it this way. Each event in an infinite regress has a predecessor so each event makes sense on its own, but the series as a whole has no start so the series as a whole can't exist logically.
Quoting T Clark
The universe started expanding 14 billion years ago so common sense says it can only have reached a finite extent.
The leading multiple universe theory, Eternal Inflation, has a definite start in time, so there would be a finite but growing number of other universes under that theory.
Quoting T Clark
Presentism is the belief that 'only now always existed' so we need to look for evidence of a start of time (like the Big Bang).
Quoting T Clark
The 2nd law works the same whether 'now' is involved or not; it does not matter whether you drop the glass now or 10 minutes ago or 10 minutes into the future, the result is the same. The 2nd law counts against presentism as proponents need to explain why entropy is so low.
Quoting Terrapin Station
The infinite regress occurs only with infinite time; if there is a start of time there is no infinite regress. If time is circular, there is no infinite regress. It's only the 'time goes back forever' model that is a problem.
Quoting Roland
I think that time has a start and provably so (see https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/5302/an-argument-for-eternalism/p1).
Quoting tim wood
Information is unarguably real and logic is how information is processed. The universe is composed of information thus governed by logic.
So not actually presentism but presentism without a start. I'd agree that would require time that extends backwards infinitely by definition. I wouldn't agree that either option disallows presentism. And further, saying either has a problem doesn't address the experiential issue I'm bringing up. Not to mention that the experiential issue I'm bringing up is all that presentism is when we get rid of unjustifiable metaphysics, after all.
This time speed difference has never mattered at human scale because the difference in time speed between the top of a mountain and sea level is measured in billionths of a second. Thus, we assume that time flows at a fixed speed, an illusion generated by a very limited perspective.
The point here is that when it comes to all issues concerning time, the most likely answer may be the we have no idea what we're talking about.
Why couldn't we simply focus on what we're referring to in "practical," observable, experiential, phenomenal terms? What would be the motivation to posit time being anything different than that?
I don't think presentism and a start of time are compatible. What would come before and cause the start of time? There is nothing to do that, so it seems an impossible combination.
And as I believe the evidence points to a start of time, that seems to rule out presentism.
Quoting Jake
I agree. Hence we must continue to probe this fascinating mystery.
So first, by definition, nothing comes before it. Re causing it, apparently you buy the old "something can't come from nothing" bumper sticker slogan, but that slogan is actually unsupportable. It's just an arbitrary fiat, precipitated by the counterintuitiveness of it.
Quoting Devans99
What evidence?
Aside from that, you didn't address this: "Not to mention that the experiential issue I'm bringing up is all that presentism is when we get rid of unjustifiable metaphysics, after all."
But something coming from nothing, including no time? Sounds unbelievable to me.
Quoting Terrapin Station
There is a strong argument for a start of time here:
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/5302/an-argument-for-eternalism/p1
There is also the Big Bang theory which has time running slower and slower as we get closer to the Big Bang till the point of the singularity when it is unknown what happens to time. It is suggestive of a start of time.
Also the BGV Theorem states in brief that an expanding (on average) universe cannot have a timeline infinite into the past; it must have a beginning.
Hence "precipitated by the counterintuitiveness of it," but the world isn't actually required to conform to what's intuitive to us.
Quoting Devans99
I had a laundry list of objections to that in that thread.
Re the other two things, constructing things with mathematical conventions doesn't actually work as evidence.
But the world appears to follow logical (if not intuitive) rules; hence all the progress in science has been possible. I see no reason why the start of time should disobey basic logic... what you call 'counterintuitiveness' is actually contrary to logic IMO (and the world is logical).
Quoting Terrapin Station
IMO I addressed your objections. What is mathematical about an expanding universe needing a start point? It makes perfect sense just as a logical argument. And we know from experiments that time slows in the presence of gravity; so time starting at the Big Bang (=maximum gravity) is not unbelievable,
I have no idea what you'd think logic is if you think this has anything to do with logic. At any rate, logic, ontologically, is a way of thinking about relations.
Quoting Devans99
For example, the big bang involving "maximum gravity" is really about us playing with mathematics. It's a consequence of our mathematical constructions.
Well, science has done that, and proven that time runs at different speeds in different circumstances.
This information is not particularly practical at human scale, but as we expand the scale (such as is illustrated by GPS satellites) it becomes more of an issue.
When the conversation focuses on universal issues, such as the nature of now, it's not possible anymore to assume the realm of time is fixed as we've long assumed from our perspective at human scale.
It's kind of like the impression we had that the Earth was flat and at the center of the universe. From human scale at the surface of the Earth this seems a reasonable and practical notion. As we gain more perspective, a different picture emerges.
The point is that insofar as we're focusing on what we're referring to in practical, observable, experiential, phenomenal terms, it doesn't follow that (the most likely answer may be that) we have no idea what we're talking about.
Did you know that time runs at different speeds in different circumstances? Do most forum members know that? Do most citizens know that?
If you answered no to any of these questions, there's your proof that we don't know what we're talking about.
The fact that time runs at different speeds is unlikely to be the last mystery about time to be revealed.
Logic involves information; truth values are either 1 or 0 in the case of boolean logic or somewhere in-between for fuzzy logic. The truth values from logic correspond to information. The universe is composed of information. So the universe is logical.
Quoting Terrapin Station
How else can we interpret the fact that the red shift of galaxies increases with their distance from us if it is not that they were once very close together?
You were using "we" to refer to "some individuals but not us collectively"? In other words, a way to say "you peons contra me and the other in-crowd people like me"?
Did you know you were a Hegelian?
https://www.coursehero.com/file/17475102/Chapter16/
No wonder we are not on the same page, it is a very different conception of both logic and reality.
I guess so. A universe where 2+2!=4 is a universe with no information in it:
A. 2+2=5
B. Implies 0=1
C. Implies True=False
D. Implies no information
A universe without information would be a very boring place. So I'd argue for any substantive universe, basic logic and basic maths must hold.
Plus I don't think I bother with philosophy too much if metaphysics is impossible; thats my favourite part.
Not necessarily. Consider the anti-realist's interpretation of time:
Definition: "Now" is a tenseless designator that refers only to actually occurring sensory input (including thoughts and memories).
Premise: The meaning of "physical time" is reducible to sensory input translated according to the linguistic conventions of physics.
Conclusion: Physical time is tenseless.
But even an anti-realist must have an opinion on whether sensory input data from the past/future actually exists in the same sense as 'nows' sensory input data?
Gotta read all the other replies...but your OP seems to be a back door entry to a supposed "proof of 'God'." (Don't have the time right at the moment.)
As I see it...this very instant is ALL that exists.
Yesterday certainly does not "exist"...and the second before right now no longer "exists."
Tomorrow does not exist...and an hour from now does not exist.
The only thing that actually exists is the present moment...and then it ceases to exist and another "present moment" takes its place.
'Only now exists' leads to 'only now always existed' which leads to an infinite regress; IE its can't happen; more than only now must exist.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_time_dilation
From a meaning-as-use perspective, the difference between a past-referring image - such as a photograph of a deceased historical figure, versus a presently-referring image - such as a live-streamed web-cam image, is how those images are used, which is to say that the images activate very different inferences in the mind or behaviour of an observer.
Presumably a realist concerning the past will insist that the difference between these sets of inferences are of a different underlying type in being representative of an underlying commonsensical ontological distinction between past , present and future that transcends an observer's use of the images.
The anti-realist concerning the past will refrain from drawing this ontological distinction, for example because he might understand all inferences as being ultimately present or future referring. For instance, the anti-realist might argue that the very concept of an evidence-based account of history refers to the future possibility of making certain empirically verifiable discoveries by historians and scientists.
At the very least, if commonsense realism concerning temporal semantics is rejected, past present and future in the psychological sense becomes a mixed up place.
The "time runs slower in the presence of gravity" is an unusual statement. I've never been in a place without gravity. I don't think any human has...nor ever will. Gravity is everywhere. The planet Jupiter, far away as it is, exerts gravity that impacts on planet Earth. The gravity of our nearest star neighbors impact on Sol (and all of us)...and the gravity of the Andromeda Galaxy impacts on our galaxy. So I'm not sure where you are going with that.
In any case, you are dealing with questions about the true nature of the REALITY of existence...an area of interest that has perplexed the most intelligent humans who ever lived on our planet. And you are supposing you can, via what you term as "logic"...eliminate a vast area of speculation about that true nature...despite the fact that most of them have not been able to do so.
I acknowledge that I do not KNOW the true nature of the REALITY of existence...and I cannot think of a way to pare it down as easily as you seem to think you have done. There are no things I can say MUST be for existence to be explained...and none that I can say CANNOT BE in order for existence to be explained.
it is POSSIBLE that "now is all that exists...despite what you suppose. (I am not saying "now" is all that exists...I am merely saying it MAY BE all that exists...and I do agree that, intuitively, that seems more likely to me than that it CANNOT POSSIBLY exist.
Do you not concede that there are imponderable that MAY make what you see as cut-and-dry "logic" that dictates as invalid?
Quoting Devans99
If we assume an eternal universe we are assuming that there exists an unlimited amount of time before now. I don't see a logical contradiction in the idea of "no start to a series" when we grant an unlimited amount of time before now. If we agree that 1 day ago is possible and that any day before some day is possible is also possible then all finite amount of days before now are possible.
Typically any attempt I've seen against an eternal universe goes along the line of presuming an infinite number of something exists then asserting infinite is impossible without actually pointing out a logical contradiction giving the assumption they already made.
Quoting Devans99
Infinity means without limit that doesn't exist as a value in conventional math. It's not part of a set of natural numbers therefore not appropriate to treat it as a number in conventional math like "?+1=?". The reason why the number of elements in the set of natural numbers "equals" that of rational numbers is because they defined "equals" when it comes to cardinality to mean possible to completely map from one to the other. In that case it's possible to map all natural numbers to all rational numbers without missing any rational numbers.
Every whole number maps to every fraction like this:
The more intense the gravity the slower times runs I should of said.
Quoting Frank Apisa
There are probably questions we can't answer (maybe 'why is there something rather than nothing?). But where we are presented with a logical absurdity (presentism), we can draw appropriate conclusions; that is just part of the scientific method.
Quoting coolguy8472
But I would argue that it does not matter how much time you allow; if the objects do not have temporal starts, they do not exist. To see what I mean, try imagining a brick without any identifiable spacial start point. It would not exist. Works exactly the same for time as it does for space. As I've pointed out before (https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/5242/infinite-being), infinite existence is impossible for beings so it should be impossible for anything else also.
Quoting coolguy8472
You are saying you can't perform mathematical operations on infinity? IE it's not a number.
Quoting coolguy8472
The point is that the rationals are larger than the naturals. For every natural, there is an infinity of rationals. That's a simple proof that bijection gives the wrong answers.
Google is your friend. I learned this from a science documentary on either Netflix or Amazon, sorry I don't remember which, or the name of the show.
Okay...apparently you will not concede that there can be anything wrong with your assertion that "presentism is logically absurd" and therefore eternalism is "the way things are."
I do NOT KNOW which prevails...nor do I know that the question must resolve into "presentism", "eternalism" or any of the other variational theories regarding time/space...and their impact on the true nature of the REALITY of existence.
It can be interesting discussing different guesses about which seems more likely, although I doubt any of us will get much further than guessing on the question.
Since you seem so sure of your position, though, I'd like to ask you if you see any significant implications of it on the "human condition." If you are correct, as you seem certain you are...are there significant other truths that derive from it?
For example, every perceivable event (or even every conceivable event) might be regarded as necessarily having finite duration in being otherwise unperceivable or unthinkable; yet at the same time it might be conceded that the abstract types associated with such events are nevertheless tenseless.
For example, it make sense, at least to my mind, to insist that the actual Elvis Presley, in the sense of a particular rock-star who grew fat bingeing on burgers while living in Graceland, was mortal. Yet the concept of Elvis Presley must be tenseless, for otherwise how can I currently make sense of the claim that "Elvis no longer exists"?
An informal way of expressing this is to say that the King can never die... Perhaps a better way of expressing this is to say that one's private imagination only acquires tense indirectly through it's practical application in the world, via calibrating it's imagery to the world's public convention of temporal semantics.
when you break it down though we're getting this as the logical argument:
1) infinite time with no starting point
2) cannot get to now without a starting point
3) therefore 1) is false
Not really getting any substance there except a bias against the idea of an infinite regress being the fact. There's no contradiction with infinite falling dominoes if we grant the premise of infinite dominoes, infinite time, and no prime mover. Without the contradiction it's not a false statement.
Quoting Devans99
Not in conventional real number math. It's meant to be a description saying that no upper bound exists. Asking what 1 + "no upper bound exists" makes about as much sense as asking 1 + rainbow.
Quoting Devans99
That's 2 different definitions of equals you're using. Because whole numbers are a subset of rational numbers then there's more rational numbers than whole numbers.
|natural numbers| = |rational numbers| means they have the same cardinality but that's as far as it goes.
Outside of sets I wouldn't use equals in that manner to make predictions about the world.
I would not say I'm 100% sure of my position but there seems to be more evidence in favour of eternalism.
Impacts on the human condition depend what type of eternalism. If time is circular for example, that would mean we experience the same lives over and over again. Not as far fetched as all that; the Big Crunch would fit very nicely with the Big Bang. And there is no place in spacetime apart from the Big Crunch to get enough energy/matter for the Big Bang.
I think the very notion of eternalism is completely incoherent, so I wouldn't say that. :yum:
No, it isn't, because as I've explained to you time and again, stuff either exists always or there was a start to it, and there's no way around that, despite both being counterintuitive.
That's not the problem with eternalism. The problem with eternalism is that it's incoherent with respect to what time is ontologically, and it doesn't get rid of what time is ontologically a la presentism anyway--it merely pushes the same exact thing to phenomenal experience, while unjustifiably positing additional nonsense--ontological notions that are incoherent in general, time-oriented or not--that presentism doesn't invoke.
Yes it is. It leads to an infinite regress which is impossible, so it's incoherent. At least Eternalism is logically possible.
Quoting Terrapin Station
- 'stuff either exists always' is impossible as I've proofed over and over. To exist you must first start existing.
- 'or there was a start to it' which leads to a start of time. Which rules out presentism.
as I've explained to you time and again, stuff either exists always or there was a start to it, and there's no way around that, despite both being counterintuitive.
Not if something always existed.
It's like you don't even understand how English works. Stop repeating the same nonsense over and over after we correct it
Quoting Devans99
No it doesn't, because presentism doesn't posit that time didn't start. Again, this has been pointed out to you again and again.
That seems to lead to "NOTHING EXISTS."
Or...to "There was one thing that existed always and did not have to first 'start existing'...and that 'one thing' gave a start to everything else that exists."
Is that where you are heading with, "To exist you must first start existing?"
And if it is not too much trouble, I would love to read the P1 and P2 that brings you to the C of "Therefore, to exist you must first start existing."
Just want to analyze it.
The only way for something to 'exist always' is for it to exist timelessly; otherwise you have an infinite regress which is impossible.
Quoting Frank Apisa
Points 1-6 in the OP here:
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/5302/an-argument-for-eternalism/p1
It's not impossible, it's just counterintuitive.
One common way to use the term "impossible" is to refer to something that would amount to a logical contradiction--an instance of P & ~P. I presume you're not using the term that way, though. What sense are you using instead?
I'm using it in the way of meaning a logical contradiction. To quote the op:
Quoting Devans99
So here we have something that is a number but greater than any number. Thats clearly a logical contradiction.
Did you get what I've been saying though?
When you say "The number of events in an infinite regress is greater than any number". I would accept that as true when describing the event as having no upper bound but does not mean the number of events equals a number called infinity. That's why point 1 is not a contradiction.
It would be like me proving infinite integers smaller than 0 don't exist this way:
1) The total number of integers smaller than 0 is greater than any number.
2) Which is a contradiction; can't be a number greater than any number*.
*(Infinity is a concept not a number, proof: Infinity, if a number, would be a number X which is greater than all other numbers. But X+1>X)
Quoting coolguy8472
I take your point, but [1] above is still valid. And it leads to [2]. And infinity is not a number so [2] is still a correct conclusion.
IE There is no number that describes the size of the set of negative integers. I know mathematicians have made up a number for size of the natural numbers but that definition leads to ?+1=? and the same craziness with the other arithmetic operators.
1. The number of events in an infinite regress is greater than any number.
2. Which is a contradiction; can’t be a number and greater than any number.
3. But can be a number greater than every other number
4. But there is no greatest number (If X is greatest, what about X+1)
5. So is not a number (from 3 and 4)
6. Contradicts [1] which says it is a number
The error there would be that you're calling it a number in the first instance-- "The number of events."
CoolGuy and Terrapin seem to have a handle on the possible math inconsistencies of your assertions here; I suck at math...so I'll leave that element to them.
I would ask (again) about the impact on humanity of you being correct in your assertions.. If, in fact, "presentism is impossible"...what would be (consequentially), Devans?
Would there be cosmological consequences?
Ethical consequences?
An existential one...particularly of the kind Thomas Aquinas explored?
For any infinite regress, you can number off the events sequentially so there is no error.
I think a main consequence is that there is a timeless, prime mover who created time and the universe.
Okay. Thanks, Devans. I suspected that was where this was heading.
The desire to arrive at the position of a need for a "prime mover"...is so compelling that almost anything can be imagined to be "logical" by someone with such a desire...and "the desire" is so pervasive that it is an exercise engaged in over the years by multitudes. .
Aquinas, a truly gifted thinker, thought his "five proofs" were logical.
They were not.
I think Aquinas might have been more logical if he were not so motivated to arrive at the need for a prime mover.
Not sure if that desire is the case with you, Devans, but if so, the same thoughts hold.
Yes there is an error:
Quoting Devans99
Suggests that you do not understand the concept of infinity. Infinity is not a number.
As far as Aquinas goes, his argument from design is still applicable today. The argument from first cause is still applicable if you believe in cause and effect. It is reenforced if you make God timeless and thus beyond cause and effect.
You are agreeing with me. Infinity is not a number so it cannot stand in for 'number of events' because that expression requires a numeric value.
No, I'm not. Your argument is based on conceiving of an infinite regress as a number. Infinity is not a number. Hence your argument is flawed from the start. There's no logical contradiction if infinity is not a number.
-?, ..., -3, -2, -1
Any time ordered set of events can be arranged linearly like this.
Thank you for your response, Devans.
Except for people who are convinced that a god (a god they already have in mind) exists...none of what Aquinas wrote in his "proofs" have applicability or relevance today...because they are, for the most part, devoid of logic.
My guess is that if you were able to question Aquinas, he would aver that he was not out to prove the existence of his god...but that he was following a logical progression to where he ended up...which just happens to be that his god exists...and exists of necessity.
That is the way with people already convinced of the existence of Aquinas' god.
The premises which get you to where it appears you wanted to go...seem contrived.
"The number of events in an infinite regress" -- there is no number of events in an infinite regress. Infinity is not a number.
"It's greater than any number" -- yes, but it's not itself a number. Again, infinity is not a number.
"Which is a contradiction--can't be a number and greater than any number" --a number can't be greater than any number, but infinity is not a number.
That's the error there.
The argument of the first cause follows just from cause and effect. I fail to see what is illogical about it.
The argument from design holds today; there are about 20 physical constants which appear to have been fine-tuned to life supporting ranges.
If the universe if infinitely old, then the age of the universe is not numeric, by definition.
But it's impossible for a numeric property to take on a non-numeric value; the age of the universe must be a number.
We could for example have a clock in our eternal universe. What would it read? Can't read infinity (because it's impossible to 'tick' to infinity). It must read some finite number IE the universe is finite in time.
If the age of the universe is infinite, it's not a numeric property. I'm repeating what I just said.
I can help you with that.
The end of Aquinas' "argument of the first cause" essentially is: Therefore it is necessary to admit a first efficient cause, to which everyone gives the name of God.
That is about as illogical as it is possible to get for an intelligent person.
I do not give it the name of God...especially capitalized.
It might be a god...if might be one of many gods...it might not be a god in the sense of "God" as written by Aquinas. IT MIGHT NOT EVEN BE.
It is an unknown.
The argument from design is purely gratuitous (as are all the others..)
a) We see that natural bodies work toward some goal, and do not do so by chance.
Do we? I don't. I cannot imagine any learned person doing so. But I am willing to let you propose a syllogism that logically concludes: We see that natural bodies work toward some goal.
b) Most natural things lack knowledge.
Natural things include humans who do...but if we eliminate all living things...I'll buy it.
c) But as an arrow reaches its target because it is directed by an archer, what lacks intelligence achieves goals by being directed by something intelligence.
See my response to "a."
d) Therefore some intelligent being exists by whom all natural things are directed to their end; and this being we call God.
I don't...and do not see why anyone else would OF NECESSITY.
It can just be an unknown.
Fair point, but the argument is strong enough to have one allowing for the possibility of God. So its a pretty good argument.
I think really the argument from design needs to be recast in modern day terms to be applicable. If we look at how unlikely it is that the universe would be the way it is (life supporting) by chance, we can see that there was probably some directing intelligence at work with the creation of the universe. Again one has to make another probability adjustment for the existence of God.
I can make a better one.
The POSSIBILITY of "God" is absolute.
No way around it. "God" absolutely is possible. No need to argue to that end.
Unless a thing is conclusively established as IMPOSSIBLE...it is possible.
So "God" or god or gods...is possible...and in my opinion, is as good a blind guess as the blind guess...there are NO gods.
I respectfully must disagree. Your argument (even if it were for the existence of a god rather than "God")...is gratuitous. So is the implied "need for a god."
It is every bit as "probable" that there was (is) no "directing intelligence" involved...as that there was (is). (Fact is, the "probability" of both is beyond human abilities to calculate.)
If EXISTENCE is infinite and eternal...what we humans see as our existence (the here and now and past) would almost certainly have come to be...BY CHANCE.
Here you would be resorting to the Weak or Strong Anthropic Principle?
BTW, it is possible to estimate the chance of the existence of a 'creator of the universe':
- Start at 50% / 50% for a unknown boolean proposition
- Allow for evidence of the Prime Mover argument: 50% + 50% * 75% = 87.5%
- Allow for evidence of the Fine tuning of the universe 87.5% + 12.5% * 75% = 96.875%
So 97% chance of 'creator of the universe' existing.
I am not resorting to anything. I am merely stating a fact.
I must reject this because everyone knows for certain that 87.6% of all statistics are made up on the spot.
A probability analysis is one step away from being made up on the spot.
A probability analysis that comes up with a 97% chance for the existence of "God"...is zero steps away from being a blind guess that the blind guesser just cannot kick. .
I have no idea what you're doing here mathematically. Why are you adding probabilities together if you want to modify a prior using given evidence?
Furthermore, there is no evidence for either a prime mover or for "fine tuning". Both are merely thought experiments.
My apologies...you did not use "God." I screwed up there.
Allow me to change my earlier response.
A probability analysis that comes up with a 97% chance for the existence of "Creator"...is zero steps away from being a blind guess that the blind guesser just cannot kick.
There...that's better.
Well I start at 50% probability, and then consider each piece of evidence for/against the proposition, modifying the probability for the proposition as I go.
Quoting Echarmion
Well the first is the subject of the OP. Presentism ('Only now always exists') always leads to an infinite regress which is logically impossible. Only by having a start of time and something timeless creating time can we escape the infinite regress. So I think that rather strengthens the prime mover argument (by having a timeless prime mover - he does not need creating because he's beyond time and thus beyond cause and effect). I allowed 75% probability of a creator for this in my calculation.
On the second, there seems to be lots of evidence of fine tuning (for example here: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/fine-tuning/). I also allowed a 75% probability of a creator for this in my calculation.
Well at least I'm systematic about it, unlike you - you are just using gut instinct / taking a wild guess. I am calculating.
Yes but your mathematical operations don't fit. If you want to modify a probability P(X) of 1/2 with a piece of evidence that, say, only has a likelihood of occurring if not X of 1/3, you multiply. You take P(~X) times 1/3, in this case 1/6, and your new P(X) is now 5/6.
Quoting Devans99
But this is an argument. It's not evidence. You cannot assign probability values to arguments.
Quoting Devans99
All the evidence depends on the notion that the physical constants and laws could be different. So in order to treat the physical constants and laws as evidence, you need to assume they are subject to change - for which you have no evidence. Since X * 0 is always 0, the value of your evidence is zero.
According to our current understanding, physical constants and laws are unchangeable (that is their definition), so they always have probability 1.
C'mon, Devans. What do you suppose I am guessing about?
I am not making guesses in this area.
And as for your "calculating"...ummm...you might consider using "rationalizing" instead. Whatever you are doing...it is MUCH closer to rationalizing than calculating.
Nothing wrong with that. Many people do it. But best to be aware when doing it.
No it is for simultaneous occurrence of two events when you multiply.
I am combining evidence which is an additive process.
Quoting Echarmion
I can if I want to perform a meta-analysis of all available evidence and arguments, assign a rough probability to each and then combine them. Its more refined than taking a wild guess.
Quoting Echarmion
I'm not sure I follow you. If physical constants and laws are unchangeable and they are fine tuned for life then surely a non-zero probability of a creator is in order?
I am not rationalising. No-one can be sure if there is a creator or not. A step removed from that is a probability analysis. This is a more refined view of not knowing. You may disagree with the numbers I used but the general approach is sound and better than guessing.
My formula was nonsense, as I just realized. If you want to combine evidence, the formula to use is Baye's Theorem. It's not a simple addition.
Quoting Devans99
Just calling it a meta analysis won't turn arguments into evidence.
Quoting Devans99
The problem is that calling them "fine tuned" assumes they are changeable. You cannot "tune" something that is fixed.
I'm not trying to be a wise-ass here, Devans...and I appreciate your point of view and willingness to defend it.
But what you see as a "probability analysis"...I see as a rationalization for a blind guess that you do not want to acknowledge as being a blind guess. Not sure of why you want to rationalize it...there are all sorts of things that go into blind guesses about whether or not any gods exist.
I take a non-guessing route. Here is my position on the question:
[b][i]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.[/i][/b]
It seems to me that you do.
You are guessing that there is at least one god...and I am going to blindly guess that you think that one god is the same god Aquinas guessed exists...and, sorta like Aquinas, you are looking to make your guess seem to be the product of logic and reason.
It isn't, Devans. Truly it isn't.
Quoting Echarmion
But assigning a % likelihood correct to each argument is one way to approach combining multiple arguments into a single analysis.
Quoting Echarmion
It appears that the laws of physics may break down at the moment of the Big Bang. It maybe that this was the opportunity to fine tune the universe for life.
And yes there is plenty of evidence that the universe was created.
Okay, let's say you are correct there.
But the title of your thread here is "Presentism IS IMPOSSIBLE...and the implications of that are that, a "creator" must exist.
If you are making some subtle distinction between "a creator" and (what you insist on describing as) God...what is that distinction?
This should not be a cat-and-mouse game.
If you say so.
It honestly does not sound that way to me...although a reasonable case can be made that EVERYONE is agnostic...although some do not acknowledge that they are.
Yeah, and you should use "nuclear physics" when possible...or "football strategy" when possible. But the arguments you are using, Devans, is no more "probability" than it is nuclear physics or football strategy.
As I see it, you are doing a combination of guessing and rationalizations...and trying to pass it off as probability analysis.
IF...(make that as large an "IF" as possible) the universe was created...THEN EVERYTHING IN EXISTENCE IS EVIDENCE THAT IT WAS CREATED.
If, however, it was not created...NOT ONE DAMNED THING IS EVIDENCE THAT IT WAS CREATED.
We just do not know...so your assertion that "there is plenty" is nothing but a blind guess.
Well there is a tendency with traditional religion to assign unbelievable abilities to God (the 3 O's). That is not the sort of thing I am talking about when I talk about a creator. I mean purely something that created the universe. So you might call it God but that does not mean it has the 3 O's.
Quoting Frank Apisa
- the prime mover argument
- fine tuning for life of the universe
Are both evidence and are both discussed above. The Big Bang is also evidence of creation.
Then why on Earth would you insist on using God...rather than a god or gods?
Really?
You have no problem using a lower case in your use of "creator"...but when you mention a god...you insist on using "God" which, in our culture, denotes something specific.
The prime mover argument is nonsense. It was nonsense when Aquinas used it...for certain it is nonsense in your arguments. Once you posit ANYTHING that starts movement...you negate any thought that there has to be a "prime mover."
The Big Bang may be evidence of creation of what we human now consider "the universe." Current humans may be as wrong about what "the universe" is as cave men were of what "the universe" means.
It's just a convention that the g in God is capitalised. I mean nothing further by it.
Quoting Frank Apisa
Well the first cause argument is sound I think: Time has a start; was created, by something timeless. That in itself did not need creating (because it's timeless). It's the only way out of the infinite regress at the start of time.
Quoting Frank Apisa
The BB is very unnatural. Starts with a very low entropy which is unnatural. The expansion of space looks very unnatural; no ordinary explosion. Plus natural events always come in pluralities; the BB is a singleton. Very unnatural. Supernatural you could say.
The "g" in gods (which would make more sense if you are meaning "nothing further by it"...is almost always in lower case unless it is the first word of a sentence.
Quoting Devans99
The "first cause" argument defeats itself...and makes no sense at all. If you are positing a "first cause" because everything requires a prior cause...what is the prior cause to the "first" cause.
The "first cause" argument is an insult to logic.
Quoting Devans99
Intuitively, the Big Bang looks very unnatural...and my blind guess would be that future scientists will probably do to it what 20th century scientists did to the idea that our galaxy is the entire universe.
ASIDE: The word "supernatural" sounds unnatural to me. If natural is anything/everything that exists...then EVERYTHING that exists is natural. If there is a GOD...then that GOD is a part of nature. If ghosts exist...they are a part of nature.
I acknowledge that it may be an idiosyncrasy, but I think the notion of "supernatural" is self-contradictory.
https://simple.m.wiktionary.org/wiki/god
So 'God' is capitalised when used in the singular and lower case in the plural.
Quoting Frank Apisa
Nothing is prior to the first cause. It is beyond time (and cause and effect) so does not need creating. It just IS. That is the only way to avoid an infinite regress of time stretching back endlessly.
Quoting Frank Apisa
I agree you can regard God as part of the overall universe. It's just when we come to creation, it's helpful to separate God from the universe he created. So nature would be everything he created. So everything apart from the initial creation is natural; the initial creation being supernatural.
That is not the point of what I said...and I suspect you know that.
From Wikipedia: Jupiter also known as Jove was the god of the sky and thunder
From Ancient History Encyclopedia: Among the many gods of the Romans, Jupiter, the son of Saturn, was the supreme god, associated with thunder, lightning, and storms.
From Greek Mythology.com: Apollo was the son of Zeus and Leto, twin brother of Artemis. He was the god of music, and he is often depicted playing a golden lyre
The "first cause" argument defeats itself...and makes no sense at all. If you are positing a "first cause" because everything requires a prior cause...what is the prior cause to the "first" cause. — Frank Apisa
In proposing a "first cause", you are acknowledging something can exist without a cause. It is a self-defeating argument which apparently you cannot acknowledge.
Okay.
What "God" are you talking about there?
I am proposing a timeless, eternal, first cause because that is the only model that fits the facts. We can't have time stretching back endlessly in an infinite regress; thats impossible. So how do you get out of the infinite regress? You could have 'time2' and have 'time2' create time. But then 'time2' is in an infinite regress. So at some point, you have to introduce something timeless (which means its beyond cause and effect so does not need causing) to escape from the infinite regress.
No...it is not.
No...it is not.
I would do the ethical thing,Devans. I would acknowledge that I have no idea about the true nature of the REALITY of existence...and would not be ashamed to acknowledge that.
I also would aver that the possibilities are probably endless...and may well be way beyond what any human can understand.
What I would NOT do...is to offer scenarios pretending to be ultimate answers to the question.
Thank you for asking.
It sucks that you keep repeating that when we've shown the problems with it.
It makes your posts come across more like a telemarketer . .. or televangelist. Or someone like Trump.
1. The number of events in an infinite regress is greater than any number
2. Which is a contradiction; can’t be a number and greater than any number.
2a. Therefore infinity is not a number
See? You're attempting to find a contradiction then picking and choosing what is false in the premise when you find the contradiction. In reality what you've done is assume an infinite number of events then try to impose a finite number of events to get it to contradict itself.
1. Says that the number of events (in an infinite regress) is a number
2a. Says that infinity is not a number
So that means that the number of events must be a finite number... which means an infinite regress is not infinite.
Another way to look at it is that an infinite regress has no start. So therefore it has no 'next to' start element and so on until the end of the series... its all nothing.
I've put your argument into logical form for you.
P1 - You don't understand the concept of infinity.
... QED.
I don't know. I don't understand infinity either. It's just a logical inference. You think that your calculations using infinity are correct. The greatest mathematical minds in the world have not reached the same conclusion as you. You probably haven't understood infinity properly.
I mean... If you have reached a truly world-shattering conclusion like this, then I strongly recommend you publish, and subject it to peer review, an Internet forum is not going to do it justice.
AMEN!
ANYONE who comes up with a definitive explanation of the true nature of the REALITY of existence...or to any facet of it...owes it to the world to submit their findings to an appropriate journal so that it can be subjected to review.
And "peer review" should not be interpreted to mean those of us who enjoy discussions in Internet fora...people often of limited learning in essentials to true "peer review."
For in practice, (as in the software engineering application of infinite loops), infinity is only used to denote the absence of an a priori stopping condition. But an a priori absence of a stopping condition is not the same thing as failing to stop in practice.
This paradox is related to Markov's Principle:
"if it is impossible that an algorithm does not terminate, then it does terminate."
Sounds undeniable right? But then what does "does not terminate" mean exactly? After all, the phrase "does not terminate" has only ever been uttered in the presence of an event that is interpreted and verified according to a linguistic convention - therefore, according to constructive semantics "does not terminate" must refer to something observable (for example, the C syntax while(true) {...} )
Conversely, an event which is literally absent, namely termination, cannot have caused the utterance "does not terminate". Therefore according to constructivism, "does not terminate" can only refer to the absence of an a priori predictable stopping condition, for example as in the piece of syntax as in the example above, which when actually executed is invariably terminated eventually.
So if "does not terminate" is interpreted to mean "termination is not predictable", then we can rephrase Markov's Principle to mean:
"If the non-predictability of an algorithm's termination isn't predictable, then the algorithm terminates"
Which is clearly a deniable assertion, since that the premise is purely epistemic in nature whereas the consequent is actual. Consequently, infinity should, at least according to constructivism, be interpreted as a purely epistemic notion in reference to finite numbers or iterations.
It is the term 'Potential Infinity' that comes to mind when thinking of computers. I don't have a problem with potential infinity, its 'Actual Infinity' that is the problem.
Good man.
Best of luck with it.
Hope it gets published...and you get some decent reviews.
Let us know.
But is it even possible to define a difference between actual vs potential infinity? Supposing you were confronted by a skeptic who doubted the semantic distinction between these concepts. How can you force the skeptic to accept that there is a semantic distinction without appealing to circularity or falling into infinite regress?
Or potential infinity is like the limit concept from calculus and actual infinity is like an infinite set.
Potential infinity is unbounded, actual infinity is out of bounds.
If in presentism only now exists, is there really any regress to speak of?
How does 'only now exists' lead to 'only now always existed'?
Which journal?
What does imagining "forever" consist of? For example, I imagine walking for some time along a row of trees that has no end in sight. Then I say to myself "this is forever", and then I abruptly stop imagining walking along the row of trees in order to get on with the rest of my life.
But i could have imagined exactly the same thing when imagining potential infinity. Perhaps the only difference, is that in this case I might include my stoppage of the imagined scene as being part of my meaning of "potential infinity".
This seems to imply that the distinction between potential vs actual infinity is arbitrary.
Presentism is incompatible with a start of time so that leads to the conclusion that 'only now always existed' follows from 'only now exists'.
Quoting Isaac
European Journal of Philosophy.
Quoting sime
If you look at the difference between past eternity and future eternity, the the first is a completed infinity whilst the 2nd is not. What I mean by completed is it absolutely must contain greater than any number of days, whilst the 2nd is just extendable indefinitely. So the first is actual infinity, the 2nd is potential infinity.
So presentism has no start of time. There is also no end, right? And no intermediary points?
Using your same logic there's no such thing as "next to" elements to anything either. No matter how close next is to start, (start + next) / 2 is closer than that next is. Given infinite moments of time, is not traversing an infinite series a reality in either event?
Yes, traversal does requires us to traverse an infinite series so we are prone to the paradoxes of Zeno.
This is the problem from my perspective: actual infinity is not a number, it's a flawed and illogical concept and should not be in use at all. But most people believe in infinity so I have to phrase my arguments in terms of infinity some how. I'd prefer to just 'say infinity is impossible implies time is finite' but people don't seem persuaded by direct arguments.
Saying that it is impossible to traverse to the 'next to' element as there is always another element between 'start' and 'next to' is equivalent to Zeno's Dichotomy paradox. But if Zeno's paradox holds, it is impossible for supertasks (tasks with an infinite number of steps) to be completed and therefore impossible for infinite time to have ever reached the present day.
So I'd argue that saying supertasks are impossible implies that time must be both finite and discrete.
We seem to be discussing two infinities now:
- The very small. From considering the points between 'start' and 'next to'. If time was discrete, this infinity would disappear (along with Zeno's paradoxes).
- The very large. The full, infinite extent of infinite time. If we fit a clock to the universe, we could conclude that it is impossible to 'tick' to infinity so this sort of infinity is not possible. Or we can observe infinity is not a number.
The only thing that EXISTS...is what exists. It is a tautology.
What existed yesterday may exist today...but it may not (at least not in the form it was in yesterday.)
There is some interesting stuff being discussed here...but mostly it seems to be an exercise in at least one person INSISTING that his blind guesses about the true nature of the REALITY of existence...HAS TO BE CORRECT.
That kind of insistence seems to me to be at the heart of so much discord on planet Earth. I wish we could get past it.
I am not insisting that my arguments are correct; I think there is a reasonable probability that my arguments are correct and I'm arguing for them. I maybe wrong. Further debate may bring that out.
If what you said it true (no way I can know if it is or not)...
...then your wording should be adjusted to indicate that you are speculating rather than pontificating.
Not trying to give you a tough time here...just pointing out something that is probably obvious to lots of people here besides me.
I'm sorry if it came over as pontificating; I am definitely not insisting my argument is correct; it goes against intuitiveness on the nature of time for one thing. I'm not sure if my argument is correct or not; all I can do is assign a probability that my argument is correct (having taken into account all the other related evidence).
Only you know for sure.
I SUSPECT most of what you are concluding as logical and intuitive is the result of confirmation bias.
I SUSPECT you want to end up at "a GOD exists"...and the only stuff that makes sense and is logical to you...is stuff that ends up there.
We don’t know if there is a God or not. No-one can prove anything 100% either way.
So why do (the relevant, mainly cosmology theories) scientific theories always assume that there is no god? Surely if they don’t know, they would be better off assuming both cases (there is no God / there is a God) and developing theories to match both possibilities.
So I think my probabilistic approach that keeps an open mind on the question as to whether there is a God is appropriate.
Any approach that come from "there are no gods" is as absurd in unfounded as the approaches that come from "there is at least one god" or "there has to be a god."
Both schools should get off their nonsense.
Your "probabilistic approach" is all self-serving, gratuitous nonsense. You can see that in your opposites...but you are blind to it in yourself.
The point I'm making is that we know that the statement:
(there are no Gods) OR (there are God(s))
Is true. So scientific investigation should allow for both possibilities. There is a heavy inclination towards atheism in science that I feel is biasing the direction of investigation. Hardly anyone puts forward theories that are compatible with God... so there is a chance we are collectively heading up the wrong alley.
There seems to be no way to tell which is true...but some people like you will continue to insist your side is true (or more likely true)...and those on the other side of the equation will continue to insist their side is true (or more likely true.)
Both sides are being absurd.
WE DO NOT KNOW THE REALITY...and any estimates are nothing but gratuitous nonsense.
There is a HEAVY inclination towards AGOSTICISM in science.
And that is as it should be.
Give it a try, Devans.
You'll see why I say that.
If those "blind guesses" are correct, does it matter that at least one person insists on them?
A blind guess that at least one god exists...and a blind guess that no gods exist...
...are by their nature mutually exclusive.
One, by any human standard, has to be correct.
But, yes, it does matter, because there seems to be no way to determine which is correct.
I'm playing devil's advocate with the idea of disproven an eternal universe. Other possibilities that I've speculated about that are easier to buy for me personally are:
1) time began at a moment such as the big bang and nothing caused it because it was the beginning nothing comes before the "beginning". And we're here because here, it's just how things are.
2) the speed of time slows to 0 as you approach the beginning of the big bang. From an internal point of view the universe had a beginning and from an external point of view the universe was eternal.
So you mean the 'block universe' view? The universe itself its eternal and in a sense timeless so it does not need creating. With this view, the future is real. The challenges for this view are: the universe shows signs of fine tuning for life and there is no room for a fine-tuner in this model and many people balk at the suggestion that the future is real.
There is also the 'growing block' universe view which may have merit: the past is real and the future is not. I've been personally leaning towards growing block recently but I'm not sure.
If the present is considered to be the origin of one's spatio-temporal coordinate space, then there is no reason to consider past eternity to be any more complete than future eternity.
For example, a constructivist and anti-realist interpretation of time might consider both the past and future to be ongoing constructions that are semantically reducible to sense-data and memory. This view does not imagine time to be a completed and directed cartesian axis, with the past and future occupying opposite ends.
The same is also true of certain models of cosmology, for example the Hawking-Hartle Model that does not single out any point of space-time as being the unique causal-origin.
I think the nature of eternity varies depending upon the model of time:
1. Presentism. Then there is a distinct difference between past and future eternities; the former being complete.
2. Growing block (past and present real). Again distinct difference between past and future eternities; the former being complete.
3. Block universe ((pas, present and future real). Then as you point out, both past as present eternities would be complete.
Quoting sime
I read up on this a little, came away somewhat confused. It seems as though the model has a temporal start in 'real' time but no temporal start in 'imaginary' time? What that means I'm not too sure. What is the justification for treating time as a complex number when it seem to behave as a scaler dimension I wonder.
:rofl:
So is five.
Quoting Devans99
An odd way to phrase it - 'always existed'? That's not how presentism is typically defined.
Presentism makes no claims regarding whether or not time had a beginning. The Big Bang theory is unrelated to presentism.
Quoting Devans99
What infinite regress? Where is your reasoning or argument for this "requirement" of presentism?
Quoting Devans99
This appears to imply that an infinite regress is contradictory (ignoring the fact that an infinite regress pertains to logic, not events), but it does not imply that presentism is contradictory. You have yet to demonstrate that "all forms of [presentism] require an infinite regress". Your above argument appears to be about infinity, not presentism.
Presentism is usually defined as 'only now exists'. 'Only now exists' and 'there is a start of time' are incompatible views (IE what then caused the start of time?) so that implies that presentism also means 'only now always existed'.
Quoting Luke
If 'only now always existed' then we have an infinite regress in time; an infinite regress of events stretching back forever.
How?
Quoting Devans99
This is possibly an issue for 'there is a start of time', but it is independent of 'only now exists'. If we assume that 'only now exists', then what does this have to do with whether time has a beginning or not? The two are unrelated.
If 'only now exists' and 'there was a start of time', what was there to cause the start of time? There is nothing; not even time, not a single quantum fluctuation, in existence before the start of time to cause it. So this is not just creation ex nihilo, this is creation ex nihilo without time too - which is surely impossible?
So the view 'only now exists' implies that 'only now always existed' IE no start of time with presentism.
Furthermore, if this is a problem for presentism, then isn't it equally a problem for eternalism?
I should qualify that type of eternalism I'm talking about assumes that there is something 'timeless' that caused the start of time. That timeless thing is beyond cause and effect so does not need creating in itself - it is timeless, eternal, it just IS.
This is the only way out of the infinite regress of creators (or one single creator in an infinite regress of time) - you have to assume something is timeless else the buck never stops anywhere.
I thought you were arguing the opposite.
Quoting Devans99
Why can't presentism have this too?
I'm arguing for a combination of both a start of time and eternalism.
Quoting Luke
The definition of presentism is 'only now exists'. If something other than 'only now exists' then presentism (the vanilla definition anyway) can't hold.
Note that the 'something other than now' has to be timeless (else we end up in an infinite regress) which further implies that presentism cannot hold (the timeless cannot have a sense of now; the timeless would have to see all 'nows' simultaneously, hence some kind of eternalism rather than presentism).
Why must something other than 'only now exists'?
For example, suppose we lived in a very simple universe in which only the earth and the sun existed. Then looking at the appearance of the sun through a telescope, a presentist and a physicist might both say "We call this appearance of the sun "eight minutes ago". "
In reality, the reason why neither the presentist nor the physicist are prepared to say that "eight minutes ago" is the merely a name for the appearance of the sun, is because "eight minutes ago" is a holistic and open-ended collection of inferences in relation to our entire lives and anticipated experiences that we cannot call into mind simultaneously. Hence we are unable to define "eight minutes ago" in terms of our experiences, even though we are readily prepared to judge some of our experiences as referring to "eight minute ago".
Yet in a sufficiently simple and closed universe, "eight minutes a go" would be definable as an adjective referring to immediate experience, like "reddish", "circular", "rough-looking" etc.
Realists are right to point out that the meaning of past-contingent propositions transcend individual acts of verification or constructions out of sense-data. The anti-realist (including the presentist) should concede this, without feeling forced to conclude that the concept of the past transcends the entirety of experience.
Hence like the logical positivist Ayer, the presentist ought to be skeptical of any particular doctrine of verificationism, but not necessarily the spirit of verificationism.
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/5302/an-argument-for-eternalism/p1
Fair to say not everyone agrees with me... it is only an argument.
I note that you did not answer my question of why something other than 'only now exists'. Assuming there to be a start of time is not really an answer. Consider:
Only the present moment exists (P)
Past, present and future moments all exist (E)
There is either a start to P or not, and there is equally either a start to E or not. Why should this count for or against one but not the other?
Your reference to an infinite regress appears to reveal your assumption that presentism entails not only the existence of the present moment but also the existence of the past. Presentism does not include existence of the past.
But if there is a start of P, what came before it, bearing in mind nothing else exists apart from P?
Quoting Luke
So you would hold that presentism is:
- 'only now exists'
- At some point in the past it was the case that not 'only now exists'
That is an unusual form of presentism. Care to elaborate?
The fact that the past HAS existed means there WAS an infinite regress. The past does not need to still exist... even if the past does not exist then we still know there WAS an infinite regress.
I don't know, maybe your timeless creator of time came before it. What came before E if it has a start?
Quoting Devans99
Presentism makes no claims about the existence of the past. It is your assumption that the past has existed. Only the present moment exists according to presentism.
Then that would mean it is not presentism - because something timeless IE other than only now exists.
Quoting Luke
Presentism claims that 'only now exists'. That can be qualified as a statement that is:
- True for all time.
- Not true for all time.
If you take the first assumption above which I thought all presentist did, then you arrive at the natural conclusion that there can be no start of time (because 'only now always exists')
Presentism and eternalism are about temporal existence. A creator outside of temporal existence doesn't count as a temporal existent.
Quoting Devans99
"All time" for a presentist is only the present moment. If a presentist were to also believe in the existence of the past and the future, then they would be an eternalist.
What would the nature of a creator outside temporal existence be? What would his relationship to time be? Would he see all of time in one go (eternalism)? Or would he just see now? If he just sees now, in what sense is he outside temporal existence?
Quoting Luke
There is a distinction:
- You believe the past exists
is different from
- You believe the past did exist.
Most presentist would not deny the 2nd? And if the past did exist, the conclusion is that the past must have always existed, IE no start of time.
I don't know, it's your idea not mine.
Quoting Devans99
If you believe the past did exist then you believe it no longer does exist and that it therefore does not exist.
Quoting Devans99.
Once did, no longer does. I don't think any inferences can be made from this about whether there was a start or not.
The past does not exist but it provably did exist (else the present would not exist). From the fact the past did exist and from 'only now exists' we reach 'only now always existed'. Unless you are saying 'only now exists' now but 'only now exists' did not apply at some point in the past. In general, it seems the laws of physics are time independent so it seems an odd stance.
Welcome to the forum. Only now is real =presentism is what most people believe I think. Contrast to eternalism (past present and possibly future all real depending on which type of eternalism). I think any biological delay in sensing now does not rule out presentism.
Quoting julian kroin
You are referring to the question of whether entropy is a result of time or time is a result of entropy? I tend to think the first; entropy is a result of cause and effect which is a result of time.
The low entropy of the universe points to a start of time which would rule out presentism.
I suspect that for you, the fact that elephants have tusks...or oak trees grow from acorns...points to a start of time.
"A start of time" is an essential to where you want to go. By now, you should be able to see that...and you should be able to see the influence that predicament presents to clear thinking on the issue.
That aside, however, whence cometh "the low entropy of the universe?"
What is "low" entropy for a universe?
What is "high" entropy for a universe?
What is a moderate...or average...entropy for a universe?
And how did you calculate all this?
It is possible that entropy 'resets' somehow (eg a Big Crunch) so these types of infinite time models cannot be ruled out with the entropy argument.
Quoting Frank Apisa
It's more I'm after the truth than I want to go in a specific direction: the weight of evidence seems to point to a start of time.
Let''s say I don't accept your assertion that the present would not exist unless the past did exist. How are you going to prove that?
Quoting Devans99
"Only now always existed" is grammatically incorrect and incoherent, combining both present and past tenses.. It attempts to refer to a past tense existence of the present moment ("existed"). The present moment does not exist in the past, by definition.
I think you could say that every effect in the present has a cause in the past else it would not exist so therefore the past must have existed.
Quoting Luke
Point taken. What I mean is: does the state 'only now exists' apply to the past, IE did 'only then exist' in the past if you see what I mean. Because if 'only now exists' applies to all time then there cannot be a start of time (because that would be creation from nothing).
That's just repeating the same assertion. It's not proof.
Quoting Devans99
Presentists don't need to accept the assumption about past existence - it's not part of presentism.
1. The effect is in the present
2. The cause must exist
3. The cause must come prior to the effect
4. So 'prior to now' must have existed.
Quoting Luke
I think thats a debatable statement, see here for example:
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/presentism/
I don't see that presentists need to make any commitments regarding cause and effect. Again, it's not a part of presentism. But what I had in mind was along the lines of David Hume's views on causation: that assumptions of cause and effect between two events are not necessarily real or true
Quoting Devans99
Which part?
[i]The ontological doctrine, P, requires supplementation. Consider, for example, a possible world, w, at which the growing block theory of time is true. At the first moment of w, P is true. There exists only the first moment and that moment is present; there are no other moments, and so the past hasn’t yet come to exist. Later on, it will become clear that w isn’t a presentist world, even though it seems initially to satisfy P: at the first moment, only present things exist. For this reason, when being more forthcoming with a definition of their view, moving beyond mere slogan, presentism might more perspicuously be rendered as a view that is always true, if true at all (Crisp 2003: 215, 2004: 19, fn.6, 2007: 107, n.1). So, presentism amounts to the claim that:
(PA) Always, only present things exist.[/i]
At best this could be an argument that infinity is not an integer.
Or a rational, real, complex, vector, matrix... not any sort of number or quantity. Infinity is a concept only and a flawed, inconsistent concept at that.
You might be right; if we throw out transfinite mathematics your arguments might be interesting.
But why should we throw out transfinite mathematics? Because you say so? I'm not convinced.
Maybe you are brilliant. Maybe you are a crackpot. Who's to tell?
?+1=?
implies
1=0
Which is not a promising start for transfinite mathematics.
Even if you hold to multiple infinities, there is something deeply wrong with:
?+1=?
In english, it says there is a thing that when we change it, it does not change. This does not make logical sense.
On that basis alone, I don't see why one ought listen to your arguments about infinity.
In rejecting Hilbert's hotel, you rejected the mathematics of infinities.
Hence, you make errors such as
Quoting Devans99
But we know there are infinite infinities.
What you believe is irrelevant.
The multiple infinities appear as a result of the questionable bijection procedure. Any method of comparison that claims the naturals and rationals are the same size is clearly marsh gas.
Cool. That shows that you are working with an unhelpful definition of infinity. Treat it rather as an unbounded number larger than any real number.
But if so, this is a strawman argument, for there is no indication that presentists are realist about time and causality. I think that a presentist can interpret any statement presently, including any statement asserting temporal realism and eternalism. So in some sense I think the presentist would find debates about presentism pointless. For he would interpret both sides of the debate as a construction of the present.
No such number exists (as proved above).
What exactly is an 'unbounded number' anyway? Numbers have fixed values; that's why they are numbers; that's their defining characteristic... they are not variables.
So one of the (many) problems with infinity is that it's of no fixed value. That plays havoc with maths and logic. How can you have a number without a fixed value?
It is like in logic, if in addition to 'true' and 'false' I introduced a 3rd truth value of no fixed value, say 'true-and-false'. Now almost everywhere I use the 3rd truth value, I would introduce ambiguity, much to logic's detriment. Infinity damages maths like a 3rd truth value in logic would.
I suspect you are making a mistake with that impression, Sime.
I suspect some people, like Devans for example, do it in quest of a goal that must be reachedfor some reason.
In Devans case, I think the goal is to get to, "There is a GOD."
He seems to be doing it by pretending not to be attempting to get there.
He is saying that he just wants to get to "The universe is a creation." (One avenue is by discounting presentism...which he considers proof that "the universe" is not eternal/infinite...and therefore (?) is a creation.
From that, he will extrapolate that there has to be a creator...and from that, I expect he is heading for an Aquinas close of, "And that 'creator' all people call God."
I may be wrong, but if there were a way to obtain the truth on the matter, I would bet huge bucks on it.
You might find this an interesting read: http://fas-philosophy.rutgers.edu/zimmerman/privilegedpresent.pdf
I think the only precedent for time we have is space. Thats the only other dimension. In space, 'left' and 'right' are real just as 'here' is real.
I think the author's defense of common sense was the weakest part of the article, honestly. While the gut instinct is our best starting point for most ideas, it shouldn't be our final destination.
Time is one of the few philosophical concepts I have no real opinion about. I'm not sure if the past exists or the future, but I guess I do think NOW exists.
If you're interested in more reading, this young man has an interesting approach as well:
https://www.academia.edu/25441363/TIME_TARRIETH_NO_MAN_Presentism_and_the_Argument_from_Relativity
After reading that I wonder if it's possible that time can stretch and therefore make presentism compatible with relativity theory.
What do you take this to mean? I'm unclear on what the "always" is supposed to add.
I note that the author uses an example wherein time has a beginning, but this is only to illustrate his point. The author is not making a case for a beginning of time.
Anyway, I think the statement (PA) is true from the presentist perspective but false from the eternalist perspective (with or without the "always"). Therefore, I'm still none the wiser about why you think presentists need to hold beliefs or make assumptions about past existence.
The fact that the present only exists has ALWAYS been the case. So as we go back in time, still only the present exists. So the present ALWAYS existed. That implies no start of time.
Then if there was a start of time; that would be creation ex nihilo of a sort - creation without time itself which seems impossible (note if there was a 2nd time we would just end up in a infinite regress of time so its fundamental / base reality time I'm talking about).
I'm pretty sure that is called going into the past.
Quoting Devans99
If you say so.
Quoting Devans99
I guess that also rules out your creator of time then...?
With eternalism something other than 'only now' is allowed to exist so there is something 'there' to create time. A timeless first cause (which does not itself need to be created because it is beyond causation). It's either that or belief that infinite regresses are possible.
But you just said "creation without time itself...seems impossible". It's as though you have one rule for eternalists and another for presentists.
With eternalism, there is something else beyond time there to do the creating of time.
Even though creation without time seems impossible?
Stuff happens in spacetime without time: photons get around without experiencing time. So change without time seems possible; hence timeless creation maybe possible.
The way I see it, the basic history of the universe must be one of these two alternatives:
- An endless infinite regress in time of some sort
- A timeless first cause
I am pretty sure the first is impossible; not so with the second.
Then you must allow the same for presentism, and your previous argument fails.
Quoting Devans99
What makes the first impossible?
But with presentism, when you take away 'only now' (IE the start of time), there is absolutely nothing else left in existence period. So its creation ex nihilo. With eternalism, its not creation ex nihilo - there is something other than 'only now' to do the creating.
Quoting Luke
One argument is that in an infinite regress of events, each event in the regress makes sense on its own, being preceded by its causal event. But when the system is viewed as a whole, it has no first event, so none of the events in the infinite regress can exist.
Yes, you just made an argument for creation ex nihilo with your photons example. Otherwise, it remains the case that "creation without time itself...seems impossible".
Quoting Devans99
This remains susceptible to your former argument: "creation without time itself...seems impossible (note if there was a 2nd time we would just end up in a infinite regress of time so its fundamental / base reality time I'm talking about)."
Quoting Devans99
I don't follow why no events could exist without a first cause. This seems nothing more than an expression of your assumption that a first cause is necessary. It does not explain why it is necessary.
What I mean is:
- creation without time and anything else is impossible
- creation without time but with something else is possible
Quoting Luke
The first event defines the second, the second the third, and so on down the chain. If you have no first event, the whole of the rest of the chain must be undefined.
Why can't creation have been just sparked without a reason? It would be like an axiom. When you ask why, why, why, why, (assuming no infinite regress exists to this) eventually one would expect to arrive at an "is because it is" type answer. So maybe creation happened without time and anything else.
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/272129
So my argument is things like quantum fluctuations creating the universe would lead to infinite density with infinite time so that combination is impossible (I conclude that time has a start).
If presentism is true then 'only now exists'. If there is a start of time that leaves absolutely nothing left at all - no time even for quantum fluctuations to fluctuate - a true something from nothing. You could still adopt it as an axiom that this is possible but it seems illogical. My gut feeling is you can't get something from nothing (0=0). Energy is conserved.
Then there is the question of whether something like time needs a deliberate act of creation. Time is a singleton whereas all natural things seem to come in pluralities. That suggests deliberate creation. I don't think it is likely that dimensions are created by natural processes.
There are also signs that the universe is fine tuned for life. That also requires a first cause (or a gigantic coincidence).
When I suggest nothing coming from something, I'm implying that time is not infinite also. In order to conclude that nothing exists if now doesn't exist, you would need to prove nothing exists besides space and time which you obviously don't believe yourself. There may be higher dimensions beyond time and space.
The universe does not seem very finely tuned for life to me. Otherwise you'd think SETI would have discovered life somewhere else by now. Most life cannot survive outside of Earth's atmosphere without protection for more than a few seconds. Most of the observable universe is a vacuum. That's a lot of billions of light years of space that's not finely tuned for life.
Presentism seem to preclude such higher dimensions - by saying 'only now exists' - it says to me that all things that exist, exist in the present.
I think the first cause / no infinite regress argument extends to higher dimensions. If there are more time dimensions out there then the start of time argument applies to the top level time dimension (the first time).
Quoting coolguy8472
I think the failure of SETI is just due to the vast distances involved; we can only just image (large) exoplanets as tiny dots in our best telescopes; how on earth are we meant to pick up their TV broadcasts?
There is lots of empty space I grant you, but the matter is used very well: stars for energy sources and planets for living surfaces. Each star has a habitable zone around it, not sure that can be improved bearing in mind the inverse square law (which I think is a fundamental constraint on how the universe could be designed). The universe looks like a giant laboratory for evolving life to me.
An interesting question is to ask yourself: if I were God, how would I have done things? The same or differently. I thought of maybe a giant computer and hosting all life on that for example. Maybe if there is a much better design possible, we can conclude that it is not fine tuned for life?
Maybe time is the same thing as motion. I'm not sure how you'd work that into presentism vs eternalism points. But the way it sounds like it would work that way is things that exist right now exist right now. Things that exist a few moments ago, still exist but they're slightly modified due to motion. So now exists, everything besides now exists to a certain extent but a lesser extent the further back in time you look.
'Time is just motion' is equivalent to 'infinite time' in terms of my arguments (if it does not exist, it is in a sense infinite, if you see what I mean).