The Universe Cannot Have Existed ‘Forever’
We can imagine as a thought experiment an eternal god in an eternal universe who has been counting ‘forever’ - what number would he be on now?
Forever has no start, so the god could not have even started counting - the lack of an initial state invalidates all the subsequent states - a system’s initial state determines all subsequent states. 'Forever' has no initial state so is impossible. The god would not be counting. The god would not even exist (he never started existing). For ‘counting god’ we can substitute any system we care to mention. For example:
- An eternal clock. It would never have started keeping time so it can have no current time
- An eternal oscillating string. It never started oscillating so its current state is undefined
- A eternal quantum field. It never started fluctuating so it has no current state
- An eternal universe. It has no initial state so no current state. It cannot exist.
The above conclusion can be verified a second way by considering that the god cannot be on a finite number (because then the universe would have a finite past) and cannot be on an infinite number (because it is impossible to count to infinity) so all possible numbers have been ruled out - only remaining possibility is the god is on UNDEFINED.
There are also quite a few other arguments that the universe cannot have existed ‘forever’:
- The low entropy of the universe
- The Big Bang
- BGV theorem
- The fact we are not in Equilibrium
- The impossibility of the actually infinity
Forever has no start, so the god could not have even started counting - the lack of an initial state invalidates all the subsequent states - a system’s initial state determines all subsequent states. 'Forever' has no initial state so is impossible. The god would not be counting. The god would not even exist (he never started existing). For ‘counting god’ we can substitute any system we care to mention. For example:
- An eternal clock. It would never have started keeping time so it can have no current time
- An eternal oscillating string. It never started oscillating so its current state is undefined
- A eternal quantum field. It never started fluctuating so it has no current state
- An eternal universe. It has no initial state so no current state. It cannot exist.
The above conclusion can be verified a second way by considering that the god cannot be on a finite number (because then the universe would have a finite past) and cannot be on an infinite number (because it is impossible to count to infinity) so all possible numbers have been ruled out - only remaining possibility is the god is on UNDEFINED.
There are also quite a few other arguments that the universe cannot have existed ‘forever’:
- The low entropy of the universe
- The Big Bang
- BGV theorem
- The fact we are not in Equilibrium
- The impossibility of the actually infinity
Comments (209)
What's the alternative?
How would that work?
Matter was either created at the start of time (see the Zero Energy Universe Hypothesis) or entered time at the start of time. Both possibilities are consistent with the Big Bang (the obvious candidate for the start of time).
What would cause the start of time? Shouldn’t a beginning have a place?
What is time, anyway?
There are pre-Big Bang cosmologies too but the most successful is Eternal Inflation and that has a definite start so would also be compatible with a start of time (its eternal in the sense of future rather than past time). Other less successful cosmologies (like CCC) have the universe as eternal in time so are obviously not compatible with a start of time.
I’ve got myself confused. I was thinking along some other lines that I can’t even make sense of now.
My problem is with the idea that the universe contains everything. If it can’t have existed forever, if it was born, then it was born from something.
Through the Big Bang?
Given birth by the wider universe.
"An eternal clock. It would never have started keeping time so it can have no current time" But a circular clock can keep going forever.
It should also be known that our current models only accurately predict the perceived beginning of the universe down to a certain size where the big bang is a cloud of super dense and super hot matter and energy and it was like this for awhile before inflation took place. The singularity is just a theory as it has been noted that at a certain density the laws of physics are different, especially during this pre inflation phase.
Time is also relative to where we are. Our 12 hr clock is based on how earth relates to the sun. So our version of time here on earth is also cyclical and phasic. The sun is our clock really.
I don't see how god comes into it really as I don't believe in a creator god.
For me, the problem really rests on whether you can prove nonexistence. See, physicists always get into this weird problem when they try and discuss the beginnings of the universe (Some still prefer the cyclical universe because of this problem) Wherein they always try to explain a nothing with a something. Without a creator god, what can bring about a something from nothing? The god itself would have to be a something and therefore there wasn't nothing, there was god.
There was never a time outside of the beginning of time for there to be no time. Therefore time has always been. Same with the universe, there was never a time where there was a nonexistence and then existence. So whether the universe is cyclical or not, the universe has always been here. It's the only place that can have an always.
Quoting Mark Dennis
I am just using a god as a thought experiment to demonstrate the non-sensical nature of the universe existing 'forever' - an eternal clock can be substituted instead. I did not really want to get into a discussion of God on this thread as people get emotional and it clouds the issue.
Quoting Mark Dennis
Matter was either created at the start of time (see the Zero Energy Universe Hypothesis) or entered time at the start of time. Both possibilities are consistent with the Big Bang and neither is 'something from nothing'.
Quoting Mark Dennis
I think that we should distinguish between spacetime (which seems to have come about at the Big Bang) and a wider, timeless universe (which seems likely to have given birth to spacetime via the Big Bang). Human experience says that time is required for events to happen. But more specifically, spacetime is required for spacetime events to happen. It is likely that of all the things in the wider universe, the human race is only aware of a tiny fraction. So events beyond spacetime I think are possible - they would just be of a different nature that is not understood by the human race.
"(which seems to have come about at the Big Bang)" Where did you learn this? See this is what I mean, In order to explain a universe of spacetime with a beginning you've used a something (A wider timeless universe) to explain it. So no nothing. Where is the start supposed to have been?
Let me just explain how your argument is appearing in full.
"The universe cannot have existed forever"
"Why not?"
"Because it started in a wider and timeless universe that does exist forever."
Do you see the issue? Quantum fluctuations, false vacuums, all are states of something and are describing a before the big bang. Spacetime events before the introduction of spacetime supposedly.
We need to also be realistic about what the big bang really was, a great big destruction of evidence. If I drop a nuclear bomb directly onto a house, how would you ever know it was there? If there was a whole established universe here before the big bang would we be able to know that when we can't see anything beyond the cosmic microwave background radiation? So because we have beginnings, because our histories are full of this idea of a creation, our physicist buy into the dogma that our universe must have once been in one of the most illogically possible states. Nothingness. The simplest answer really is that there was something here before the big bang as nothingness is so incomprehensible. Proving the existence of a non existence lack of state of affairs and events is quite possibly the biggest exercise in futility our species has set out on.
Quoting Mark Dennis
I think that matter and energy need a temporal start to exist in spacetime. For example, a matter particle has position and momentum as state. The current state is determined by the previous state of the particle. If there is no first state (because it existed 'forever') all the subsequent states are undefined and the particle cannot exist.
Quoting Mark Dennis
I did not say there was ever nothing - I said that the universe cannot have existed 'forever' in time. The timeless universe is timeless - it has no start or end - it just 'IS' - it has permanent existence.
It exists as an uncaused brute fact. For anything to exist at all, causality requires at least one brute fact. Brute facts cannot exist within time (Principle of Sufficient Reason - everything in time has a cause/reason) - so they must exist without time - else there would really be nothing.
Are you saying that ‘forever’ is a quality of time and therefore it cannot exist in timelessness?
Your argument is literally when you boil it down to it's simplest form. "Things start because things start."
To clarify, I mean spacetime cannot have existed 'forever' - nothing can exist 'forever' within time - if you disagree with this statement, you should provide a counter argument to the argument I gave in the OP.
But something (the wider universe) can exist permanently outside of time - I say 'permanently' rather than 'forever' as the second term has no meaning in the absence of time.
I’m not disagreeing about anything, I’m just exploring.
Quoting Mark Dennis
I think I was meaning that if there was a start then it suggests something greater, or earlier in existence.
So, there is no such thing as forever, because it doesn’t have an initial state. And if it did it wouldn’t be forever.
That's the crux of my argument.
Do you understand my point yet? That you are using a circular arguments wherein the principle that supports the singularity big bang model is being used to argue for it. If the principle isn't true and the latter explanation is then how would you ever know when you dogmatically only argue from this principle being true.
I'm done now. I'll leave you guys to your circular arguments about physics. Next time try and do philosophy though otherwise you're just going to annoy people on here when you don't understand what is being said to you.
Right there is the crux of your fallacious reasoning. For you everthing starts with god. In another attempt you failed to prove god existed. Now you try to prove that creation happened.
You are a very smart arguer, but you have very serious shortcomings (as reflected by your theories) in your qualification as a theorist or philosopher.
How do you imagine an eternal god? BECAUSE WHATEVER YOU DO, YOU CAN'T GO BEYOND IMAGINATION WHEN YOU TALK ABOUT AN ALLEGED GOD. THERE ARE NO REAL OBSERVATIONS TO ESTABLISH WHAT AN ALLEGED GOD IS LIKE.
Has your god eight legs and seventy-seven heads? Or what? You are too small to imagine an eternal god, and I am too biassed against god-beliefs to even start. So how is your proof going to work? What specifications does your eternal god have that you KNOW it has, not what you speculate it has or what you speculate it must have? Please don't answer this, this is a rhetorical question. Meaning, that you can give any attribute to an imaginary figure, and if you believe that's true, then you are not a philosopher, but a religious person. And religion is the single biggest obstacle to philosophical thinking.
You deny the existence of something that has been forever, ONLY on the premise that everything must have an initial state. But something that has been forever, does not have an initial state. To not be able to internalize how that is possible is plain limitation in insight.
Everyone needs a person to support him or her in his or her going agaisnt the flow, otherwise the person loses heart. If no such support can be found, one can manufactue one. On the forums at least. I've seen it happen over and over again.
My post here is neither here nor there as far as the argument is concerned. This post of mine is outside of the argument, and does not apply to it. I am fully aware of that.
In case you hadn't noticed myself and god must be an atheist are really trying to help you understand and are posting substantive comments that cannot be broken down by short and poor responses to it.
The only one with a plain limitation on insight is you as you cannot see how "The principle of sufficient reason proves the existence of the initial state of the universe." Also can go this way "The initial state of the universe proves the principle of sufficient reason.". Which means that both concepts rely on the other to be true in order to be true themselves.
I'm not even disagreeing with your conclusion, just your argument for it. Thomas Aquinas believed in god and still disagreed with others arguments for gods existence if he perceived them to be logically inconsistent.
Wait people really do that?! That's kind of weird.
Why would you say that we have to be determinists?
Yes, that is true, but initial state does not have to be a start state. It could be any point in a continuing series of states. If today's state is taken, then we could deterministically calculate the state as of tomorrow, AND still have a state preceding today's state, such as yesterday, last year, ten billiion years ago, any time ago.
Your deterministic approach does not exclude and infinite chain of states predicating other states. Initial, that is, starting time is NOT a necessary feature of determinism.
You don’t read very carefully. The above statement I made was confirming to Devans99 what I believed he was saying. I’m not pushing any argument. As I said I’m just exploring ideas.
I cannot see one post addressed to me by you.
That and I mixed up who I was replying to a lot because I'm new to this particular forum.
If you go back to the beginning if this thread you’ll see that I don’t actually deny the existence of something that has been forever. I actually questioned the denial of that idea.
Someone help me here.
Also, "Someone help me here." is a strange reaction to the accusation, any normal person would be offended and deny it outright. Are you switching accounts right now?
I don't think that we can just assume determinism though. At least not in a "proof."
My argument does not rely on the PSR, but I think an altered version of the PSR is supportive of my argument:
- Everything in time has a reason
- Nothing can be the reason for itself
I think this is more reasonable than Leibniz's original and it points to a minimum of one 'brute fact'. I'd argue that brute facts can only exist outside of time.
Quoting Terrapin Station
Even if reality is not fully deterministic, there is still a relationship between prior and subsequent states - if the prior state does not exist then the subsequent state does not exist.
So for a non-deterministic eternal particle, I would argue it has no start (because it existed 'forever') so it cannot have a start+1 state, a start+2 state, so by induction, it can't exist.
Well, just in the sense that if there's not a prior state of x, there can't be a subsequent state of x, sure. That's because of what "prior" and "subsequent" refer to.
Quoting Devans99
If it "has existed eternally" then sure, those words conventionally refer to there being no start to it. And indeed it wouldn't have a starting state then, because of what "start" refers to. But this doesn't imply that something can't have existed forever. It just wouldn't have a "start + n" state, because there's no start to it. Again, that's what "existed forever" refers to--there's no start.
Everything in time has a reason
- Nothing can be the reason for itself
This argument here actually supports a cyclical universe that has been here forever, as the universe cannot be the reason for itself. See we are understanding what you are saying, the problem is you aren't making yourself understandable. I'm telling you 100% you are using a conclusion as proof of your proposition and then using it to prove your conclusion. It's logically inconsistent and fallacial.
I disagree with this notion entirely that everything has to have a reason. I think you are trying to ascribe human meaning and reason to a non human universe. Humans apply reasons to things but these same arguments for someone who first pushed a stone down a hill are so antiquated they are comical to me now.
You should read Cohens Preface to Logic. Maybe it will help you see why your argument doesn't follow logic for me.
In general: 'to be X something has to start X' works for everything - counting, talking, spinning, oscillating and ultimately existing. Infinity does not have the ability to cause something to exist 'by magic' - to exist, something has to start existing.
Quoting Terrapin Station
I think that the start of time was the Big Bang. Matter either came into existence via the zero energy universe hypothesis or matter entered time (at the point of the Big Bang). Neither qualify as 'something from nothing'.
As I already mentioned, a cyclical universe still needs a start of time - something has to set the 'now' cursor of time in motion around the circle of time.
Then why are you using the confusing term "Universe" To mean the totality of everything. Now your argument sounds like you are saying the universe came into existence because other parts of the universe created it? Still Something from bloody nothing. Stupid.
"As I already mentioned, a cyclical universe still needs a start of time - something has to set the 'now' cursor of time in motion around the circle of time."
No it doesn't. Where does it say this exactly? Load of rubbish.
If you think that works for everything, then it's necessary for you to have things always existing.
I think it's because he has the aim of arriving at a particular conclusion (a religious conclusion), and the arguments are basically ad hoc means of getting to the conclusion he wants.
I should have said: 'to be X in time, something has to start X'.
Things outside of time do not have a temporal start or end, they are not created or destroyed, they just ARE.
Quoting Terrapin Station
Deism is technically a non-religious belief. Because of considerations like the fine tuning argument, it seems to me that deism is the most likely explanation for the way things are, that's why I pursue it.
I am actually on the rocks with regards to Monotheism Vs Polytheism. There are arguments that there must be a first cause / a brute fact - so it maybe possible to prove there is at least one god. But disproving the existence of many brute facts (IE potentially many gods) is impossible I think. Disproving existence can only be achieved if it is possible to show existence results in a contradiction. Try disproving the existence of unicorns for example... it's impossible.
So I think deism will always remain a belief rather than something that can be proved.
Quoting Brett
Quoting Brett
Quoting Brett
Look Brett, you are starting to irritate me. You did not even with one word indicate that you are just affirming what had been said by your alleged alter-ego and indeed there is no agreement by you. So please don't smear on me that I don't understand what I read. I read you very well, and it is your ineptitude if you can't make a difference for your readers between what is your opinion and what is an opinion someone else said and which you only repeat.
Either you are intentionally misleading with your posts, or else you are moving the goalposts, or else you are in ineffectual writer.
Please don't blame me for any of the above.
Why not? There is nothing that happens without a cause. Every cause has an effect. Do you doubt either statements?
Show me a cause that has no effect and show me an event that had not been caused. Please. Then I'll abandon determinism.
Being "outside of time" wouldn't imply anything about creation or destruction. It would only imply something that can't move/change at all as long as it exists "outside of time." If it's possible for there to be existents that can't move/change at all (it's not clear how that would be possible, but let's suppose it is), that could be possible for any arbitrary existent, right?
If they are outside of time, they can't interfere with temporal events. So they can't create anything.
If they can create things in temporal world, then they are not outside of time.
You are self-contradicting. You are really, but really trying to prove something that is not so.
- you tried to deny infinity
- you tried to prove the existence of god
- you tried to prove that creation happened
And all you achieve is an endless argumenting with those fools who deem you worthy of replying to you.
How do we know that? You're stating it as if it's just a given, or as if it's a logical principle--and it does need to be stated that way if it's going to be used in a proof. You can't appeal to empiricism for it if you're going to state it as a principle of logic.
Quoting Terrapin Station
It is a challenge I admit. I think that the human race may have a limited understanding of reality - we are familiar only with spacetime and 'spacetime events'. Of everything in reality (and my argument is that there is a wider reality than just spacetime), it maybe that humans understand only a tiny fraction of it.
So the arguments for a start of time imply that timeless change must be possible - at least one causally effective agent seems to be required - but I cannot claim to understand how it works. It is argued sometimes that God exists in the 'eternal now' - our usual conception of effect following cause may not hold:
- God IS formulating a plan for spacetime
- God IS creating spacetime
- God IS finished creating spacetime
All these event, in some sense, from the perspective of a timeless being, might be happening concurrently.
"Timeless change" is a simple contradiction on my view. Time simply is motion or change.
If you're saying that God is timeless, then god can't formulate, create, etc. anything. A timeless entity can't do anything.
Remember that I don't even think that talking about "nonphysical" things makes any sense, but I'm trying to pretend that it could make sense.
If it makes sense to talk about "nonphysical" things, I don't see why nonphysical things doing something, changing, moving in some way wouldn't be time.
My argument is the existing 'forever' in time is not possible. Introducing a second, similar type of time (call it time2), leads to the same conclusion - existing forever in time2 is impossible. This regress of times must terminate with some sort of non-time like environment in which both brute facts are possible and change is possible. That is a challenge I admit, but IMO that is what the logic points to.
Maybe God is non-material and so does not need anything like time to effect change.
It could be the timeless environment is like growing block universe maybe. So part of it has permanent, unchanging existence, but it can 'grow' to allow change of some form.
Again, change is time, so we'd have time in that scenario. It wouldn't be timeless.
The only way to get around that is to pretend that time isn't simply change/motion, but then we're "mystery-izing" time in an ad hoc way in order to reach a particular conclusion.
Another possibility is future real eternalism - then change is just an illusion and everything has already happened in some sense - a completely static 4D brick of a universe containing God, us and spacetime. But its a hard sell...
Change can't be an illusion, because the "illusion(s)" change.
In other words, say that someone wants to say that my typing this sentence, phenomenally, to me, is really just an illusion. But the supposed "illusion" is changing--I'm aware of typing "In" and then "other" and so on. If that's changing, then there is change--whether it's an "illusion" or not.
If we only perceive part of reality (now) but all of reality actually exists in some unchanging form (past, present, future) then change would seem to be an illusion - nothing changes in reality - it is just what we are looking at that changes.
If you think of it as all existing and then there is a 'cursor of now' that moves across time - and we always see 'now' rather than past/future then it could be argued that we are not changing - the only thing that changes is the 'now' cursor - everything else is static.
Are you positing us as something separate from reality?
Imagine sitting still in front of window watching the world go by. The view changes but you do not. So we would be part of reality and unchanging - but we'd see the ever changing 'now' view of the world.
Okay, but then the view is changing, and the view is part of reality, isn't it?
But at any given moment, we are static and our view is static.
Then there is the next moment, the view is different but we and the view are still static.
So nothing is changing from the perspective of a static 4D universe.
But something is changing from some perspective, otherwise there's not a next moment with a different view.
But the past person and past view are static and the current person and current view are static - when considered from a 4d spacetime perspective.
Okay, but that doesn't get rid of a flow of time, because the "cursor of time has moved"
That model might not be right - we always think it is 'now' so maybe a cursor of time is not required, then everything would be completely static.
My phenomenal experience is not at all static. So that would be a problem with that theory. ;-)
Maybe your phenomenal experience is static. I don't know. That would be weird, though.
Also the whole alter ego thing, that's called engaging in bad faith. You shouldn't need to create a new account to provide backup for yourself if your arguments were any good. But they aren't, they are just confusing pseudo intellectual wordplay. None of us are going to give you the reaction you want, its obvious you are just wanting someone to come along and go "Wow this is amazing, how come someone never thought of this before?" But the truth is, there is nothing so profound or unbelievable that it hasn't been said by a philosopher before. I'm paraphrasing Descarte there. So trust me, no one is going to swoop in and give you this reaction and if they do then they aren't a philosopher, it's your mother.
So we can comprehend only now but it is a different version of us comprehending a different now. But all is still static from a 4d spacetime perspective.
I am having difficulties expressing what I mean... does the above make any sense?
Yes, but what I experience, my nows, are dynamic, they're not static. Again, maybe this is just me, but it's me nevertheless.
If you plot a 2d graph of space and time, then from the perspective of a point moving through spacetime, its position is always changing - so the point would always think the world is dynamic. But viewed from the perspective of looking at the graph, all is static.
If there's a point "moving through spacetime" (I'm putting that in quotation marks because the "time" part is identical to moving; spacetime isn't some sort of thing or container that other things are in) then there's something not static. Whether things could be static from some perspective is irrelevant. Something exists that isn't static.
But movement just becomes an illusion when you regard time as a spacial dimension - imagine a series of photos laid out in front of you that show the same scene photographed at different times - all is static to you - yet anyone in the photographs would have experienced change.
Devans99 has twisted and turned words against all reason, logic, and pure intution. Where he was shown to fail, he said, "well, maybe the human mind is not capable to comprehend this." Well, maybe, but we talk about things we can support, not about things that are far-flung even as fantasies, conjectures or speculations.
Devans99, your theories don't add up, don't measure up, and you are wasting our time and yours on this website. You are not knowledgeable, you deflect criticism by not understanding it, and you speak generally no more than nonsense.
I can't make you disappear, Devans99, but I will encourage those whom I esteem not to engage you, because you don't play the game fairly. By that I mean that you don't adhere to logic, to evidence, even to speculative possibilities. You deny infinity, you insist on start time of the universe... then what happened five minutes before time started? Your theories can be shot down by a five-year-old, and it's only your incredibly huge ego that carries you through these discourses.
Terrapin Station, you can prove me wrong just naming one effect that has no cause, and just naming one cause that has no effect.
I did not ask you to disprove me, or to prove that determinism is wrong. But until you establish that it is wrong, I have no reason to believe you.
If you insist that things happen without a cause, show me one. I can show you millions causes that have effect and trillions of effects that have causes. You can't show even one.
So what's so hard about this? You want to exclude the possibility of determinism on an a priori basis? Be my guest. Show me your logical proof that determinism can't exist due to purely logical reasons.
Otherwise please let me be. If you want to believe the impossible, that's your business, and I shan't interfere. But please don't call me out on believing the intuitively reasonable and the empirically not yet disproven.
Those days are over. A number of us have given you well-reasoned counter arguments. They did not do the trick. Now is the time to waffle, and show our teeth, for you do not belong here.
The "illusion" of movement contains movement in the illusion, doesn't it?
In other words, phenomenally, something like a fly, say, moves across my field of vision. We can call that an "illusion." The illusion features movement, doesn't it?
As I said, as a logical principle, it can't be supported by empirical data.
In the proof, we're not saying, "We never observe phenomena with no cause," we're saying that there can be no phemomena without a cause.
"There can be phenomena without a cause" isn't at all inconsistent with "We never observe phenomena with no cause." If there can be one thing in some far-flung corner of the universe that occurs, just one time, with no cause, then "There can be phenomena without a cause" is true even though "We never observe phenomena with no cause" is also true.
But "There can be phenomena without a cause" can't be true if "There can be no phenomena without a cause" is true.
It's important to understand the distinction there, and to understand why empirical data can't support the logical principle.
So please show me this exception. I have nothing but asked of you for this, and now you lecture me on how one such instance invalidates determinism.
Be my guest. Invalidate determinism. I am all ears. Show me that example.
You are only adding words to this conversation. What you wrote had already been agreed on by many people, including you and me. You don't need to lecture me on that. But if you talk the talk, then walk the walk. Please, for the Nth time, show me that example. Please don't elaborate more on this, because from what I see I know as much as you do, and you know as much as I do. Just show me the instance of no causation. Please. No more lectures. No more philosophizing. Just an example.
Im a little perplexed here as well, are you/would you objecting to something along the lines of
“Everything we know so far supports cause and effect, so unless there is a specific example showing otherwise I will accept cause and effect as an axiom.”?
Your stance seems to be that cause and effect is dubious, that we do not have very good reasons to look at things that way and should be accounting for cause and effect not being the case (sometimes) in as well. Isnt that a bit like always having to account for an invisible unicorn, cuz hey, its possible?
Or is this one of those teaching moments where you are trying to invoke self realisation rather than just state your point (sorry, couldnt think of a way of saying that without sounding a bit snarky, hopefully you see thats not how its intended)?
Not sure if troll is the right term for him, but the method for dealing with him is the same. Do not feed.
I also wouldnt say he is ignorant, just dogmatic and as someone else said perhaps narcissistic.
Most importantly, I do not think he argues in good faith, not interested in an exchange. Its all Ad Hoc, again as someone else mentioned.
If we switch to one spacial dimension only then on a 2D graph, this could be represented by a point (the stationary observer) and a line (the fly moving across space).
But the 2D graph is completely static.
You're not understanding me. What I was objecting to was something stated as a logical principle.
I'm avoiding a discussion of whether we experience causality and what does or doesn't count as an example because that's a different topic.
And what would that have to do with the fact that there is something that is moving or changing?
I get you. So you avoid discussing something we are discussing. You just want to talk about it as a logical principle.
Whether I understand you or not, is immaterial. You raised an objection which you can't defend. So you decided to talk about it as it were a principle... a Kantian principle? A Form?
I even forgot what we were talking about. You said I can't come from a point of view of determinism. I say you are trying to oppress me, and tell me what I can do and what I cannot do.
I can come from a point of view of determinism because there is no alternative to it. You say there is; I asked you to show it to me; you failed at showing it to me in principle and in action how non-determinism is possible.
Now you want to talk about principles? How do you talk about whether we experience causality without talking about it? If it's a different topic, which you want to avoid, then why did you raise it?
And you declare that I don't understand you.
Well, in a way you're right. I don't understand anyone who wants to talk about the principle of something without talking about that something.
The defense of the objection is that there is no support of strong determinism as a logical principle. The relevance of talking about it as a logical principle is that that's what Devans99 is appealing to in his proof.
Sure there is support of determinism (there is no divisions between determinism such as "strong" "weak" etc; there is determinism, period). Everything that happens has a cause; every cause has an effect. this is true in an a priori world, and our world emulates that principle. Is it possible to get outside of this chain? I say not. Nothing can happen outside of it. You say this does not hold.
If you want to destroy the principle of determinism, you either name a logical process in which causal chain is impossible, or else show an example of it. Until then you must accept it. By "logical process" I meant a process which is necessarily true in all possible worlds.
You can do neither. So why are you still insisting that determinism is principle not logically sound? Or not logically proven? I don't even know what you mean when you say "support of a logical principle". What do you accept as support and what do you reject as support?
Do you accept reality as support or reality is not enough evidence for support?
Do you accept or not accept as a support the system of a logical series of events in which every action has a cause, and every action has been caused?
WHAT OTHER ALTERNATIVES CAN YOU OFFER?
I daresay none.
So why is this, I ask, for crying out loud, why is this strong mental resistence in you against determinism? You are the follower of some sort of religion? Or a of a cult, or of a kabal, which has among its dogma that there is no determinism?
Not everything that DEvans99 says is crap. You can't use things that he says right against him.
Concentrate on things he is wrong about.
But in my humble opinion the best choice of action for you would be to take Mark Dennis's frustrated example, DingoJones' REASONED example and my common sense example, and stopped talking to Devans99 altogether.
Quoting god must be atheist
"Strong determinism" is basically the Laplace's demon version. The notion that the precise location, momentum, etc. of every particle in the universe causally dictates the future location, momentum, etc. of every particle (and there are only particles).
"Weak determinism" is any of a variety of views that are less stringent--typically they allow for at least some (non-0 or 1) probabilistic phenomena.
So weak determinism is not a philosophical principle, but a phenomenological event applied to some observers of a deterministic system.
In principle, there is only one determinism. No systems exist beside determinism. Those who talk about weak determinism mix up the system as is with the system as it is observed. Those who talk about weak determinism don't even have the insight to realize they are doing a switcharoo... they deceive themselves without even knowing it, by ignorance and by lack of enough insight, and the deception itself is that they take their perceptive capabilities and imbue it on reality.
First of all, the theory was first published by a Belgian Jesuit priest, who was also a scientist, by the name of Georges Lemaître. He published his 'theory of the primeval atom' in an obscure journal in the 1930's and it was initially ignored. But as the idea became more widely circulated, it was resisted by many scientists, because it sounded uncomfortably close to 'creation ex nihilo'. So much so, that by the 1950's, the Pope began to refer to it as a validation of Catholic doctrine! However, this caused Lemaître acute embarrassment, as he believed it was completely wrong to appeal to science in support of religious doctrines, and he persuaded the Pope's science advisor to ask His Holiness to refrain from mentioning it in this context in future - which he did.
However, the very notion that the whole universe exploded into existence in a single instant from an infinitesimal point can't but sound mystical. The hard question is, why did the event culminate in exactly the kind of way that lead to the development of stars, matter, and eventually living beings, when, with very minute differences in a very small number of key parameters, none of that would have happened. That is the 'fine-tuning' issue, and it's a difficult question.
Quoting Mark Dennis
There is a school of thought that basically asks, 'if it can happen once....' that maybe THE Big Bang was really A Big Bang, and that the universe might indeed expand and contract through regular cycles over cosmic time periods. And that sounds very much like the idea of the 'eternal return' that was characteristic of ancient Hindu cosmology.
As to whether any of these ideas can be utilised to argue for the existence of God - well, I think Lemaître's attitude is always worth bearing in mind. However, I also think that the so-called 'fine-tuning argument' is not going to go away, and that appealing to the notion of the 'infinite multiverses' is a pretty phony way of avoiding it. Perhaps it's technically un-answerable, but regardless the fact of the many uncanny parameters that must be exactly so in order for anything to exist at all is hard to explain away as mere coincidence, and seems to suggest a 'first cause'.
But it's also worth remembering that Kant's fourth antinomy of reason is
If it's beyond the reach of science, then it's also beyond the reach of reason.
I don't use the qualifiers as an endorsement. The idea is simply that since there are different views, it's a courtesy to give some indication of which idea I'm referring to, when it wouldn't be clear from context, as an aid to anyone who might be reading a post.
Anyway, your view strikes me as having faith in (strong) determinism, but I'm not sure why you'd have such faith in it. If someone were to point out phenomena that are commonly believed to be ontologically (not epistemologically) probabilistic, you'd insist that it's only an epistemic issue, but I'm not sure why you'd insist that.
But none of those can be observed. (Save for the weak arguments and the weak minds.)
So even in empirical trials determinism is only of one kind. Itself.
So you accept there are differences, without observing and figuring out why there are differnces... leads to the weak logic I talked about, meaning, miixing up knowledge with reality. The knowledge of a limited mind to predict the future while the future is fully predictable.
Very smart to not use qualifiers. You can't be convinced of the sterngth of an argument against your point, much like an ostrich which has its head in the stand can't use his eyesight to see a predator approaching.
Not that I am a predator. But logic is coming to get you and if you don't face it, and hide behind intentional ignorance, then watch out.
Your argument is that if there's some F (some type of thing) with property ?, then all G, H, I etc.(all types of things) must have property ??
And you seem to be quite happy and comfortable accepting that there are WRONG different views. I am not.
This is what philosophy is about. To beleive the true views and to reject the wrong views.
You are of a special kind of philosopher, who rejects the basic premise of philosophy: to find the truht and to love the wisdom hiding behind false views.
You don't believe that there are other views, or wrong views?
I am sorry you lost me there. You are talking nonsense, do you realize that? If you make symbols, and want to communicate with those, you must denote their meaning, and the reltionship between them.
What you wrote is sheer gibberish to me. Sorry.
Because it's the truth? Have you ever entertained that possiblity?
This is not my argument, to be honest. You wrote something I don't understand. If you want to verify what my arguement is, this following is what it is:
Every casue has an effect. Every event has a cause. Therefore determinism is inevitable.
Good question. I believe there are other views, and they are wrong. You seem to indicate that there are other views that are not wrong. Specifically about determinism.
If the views are wrong, they ought to be rejected. You believe we should hold on to wrong views and elevate them to the argumenting strength of not wrong views? This is what you give as an impression.
Those who declare there is weak determinism, declare that their observation is not complete, and their own predictive capacities are reduced to probabilities (if that's what you are insinuating, Terrapin Station.)
It is not wrong of them to realize their observation powers are weak.
But it is NOT determinism they talk about. It's their obeserved perception of determinism in action that they talk about. Yet they call it "determinism", withe the qualifier "weak".
So they use the expression "determinism" in the expression, with a qualifyer. Whereas they don't mean determinism. They mean their perception of determinism.
The wrongness is therefore in the usage of the term "determinism" when they struggle to express something that is related to determinism, but is not determinism.
That is, they use the expression "determinism" both for determinism and for observational power of determinism.
And to use the same word to mean so different things is wrong.
The letters, including the Greek letter, are variables. The capital letters are variables for types of things, which I did explain in parentheses. The Greek letter, ?, was a variable for a property.
But let's use an analogy instead.
There are Asian and there are African elephants.
Does this imply that there are Asian and African Gila monsters?
The BB does not have to be creation ex nihilo - there are two options that get around that problem:
- The Zero Energy Universe Hypothesis (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zero-energy_universe). Energy/matter was created in the BB in exchange for negative gravitational energy - thus the books are 'balanced' and the conservation of energy is respected.
- Energy/matter entered time during the BB. So conservation of energy is also respected.
There is some debate as to the size of the universe at the time of the BB - anything from a point to infinite has been proposed.
Quoting Wayfarer
I think there is a potential problem with the cycle length between successive 'bangs':
- Static cycle length. Would seem most unnatural. Would imply fine tuning.
- Increasing cycle length. Cycle length would be infinite by now (with eternal past time). The universe cannot contract infinitely. Expanding infinitely contradicts the Big Bang being 14 billion years ago - so both options are impossible.
- Decreasing cycle length: Universe should be all one big black hole by now - equilibrium.
- I disagree with the thesis on grounds of vagueness: at least one necessary being seems to be required and it cannot belong to spacetime (as it seems to have created spacetime). It must be part of a wider universe beyond space time.
- I disagree with the anti-thesis: it seems we need at least one necessary being (one brute fact to act as the tip of the pyramid of causality). To be a brute fact is to exist outside of time - uncaused and permanently existing.
The movement is just an illusion if you treat time like a spacial dimension - with that way of thinking about it - there is no movement.
Parmenides' viewpoint has some advantages - Zeno's paradoxes are less of a problem if there is no motion and it agrees with modern physics representation of time. It's also the simplest model barring presentism (which is impossible IMO due to the start of time). But it clashes with the senses - I do not feel like a 4d spacetime worm for example and I only sense the future.
So I'm still befuddled with the nature of time.
The illusion exists, doesn't it?
- At time t0, I see a completely still image
- At time t1, I see a different completely still image
- It is a different version of the brain at t1 to t0, but it remembers the image at t0, processes the image at t1 and incorrectly (according to eternalism) interprets the difference as movement.
So it's claiming that there's no literal phenomenal illusion of movement? "Interpreting the difference as movement" is not supposed to be phenomenal but conceptual or something? I'm not sure how to make sense out of saying that phenomenal movement isn't actually phenomenal movement. That seems like we just don't understand what "phenomenal" even refers to. And it seems to make the term "illusion" nonsensical.
We could also ask how we phenomenally get from t0 to t1 (as well as how we go from t0 to t1 in terms of memory, so that memory can function from one to the other).
I think that the claim is that the illusion of movement exists in our minds. When the image changes, the afterimage of the previous moments remains as an impression in our minds to which the current moment is contrasted, giving an illusion of movement.
We cannot see the future. Would it be an evolutionary advantage to see the future? If it is not predetermined, it would be but then we could not see it (and eternalism would be false).
If the future is predetermined, then there is no evolutionary advantage and it would just be depressing/distracting to see the future. But evolution itself does not make a lot of sense in the context of eternalism.
QM Many Worlds has multiple futures, if that is combined with eternalism, we end up with a dazzling array of predetermined futures, each of which is extant. Maybe we cannot see the futures not because they are not real, it's just we don't know which of the futures to see. Or maybe these real futures are different from the present in some physical way such that we cannot sense them.
Seeing the past has a more marginal evolutionary advantage so that is maybe why we can't see it. Or it could be again that there is something different about the past as opposed to the present and so we cannot sense it.
Eternalism has many problems, probably more that presentism I grant. But IMO, vanilla presentism can't be right. Maybe growing block universe? Or something completely different?
I want you to be clear on whether you're claiming that there is phenomenal movement or not.
Ah, okay. It would be interesting if someone is claiming that there can't be phenomenal movement (as part of an illusion if they want to say that), to see just how they'd try to argue that how things seem to one, phenomenaly, is not in fact how they seem. (Note that it would not be saying that how they seem is not how they are--but how they seem is not how they seem.)
I'm not sure I follow. The illusion is what is perceived - so it must be identical to what is perceived?
Phenomenally--in other words, re what's present to mind/experience, there is movement. For example, when we have a fly in the house and we watch it flying around (again, at least in terms of what we experience). We see it zip across our field of vision. Whether we want to say that that's an illusion or not, whether it's what's really going on outside of our phenomenal experience, it's our phenomenal experience nonetheless. It's what appears to be the case, regardless of whether it's really the case.
So if someone is trying to argue that we don't actually have that phenomenal experience, that there's not that appearance, I'm not sure how they'd do that.
Do you think you might be a bit out of your depth?
Or, let the basis be eternal, as a 'must be', given that 'Nothing' cannot be (much less be productive).
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/306828
So, then, there had to be a causeless eternal basis, as there can be no opposite to being. An 'IS'. Case closed. What can be inferred about that which can't have any point of specification as to its nature?
That's the way the logic seems to point to me - an infinite regress is not possible, infinite existence in time is not possible, but there must be something permanent/necessary else there would be nothing in the universe at all.
Quoting PoeticUniverse
There is a fair amount that can be said about what the uncaused cause is not: not infinite, not omnipotent, not omnipresent, not omniscient.
What can be said about what it is:
- It needs to be causally efficacious (in terms of the prime mover argument, it has to be able to move itself - but thats just an analogy).
- It's timeless, so maybe somehow it's timeless environment 'extends' when it causes something to happen.
- The fine tuning argument points to some sort of intelligence
- It should be benevolent
- It has some substantial measure of power to be responsible for the universe
Then there are imponderables: Is it material? Is it unitary?
Yes, it needs be necessarily permanent/eternal, due to that there is something here and to that existence has no alternative.
Quoting Devans99
It cannot be still, else there would be no happenings; it has to be energetic.
Quoting Devans99
It would be unable not to; no stillness.
Quoting Devans99
It 'IS', as Totality, and could be called the 'IS', it never having had a 'was' and never able to have a 'will be', these definitions being in terms of it ever having to be the All, at heart.
Thus, it transforms, as ever energetic, but 'transforms' is an 'in time' word; so, let me better say that its transformations are in it all at once, as 'everything', the state hinted at by its eternalness being unable to have a design point, forcing it to not be anything in particular (presuming it as 'everything').
I add that it doesn't have any information, for the information content of everything would be the same as that for the nonexistent 'Nothing', that is, zero.
In transforming (please excuse the time reference or look at it from our time-like view of passing through it), it needs to remain basically the same, akin to topological operations, and in these transformations it indeed matches both its nature of not being able to remain as anything particular and that our universe never remains the same as anything particular—not even for a trillionth of a second (but maybe for the Plank time), it continually transforming/'changing', this to our point of view.
Quoting Devans99
Or we are in a more workable-for-life portion of it, where we'd also have to be.
Quoting Devans99
I don't see why it would have an emotional system.
Quoting Devans99
Yes, although not an earned power, but a 'must have' power'.
Quoting Devans99
It would have to be 'One', as all there is. Deathless (as well as ungenerated), all histories could get traversed again and again. "I'll be back!" says Arnold.
Timelessness + change is a challenge for the argument I'm forwarding - things point to a timeless first cause but how exactly does that work?
I agree: one model that might work is eternalism - it lives in an 'eternal now' with everything happening simultaneously. We as creatures of time see a much more limited now.
The other model I thought of was it somehow 'extends' when it causes change. Or finally, it could be non-material in such a way that it has no need of dimensions like space and time, but can still be causally efficacious.
Quoting PoeticUniverse
I'm not sure on this - a being without any information - is such a thing really possible? Without some form of information, it could have no mind.
Quoting PoeticUniverse
If it has intelligence, it may equate information with goodness (in the same way we use information to avoid boredom). Hence the creation of the universe - more information to satisfy a huge, idle mind.
Quoting PoeticUniverse
The logic seems to point to the existence of one, timeless brute fact. How do you rule out more than one? That seems an impossible task (disproving the existence of something is tough).
When one derives a truth, the proof (the "work") isn't needed, although it would be nice.Quoting Devans99
I've always been for presentism, and like Lee Smolin's take, but I may have to change, due to the besieging relativity of simultaneity and what we've discussed.
Quoting Devans99
'Intangible'/"non-material" and the like I throw out, for how could they then talk the talk and walk the walk of the material?
Quoting Devans99
Minds like ours occur in it, as a consequence of the everything going on. In traveling deeper into it, or, as we would more likely say, in our future, higher minds than ours would develop.
Quoting Devans99
I define 'Totality' as not having anything outside/before it. And what a brute it is!
Here is a fun but insightful story I wrote about eternalism/presentism being/becoming that I then turned into a video:
Now Here; No Where
I have sympathy for the presentist viewpoint - it is the natural model that agrees with our senses. But as you say, SR/GR says time does not behave in a natural/intuitive manner. Full on eternalism is hard to swallow whole. Growing block universe is a bit more palatable. My feeling on time is that I am deeply confused...
Quoting PoeticUniverse
I think that quantum entanglement might suggest something more to the universe than we are familiar with and that something could also be causally efficacious within our more familiar universe.
I agree non-material is a stretch, maybe of a different material to us.
I've started watching your video - looks interesting and thought provoking - I will try and watch the rest of it...
It probably shows that relations are more primary than distance. Space, then, is not something in itself, but only the span of the relations/connections.
Or we spatialize some great distance when there really isn't any.
Should we continue about the Great 'IS'?
If so, I'm going to replace my use of 'transform' with 'transition' to better capture the idea.
The 'IS' would be the one and only permanent thing, it necessarily being in a continuous transition, and thus never existing as anything particular, even for an instant, as befitting its necessary nature as eternal in that there is thence no point for it to have been designed, leaving it to be not anything in particular, as if it were everything, even.
Properly speaking, only the 'IS' “exists” and all the rest “happens.”
Its transitions are the 'happenings' and they are all temporary. It may be such that we can say that the 'IS', being permanent, cannot be co-substantial with the temporary happenings, but would be more like co-terminal with them.
Something must stitch together all continuous transitions to account for the 'IS' as a unitary existent. The 'IS' must somehow remain the same even as it transitions.
The 'IS' must have an eternal essence that dictates the kinds of, although not the number of, its transitions. This limit is what we would call the laws of nature, although a bit myopically, for the essence of the 'IS' makes the world what it is and not what it becomes.
This condition of the 'IS' would roughly be analogous to a topological space that allows for an infinite number of forms as subject to the limitation that any form must be returnable to some original form.
The objective herein is to allow for unity in multiplicity.
Could be. Distance is very malleable in SR for example.
Quoting PoeticUniverse
That's a point that is hard to tie down. It seems we need at least one permanent thing else there would be logically nothing in the universe. Ruling out more than one permanent thing would be quite a trick, although I think one permanent thing is the natural/likely option - if there is some form of cause effect going on then it leads to a pyramid shape - with a unitary 'IS' at the tip.
The fine tuning argument also appears breaks down: our environment appears fine tuned implies a fine tuner. The fine tuner's environment must be fine tuned, implies another fine tuner. An infinite regress pursues until we get to the 'IS' (first cause) - who cannot have a fine tuned environment because there is nothing to do the fine tuning. Yet the 'IS' is... I hate to have to appeal to the anthropic argument but that seems the only explanation in the end. However, it is remarkable that there is something rather than nothing at all so perhaps that remarkable question has to have a remarkable answer.
Quoting PoeticUniverse
I guess I'm still torn between the 'timeless' environment being something like growing block universe or being more like eternalism (or maybe something completely different). Focusing on the first option:
Maybe the 'IS' creates something time-like with its first action? So it has existed permanently in a static, timeless state and then another dimension is added to it's universe with its first action? In this model, it seems that there must have been a first, uncaused action - actions/happenings cannot stretch back 'forever' (forgive the tense) - that leads to an impossible infinite regress. Likewise, there must have been a first thought. Both an uncaused first action and uncaused first thought seem like strange ideas but there do not seem to be any alternatives (for a non-eternalist model) - no first though/action leads to no universe.
Returning to eternalist option, it is not the case that there would be a first thought / action - all actions would be in some sense concurrent for the 'IS' - it would exist in the 'eternal now'. It would presumably be the case that all the following hold true simultaneously (in some weird non-temporal sense):
1. The 'IS' is existing on its own
2. The 'IS' is creating the universe
3. The 'IS' is finished creating the universe
Maybe it's like a stack of cards - there is an eternal 'card' that represents [1], then an action is performed that leads to another card [2]. So like an eternal stack (from computing). The first eternal stack frame is [1], an action leads to the addition of another stack frame [2]. The stack would not ever be 'popped' though.
Does this maybe suggest that eternal is not a boolean state? Somethings can be 'more' eternal that others?
How do we square eternalism with the Big Bang - what looks like a creative, dynamic process and all the other creative, seemingly dynamic processes in the universe (evolution for example)? If eternalism holds then something has to be eternal and it could be argued that the most natural/optimal thing to be eternal is what we have (Big Bang / evolution).
Quoting PoeticUniverse
But then performing an action (in our experience) changes that which performs the action. Maybe performing an action causes 'IS' to grow rather than change somehow, that might fit better with eternalism. Or maybe it leaves an old version of it behind and change results in a new version.
Quoting PoeticUniverse
The 'IS' may well be something very alien to us. I've mentioned non-material - that might be seen as a get out of jail card and also as something of a cop out - its hardly scientific.
So something more like the eternalist model. The eternal 'IS' has permanent existence concurrent with the whole of creation. It cannot be said to have a first ‘anything’ - it is fundamentally not a sequentially organised being of time.
Quoting PoeticUniverse
Potentiality is not something different in each object/event, but has a unity in multiplicity. It is existing on its own, and is necessary to the existence/creation/development of the universe.
Potentiality is inherent in all aspects of the universe in time, across time and yet remains eternally unchanged - it is only awareness of it in time and with respect to each object/event that changes. Its latent quality is directly related to the awareness of its existence in relation to objects/events. Once we’re aware of that existence, we interact with it as inherent potential: we assume it was always there.
Potentiality is both scientific and non-material - although it is rarely discussed as a unitary concept (unless you count the dismissive/passive nature of descriptions in Aristotle/Aquinas). Potential energy, for instance, is ‘something’ that is scientifically predictable, and yet is ‘nothing’ in spacetime until it effects change. In quantum physics it can be predictable in limited conditions, but is unmeasurable in its purest ‘form’.
Since presentism has some problems, we are leaning toward eternalism herein. If we take Parmenides’ view, as Einstein did, time is completely left out and with it, seemingly all Happening, the 'IS' reduced to an impenetrable, immoveable and never-changing geometric object; however, we still have to admit that there are happenings and thus account for them.
From our viewpoint, we can't really tell the difference between presentism and eternalism.
Thinking, for example, seems to be a dynamic process, but it could have been all laid out beforehand in the Great Block, like everything else. Smolin, though, would say that qualia are always only about the 'now'.
Anyway, the 'IS' is the unity and the happenings are the multiplicity. We can look at our greatest findings and also at ourselves to see if this theme is reflected, as it well ought to be. The problem of the one and the many is perhaps the most difficult in metaphysics.
The Theory of Relativity demonstrates the undeniable unity of reality, as the spacetime continuum, while Quantum Theory demonstrates the inescapable discrete multiplicity of plurality, so in these these two working theories we have some confirmation, one pertaining to the large and further away, holistic view and the other about the close-up detailed view.
We humans, too, reflect the same scheme, in that we take in scenes further away as a whole, probably processing them in parallel, while the close-up can get examined in detail, in a serial process; so, again, these clues confirm.
Consciousness is also a unity, built from the individual constituents' qualities, via higher and higher brain modules.
Thoughts, too, ever transition to the next thought.
More later, perhaps. My keyboard needs help.
One thought is an eternal realm for the ‘IS’ and a temporal, presentist, realm for us poor mortals. But it seems the eternal realm must come ‘first’ and the temporal realm be part of the eternal realm, so it’s not a natural model - more natural is for our realm to inherit the properties of the eternal realm. Or equally depressing, we have the ‘IS’ as a non-material, eternal being who needs no container but has created a transitory, presentist world (selfish). Both options have disadvantages though: SR/GR and Zeno’s paradoxes are not addressed.
Quoting PoeticUniverse
One model I’ve always found interesting is circular time. It receives some theoretical support from closed time-like curves in GR and the Big Crunch hypothesis. There is a possible way that might allow a compromise between the seemingly dynamic processes around us and the static nature of eternalism:
- It starts out as growing block theory. The first time around the ‘circle of time’, the future is not real, only the present and past (which is built up dynamically as a growing block)
- On the next time around the ‘circle of time’, the past circumnavigation of time is replayed, as if it were a movie being replayed on a computer
If we anthropomorphise the ‘IS’, then this scheme might be seen as quite an effective way to build a universe that is eternal for its occupants. It is an Occam’s Razor design for eternal life, at least when compared to traditional views of eternity like heaven and hell - which seem to present insurmountable implementation difficulties.
How that fits in with an eternal ‘IS’ I’m not too sure. It would have to be causally prior to the eternal, circular realm in some sense to be its creator. So some things would have to be 'more eternal' than others.
I wonder if we could imagine the ‘IS’ as some sort of limit process. The way 1/n tends to zero but never quite gets there. The ‘IS’ would eternally be ‘greater than zero’, but would take a long time to materialise in its full form. Like music ‘fades out’ at the end of the song, a sort of eternal ’fade in’ for reality. But it’s not really an eternalist model and I’m personally not keen on infinite processes.
Quoting PoeticUniverse
There is a strong hint of eternalism from the quantum easer experiment.
I return to the possibility of a non-material ‘IS’ that is not bound by time or space. If we could see reality from a perspective of a photon, then it would not experience time or space, so maybe spaceless and timeless is not completely far fetched. The ‘IS’ has to have no start in a temporal/sequential sense and also has to be causally efficacious. I’ve thought about various structures (basically open and closed topologies) but at present, the nebulous ‘non-material’ remains as the only candidate I've come up with. Sherlock Holmes used to say when all of the probables are eliminated, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truth. Don’t think we are quite at that point yet though.
But anyhow, the nature of time has defeated all comers for thousands of years, so we must not get depressed about not solving it in the last few posts! Thanks for the conversation!
It appears that for anything to be, it first has to be possible (to have potential), although the timeless has no 'first', about which I don't know what to say.
For those who want spontaneous events amid 'Nothing', it always useful to remind them that they are referring, knowingly or not, to a capability/potential/possibility, and that's what's eternal, and that thus they didn't really have a 'Nothing'.
Yes, as I've mentioned recently, although overall we remain mired in the temporal. or, if we are really traversing the eternal's pseudo-temporal we can't jump to the other parts of it, and there's no real difference since what makes no difference is no difference. It's like that live music versus mp3 music is still music, for the message is the same no matter the messenger implementation difference.
For now, I'm trying to follow Sherlock in following what been derived here in the last few days rather than getting too much into 'maybe' offshoots.
What more to say about the eternal? Well, it has no first anything, no first kiss, no first star…
If, say, in a time view, we note that a star requires previous stellar material to achieve its stellar ignition, we wonder how the first star got going, that's a puzzle, but in the eternalist view, all is at once and there is no first or last star; somehow, everything and anything needed is already there, for the eternal is its own precursor.
What else can be derived from the impossibility of 'Nothing'? It's just as impossible for there to be spacers of nothing between particles, and so if there's not anything between them, then they are adjacent. Perhaps all is field, as Einstein suggested.
Everywhere we look, we see but the natural. Nothing appears out of the ordinary after the repeat occurrences, such as Quasars, which may have been thought as miraculous the first time.
— If, say, our Earth was far from the Goldilocks zone, then we could claim magic, but it isn’t; it is where it could prosper.
— Without our moon, the Earth would rotate like a top in and out of freezing and scorching zones, which would prevent or at least greatly hinder plant growth. There would be thousands of such conditions required, but the universe is very large, and so someplace had to be full of them.
— Bacteria formed our atmosphere over two billion years by expelling oxygen, which to them was a poison. The oxygen race could then prosper.
— Without even looking back, such as for the above, we already know that the useful events, to us, had to have happened and we can thus even surmise what many of them were before they get discovered.
— One of many near extinctions, the Permian, wiped out 95% of all the species, including the dinosaurs, apparently opening the field for the further evolution of mammals. Such doesn't appear to be intelligent design.
—Or, the supposed Supernatural ever gets constrained to act and produce exactly like the natural would do—evolution, for example.
— If the Supernatural and the Natural were truly two distinct categories then how could they interpenetrate and affect one another without speaking the same language?
— Etc.
I sticking with the all Natural, as probable.
This is a common view derived from Aristotle/Aquinas. Are you sure of the direction of causality here? If we are aware that an object possesses potential, then where did that potential come from? If it is only a consequence of the presence of energy/matter, then how did this energy/matter come to be present except through potential?
And yet time is what we experience. I’m going to recommend Carlo Rovelli’s ‘The Order of Time’ here again - it explores the relativity of time to this point you have currently reached in suggesting eternalism as the ‘only’ credible option (from a physics standpoint), and then proceeds to rebuild our notion of time in the light of quantum theory (or more precisely quantum gravity).
I’m of the view that that the Big Bang and the initial conditions of the universe are probably unnatural. The supernatural evolvement goes no further than setting these initial conditions for the universe though. To me it’s as if a giant intelligence computed the requirements for a life supporting universe and designed some sort of device/bomb that would result in such a universe.
The BB seems unnatural - it is a singleton, natural events come in pluralities. It had unnaturally low entropy to start with - the CMB radiation is isotropic to one part in 100,000 - and thats 400,000 years after the BB - nothing natural has such low entropy. The BB itself appears engineered to keep the universe out of gravitational equilibrium. Space itself is expanding in an unnatural manner to do this.
The standard model appears fine-tuned to support life. The strengths of the forces (strong nuclear force and electromagnetic) and masses/charges/other characteristics of sub-atomic particles all have to be set to close to their current values in order for atoms to hold together; if the forces were different, atoms would not form or be stable, or if they would form, it would only be the simpler elements (no carbon so no life).
The apparent fine-tuning of the atom allows the wonderful range of matter we experience in the world today (the elements all 100+ of them). Then we have the remarkable chemical bonding process that give rise to the hugely diverse range of chemical compounds in the world, many of which are essential for life.
The atom seems like a toolkit for construction of advanced matter and life. Contrast our universe to most hypothetical universes; particles would just bounce off each other endlessly without any cohesion because the forces and particles where not fine-tuned such that atoms and compounds would form.
Gravity appears fine-tuned to allow the formation of stars (energy sources for life) and planets (living surfaces for life).
I think it is likely that atmospheric evolution and thus subsequent biological evolution play out similar on all potentially life supporting rocky planets. The reports of UFO encounters are supportive of this. The atmosphere would always start with a main constituent of hydrogen. Volcanos (which all rocky planets seem to have) would introduce nitrogen and carbon dioxide. At this point, early life forms appear. From then on, evolution may take a predicable path, resulting in plants, photosynthesis and oxygen. In any case, I do not believe that all advanced life forms need oxygen to proper. There are other possibilities.
If there was no moon, then we would be subject to more extreme weather and more ice ages, but life has prospered through such conditions in the past and is very resilient and adaptable. Evolution would win the battle.
Asteroids are an unavoidable ’feature’ of the design chosen for the universe - solar system evolution is not possible without occasional asteroids. The number of astroid impacts is a function of the age of the solar system - it reduces with time. In any case, any reasonably advanced life would be able to develop counter measures against such eventualities.
In summary, there are about 20 constants that must be at or near their current values for this universe to be life supporting. The chances of that happening by accident are tiny (billions to one), so we can infer that conditions for life in the universe are the result of fine tuning - which implies a fine tuner.
I see two possibilities:
1. Energy/matter was created in the BB via the zero energy universe hypothesis
2. Energy/matter existed timelessly and entered time at the BB (likely candidate for the start of time)
Both respect the conservation of energy. With the 2nd, the energy/matter has 'permanent' existence.
Quoting Possibility
I do not think eternalism is the only credible option for time - just exploring the possibilities. It's a struggle to find any credible options for time - they all have problems. But I think we can rule out vanilla presentism.
I should really take a look at Carlo Rovelli's book - sounds interesting.
I have a question:
Given what energy/matter is in time, how would you describe its existence in a timeless state?
That's a good question. I am really not sure of the answer. My argument seems to lead to the need for timeless existence, but it is difficult to see how such a thing could work. This maybe indicative that I have it all wrong and there is in fact no such thing as timelessness, or it maybe indicative that its just difficult for beings of time to conceive of a different possible state of existence. I hold out some hope for the second - of all the possible realities, the human race is familiar only with one and that could lead to a rather blinkered outlook on the possibilities - which maybe almost without limit.
I wonder if timeless matter could be matter which exists in all possible configurations simultaneously (in the 'eternal now'). So maybe a little like a quantum superposition.
I wonder if the idea of 'instantaneous change' might help with eternalism/timelessness. Photons could be a possible precedent, so maybe quantum entanglement. From a photon's perspective, travel to anywhere in the universe can be accomplished in no time.
Is it possible to imagine an eternal being of space but not of time (4 spacial dimensions say). It would be in all possible states simultaneously. It would have no past or future, yet it would be causally efficacious and would have permanent existence.
So with this model, the 'eternal realm' would be 4 spacial dimensions, one of which maps to our time dimension. If we were to look on that realm through time-based eyes, the eternal being would appear to be everywhere and everywhen simultaneously.
In the timeless realm, there maybe not be the familiar 4 forces - forces act over time and there would obviously be no time. I'm not sure what the nature of a timeless force would be.
Please forgive me for being rather nebulous and vague... its a difficult question.
Since all the paths are superposed, there is no particular state, as all the states are there all at once. Most of the paths lead to not much, such as a zillion barren places, but at least they got that far, further than some more instant dead-ends. Some paths, such as our Earth and us are even still going strong. The universe is only .02% through its paces.
Photons are some kind of key: as said, they don't age in our temporal realm, being instant in our space-time.
QM suggests that the universe is not in a particular objective state at any given time of ours, which kind of goes along with a continual transitioning.
With an 'IS' block containing everything, there will be gems amid the extravagant waste. Even in our universe, there is a humongous amount of stuff. It appears that stuff is very easy to come by. 2x10**76 last time I counted it!
My Hubble Deep Field discovery video, with my invented characterization of the discoverer:
My Vault of Everything video, adapted from a Borges' story:
It is not exactly a parsimonious solution though - such a monstrosity existing eternally is quite a lot to swallow.
There are an actually infinite number of variations of the laws of physics (gravity can vary from 0->? for example), so I'm not sure it flys.
Something like that, but the timeless 'IS' already has everything (possible) all at once, with no initial state.
I wasn't really pushing many worlds. Everything is already a lot. (What a wisdom, ha! We should put it on a plaque somewhere.)
After an ice age near extinction, the population of our ancestors was down to just a few thousand hardy souls, as told by Marine Isotope Stage 6, and it thought that they may have subsisted on shell fish in South Africa, but the location is still being worked out.
Our history was indeed full of 'good fortune':
One of the well known problems with multiple universe theories is the need for fine tuning of the mechanism that generates the multiple universes. Some of the physical laws that govern the 'universe generation mechanism' are inherited by each and every universe generated. So the strong anthropic principle appears to break down. The most popular flavour of these theories is Eternal Inflation. It does not (also) IMO really explain the origin of the universe (beyond some speculation about quantum fluctuations that I discount).
Quoting PoeticUniverse
I was speaking rather loosely with the term 'initial state'. I meant with QM many worlds, each possible world has to branch off from another world and this process cannot stretch back infinitum, so by initial state I meant the the (eternal) root node of the (eternal) tree of possible worlds. A possible problem with eternalist QM many worlds is that some laws of physics must govern the initial state, else it would not have laws to evolve it to the next states. These laws would underpin every possible state and would be reflected in all possible worlds. So the again the anthropic principle seems to break down - the initial laws would need fine tuning and there is nowhere for a fine-tuner to fit in.
To briefly recap the problem: all sequential-based explanations for the origins for the universe seem to break down - they always lead to an impossible infinite regress. Does not matter which model it is - what caused the start of Eternal Inflation? Or what caused God to have a first thought? It's the same basic problem - a sequence requires a start for the rest of the sequence to be real and then what caused the start of the sequence? So a non-sequential explanation of the origin of the universe seems to be required... hence our discussion on eternalism. But the universe appears to be a dynamic, fine-tuned creation... which is incompatible with vanilla eternalism (if it existed eternally, how exactly can it be dynamic? How could it be created / fine-tuned?). End of recap.
I'm struggling to come up with anything much:
- Someone mentioned time travel a while back on this or another thread: the human race would eventually work out that there is no possible origin of the universe and therefore we would be compelled to travel back in time to create the Big Bang so that the universe has an origin. It does not appear to work though... first time round there is nothing so no time travellers.
- The idea of instantaneous change (maybe like a photon) - an eternal spacial only universe in which some entity is simultaneously at all points in space. This entity could be causally active so create / fine tune our universe.
- The get out of jail / cop out solution of a non-material God of some sort.
I'm not saying it is incomprehensible, only that before the claim is made that it can't be infinite you have to be able to support the claim that our concept of logic (any possible human logic) is applicable to the totality of its investigation. The best we can say is that our survey of the universe we can see (and as far back as 13.8Byrs) is amenable to human comprehension.
What says we aren't the drunk looking for his keys at the lamp post because that is where the light is?
We totally are. :chin:
You could well be correct. We are fundamentally sequentially ordered creatures of time and sequentially ordered time appears insufficient to explain the origin of things. Other possible types of existence may explain the origin of the universe but be beyond our sequentially ordered comprehension. So it is perhaps an unsolvable puzzle. I enjoy trying to solve puzzles even if they are beyond me or impossible. I personally think that we can understand and discount actual infinity on purely logical grounds.
For me, reading this thread and contributions by you and others stoke my imagination and curiosity. Without evidence, what we have is conjecture. But conjecture, as long as it coheres, can be as aesthetic as poetry.
So it may be that time is circular or that the universe exhibits some other yet to be discovered facets that will allow us to get beyond the singularity of the BB. For me, as it was when I was a child (in as much as I'm a layman), the interest in speculation is more for what it tells us about ourselves and the spark of wonder it brings, the thought of resolving the unknown.
I ruminate that the actual is to the possible as the countably infinite is to the uncountably infinite. That when we consider travel to the outer reaches and time before the BB, when Erdos spoke of proofs from the book, when we talk about what actually matters to us, we live in the realm of the possible. The actual intrudes when we have to work to pay the rent.
I found its complement, the concept of 'the bulk', a long time ago when considering the age-old conundrum of where did all this stuff come from. In searching for it, I was looking for an alternative to the void, literally nothing, from which its hard to contemplate anything originating.
It felt comfortable to consider that all potential simply exists without constraints in time or space and the universe as we know it started as an actualization of a potential found (as are all things possible) within the bulk. Feel free to correct my misconceptions if I'm off-base here.
What I found most notable at the time is why did this event (the BB) occur at a specific time? Why 13.8Byrs ago and not another time? I wonder if the fact that we have a universal clock isn't a tell as to whether this universe is a simulation. It could simply be a facet of a cosmic cycle, but it remains that the cycle found its 'zero' at one appreciable instant.
It just doesn't smell transcendent. It smells of artifice. Not God, but of a clock keeper.
I think there is a very plentiful supply of very depressing cosmological models. I'm a natural optimist, so I'm interested in the less talked about, more uplifting models. Circular eternal time would be wonderful. Closed time-like curves in GR lend support this model but seemingly, as with the other avenues, there are problems:
- The universe seems to exhibit the signs of being a fine-tuned creation. When does creation / fine-tuning take place (if the circle of time is eternal)?
- On a similar vein, circular time does not seem the most naturalistic solution; more the solution of some anthropomorphic entity with our interests at heart (again leading to the question of 'when').
- It does not fit in too well with the dynamic nature of the universe (but I did mention a possible circular compromise model here: https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/307147).
Quoting PoeticUniverse
Putting my God shoes on, if I had the means to create a multiverse from nothing, I think I would not be able to resist doing it (for the thrill of it at the very least). As you can probably tell, I would prefer a universe with a god rather than without. This probably clouds my judgement a little - apologies.
My brain is a little exhausted... I will bid you folks good night...
What always comes back to haunt me about the seemingly impossible Void is that most everywhere in physics a zero-sum balance of opposites seems to be so, or else nearly so. I have a list somewhere.
A photon potentially exists everywhere at once until it is observed/measured by a subject, but not everywhen. It exists in both time and space - formless, but not timeless. A photon is not a 3D object, but a 4D event, along with life and energy - whatever we experience in time, but has no form (only potential) until it is intentionally measured/observed. It is our awareness of these 4D events that enticed science to explore the universe in relation to time.
So when we consider something that is timeless, in my view it must also be formless - existing everywhere/when in both our time dimension and our spatial dimensions, yet unpredictable in either. Only when it is valued by us (an event interacting in spacetime) does it collapse into a 4D event: an experience that impacts on our awareness, with which we can interact. Whatever we name this 5D experience, it entices us to explore beyond a 4D universe: to interact with the universe in relation to value. To search for what else is potentially valuable that we cannot (objectively) observe/measure, yet we can open ourselves to subjectively experience in time as 4D events.
I hope I’m making sense here. It isn’t easy to explain.
The simulation hypotheses is interesting and there are some strong arguments in favour of it, but an argument against it is that there are approximately 10^86 particles in the observable universe and they all interact with each other via gravity. With our computers, we cannot even solve the 3 body problem of gravity. The simulation would have to be running on some very exotic hardware.
Quoting Possibility
Would we need observer(s) to make the formless have form and therefore lead to concrete events that could lead to the birth of our universe?
I think we've discussed two basic models:
- Classic eternalism. Everything is a completely still 4D block. Change is an illusion. This appears to need multiple universes to exist (to account for our life supporting via the strong anthropic principle). Even then I'm not sure the SAP fully explains the life supporting nature of our universe.
- Some type of 'dynamic' eternalism. Change of some form is somehow possible in the eternal realm. A single, life supporting universe is accounted for by either an eternal fine tuner or a massive fluke (=weak anthropic principle). Our universe could be eternal, growing block or presentist under this model (but the eternal realm must be eternal).
Both models have problems so returning to the possibility that things have in fact existed ‘forever’ in time (and we are going down the wrong track), there is this quote from Leibniz:
’Suppose the book of the elements of geometry to have been eternal, one copy having been written down from an earlier one. It is evident that even though a reason can be given for the present book out, we should never come to a full reason. What is true of the books is also true of the states of the world. If you suppose the world eternal, you will suppose nothing but a succession of states and will not find in any of them a sufficient reason.’ - Leibniz, Theodicy
So Leibniz (one of the greatest thinkers in history) is saying we are not on the wrong track.
I lean toward this lately, because existence, having no opposite/alternative would have to all be there, as everything, not just some of it; however, that is only the implementation, which is the 'messenger', yet the 'message', which is of the real importance, remains the same as that of presentism, that we and the universe develop/change, which is why we can't tell the difference, and since we can't, we still have to go on, as mostly only considering the 'message', via some reasoning such as 'a difference (in implementation) that makes no difference in the 'message' is no difference."
For example, either way suggests determinism, one way as pre-determined and the other determined as things go along, not that we need to worry about it too much in this thread, unless it bears on something here. My continual transition theory, based only on the 'message', works either way. There is still never any lasting particular state of affairs.
We have still progressed in our posts. We have banished Stillness, Beginnings, Ends, 'Nothing', an Infinite, and perhaps even 'Random', for why does a Geiger counter not beep when it doesn't beep?
The message/benefit of the All would seem to be 'experience', we we still have even in the face of determinism.
Time to ramble on the will anyway: Note that 'random' wouldn't help the will but harm it, and so the Libertarians who seize upon the possibility of 'random' don't really accomplish free will through it, but still have that things could have gone differently if the universe were rerun, although we can't rerun it; however, the block universe seems able to rerun it, but then why would the static block have variables.
Um, how about that timeless spaceless photons made everything at once, in no time, and so we must now be experiencing in a time-dilated broadcast of our portion of everything.
One way to categorise the possible models is by whether whether each of these realms supports change or not:
Eternal realm: static, Timed realm: static
- Multiverse - Eternal Inflation
- Multiverse - QM Many worlds
Problems:
- The timed realm being static runs contrary to 'gut feeling' about the world
- The strong anthropic principle does not account for everything - some aspects of all universes would have to be fixed (aspects of the standard model) so could not vary across life supporting / non life supporting ranges
- multiverses are not parsimonious
- Multiverse generator may need fine tuning (and there is no room for a fine-tuner in this model)
Eternal realm: dynamic, Timed realm: static
- God + an eternalist universe.
Problems:
- The timed realm being static runs contrary to 'gut feeling' about the world
- How does an eternal, dynamic, non-sequential realm work?
Eternal realm: dynamic, Timed realm: dynamic
- God + presentist universe
- God + growing block universe
- God + circular time universe
Problems:
- How does an eternal, dynamic, non-sequential realm work?
Eternal realm: static, Timed realm: dynamic
(no models I can think of)
I have probably missed some possible models above. The 2nd and 3rd model require a dynamic eternal realm which is discussed below.
How could a dynamic eternal realm work?
I tried hard to think of topologies that a dynamic eternal realm could take but any topology is basically open (a line) or closed (a circle) so they are all inherently sequential and not suitable. So I think if there is a dynamic, eternal, realm, it is nothing like our spacetime.
Perhaps its better to think first of a dynamic, eternal, realm as an unordered set of events:
{ ‘God causes Big Bang’, ‘God plans Big Bang’, ’God observes 2019’, ‘God observes 1066’, … }
What could it be physically though? It may not be physical. If it is physical, maybe it is just nodes of information, perhaps connected by links that represent relationships between the nodes - so a directed graph of some sort.
Maybe all of the events in our spacetime would be represented in this graph plus events external to our spacetime. So spacetime maintains the sequential ordering of spacetime events, but the graph represents relationships between all events. Might tie in with quantum entanglement - there would be a relationship between the nodes of the entangled particles and no time/space between those nodes so they could synchronise immediately.
What is God? Certain nodes in the graph? All nodes in the graph?
“Eternity is the complete possession all at once of illimitable life” - Boethius
Quoting PoeticUniverse
The static block universe has attractions - it is physically familiar model to the world around us - it does not require some strange additional representation like the graph I mentioned above that a dynamic eternal realm seems to require.
Quoting PoeticUniverse
Maybe we can separate predestination from determinism - the 4D block view requires the first, but maybe not the second? So a fixed future that is undeterminable by us. So the possible/debated randomness of QM could still fit with an eternalist model?
This is Relationalism, which I like. All seems to have to be relative/relational, since there is no outside or before Totality, thus no absolute rulers or clocks or anything to have a say. Seems there wouldn't be intrinsic properties, this still in accord with the eternal not being able to be anything specific.
Our unified symphony plays from the entities/particulars, with the conductor therein and herein proposed to be an ontological Relationalism serving both the one and the many, in a balance, just as our own Yin-Yang being appears to do, we holistically and in detail revolving in our rounded life of understanding wholes and particulars in turn.
The relations among the relata of entities would be more fundamental, ontologically, than the entities, yet, without the entities there can be no relations.
Totality, as all that exists as reality, would have relatedness as its prime characteristic, providing for both the pluralistic, as diverse, and the unitary, as unity. Every entity, then, is a unity of its constituents, its identity defined by its internal and external relations, and ontologically open to to other entities due to the ontological basis that they share.
That quark-gluon interactions make for 95% of the proton’s mass perhaps shows us how much relations count. Some quantum gravity theories strive to be relational by attempting to get rid of absolute space and time.
Because Existence cannot go away, as eternal, it is inexhaustible and it is what keeps on giving and so it can originate and sustain a plurality of particulars such as you, me, atoms, trees, and all things.
Occam might even simply put it that there are only matter points and distances, with each of the matter points distinguishing itself from all the other ones by at least one distance relation that it bears to another matter point, so there are no indecernables.
While this relationalist ontology is parsimonious, as simple, basic, and uncomplicated, its representation seems to be difficult, what with so many things connected to other things, or as quantum entanglement, from either of which we’d hope to recover the basis for the typical quantities that we can find through measurement, such as mass, charge, spin, and more.
As per Leibnitz, time derives from change, as time is the order of succession, so, there is no time without change; but change exhibits an order, and what makes this order temporal is that it is unique and has a direction.
Relationalism, then, is the belief that all relevant physical information, including Time, should be deducible by the relations between physical objects.
[i]While atomism was apparently legitimized by the undeniable empirical successes of classical physics, nonetheless, developments in the conceptual foundations of contemporary physics — especially quantum physics — have shown to resist atomism in favor of holistic considerations.
Holism, as an emergent concept in the philosophy of quantum physics, arises from the behavior of entangled quantum systems and the associated conception of non-separability, as ‘non-locality’, casting doubts on the view of the world as consisting of concrete, unchangeable, self-contained particulars, being localized in spacetime, and existing independently of one another.[/i]
-- from arXiv paper by V. Karakostas
What about GR versus QM? Do we have to pick one?
Quoting PoeticUniverse
Here’s an attempt to articulate my view of the ‘birth’ of our universe - although it may seem vague because it is speculation based on awareness (and I don’t have the ability to confidently apply maths or logic)...
Nothing can even start to happen without potential, so we have to assume that, before there was anything else, there must have at least been potential as a timeless 5D experience.
Something is deemed to ‘exist’ (in any dimension) only when something/someone is aware of it. An observer/measuring instrument is required to decohere the formless, but a timeless 5D experience (being everywhere and everywhen) has the capacity to be aware of itself - regardless of whether it can recognise this as itself.
It is perhaps a big leap in thinking to suggest that potential’s awareness of potential led to the BB or other 4D universe-forming event. I’m not talking about self-awareness as we understand it, or in any multi-dimensional sense like animals or humans are aware, but a one-dimensional, vague awareness of more. At this point there is nothing but awareness: no relation to anything, no up, down, left or right, no time, etc. - all of it is only potential.
If you can imagine sufficient energy to actualise a photon’s full potential - except that this actualisation consists of photons and other 4D events across time, each with their own formless potential energy/matter.
So these 4D events interact with each other, decohering into 3D particles. Each of these particles interact with other random particles, choosing to be open or closed to that awareness, to the new information presented with each interaction that the universe consists of more. And so on - effectively creating spacetime and the physical universe in the process, yet without time having ‘begun’ as such.
Some interactions result in chemical reactions as 4D events, developing the capacity to interact more than once in time (while the reaction lasts) and thereby integrate information. This is where the potential for life begins, and where an awareness of time starts.
I am unsure over the nature of spacetime, including the Relationalism Vs Substantivalism question. As a supporter of the first, maybe you can address these questions:
- Time appears to pass without change. Change appears to have no impact on the speed time is passing (or the wrong impact - SR - time slows down rather than speeds up with increasing movement).
- If time is change, then more change should result in time running faster? This does not happen, for example, a mechanical clock (lots of change) tells the same time as a digital watch (less change).
- What are dark and vacuum energy? Space itself seems to have inherent properties.
- It seems time had a start, maybe the BB. To go from a no time to time situation, would something physical have to change in the universe? Does that suggest time is a physical 'thing'?
Quoting PoeticUniverse
QM (or a ToE) is a micro level theory, so is not so useful for predicting the macro behaviour of the universe. The question of origin of the universe involves huge amounts of matter/energy so seems primarily a macro question. Sure we need QM/ToE for the singularity but before/after its a macro problem. So we will always need classical theories like GR - they are continuous approximations for a discrete reality but that seems the only feasible way to model the macro scale universe.
Interesting. I have a few questions:
What caused potential to go from a non-aware situation to an aware situation? Or was the potential ‘always’ aware in some way? The universe appears to be fine-tuned for life so single universe models seem to lead naturally to the presence of a timeless fine tuner. Multiple universe models may avoid the need for a fine tuner. Your view sounds like a single universe model?
What is the nature of time in your model? Do you have it as one of your 5 dimensions so that it has permanent existence? Or is it created 'subsequently'? Or does time start when observers first appear? If (proto-)time exists permanently in the 5D environment, is that not introducing a sequential ordering of events into the timeless environment? - Once there is any form of sequential ordering, the need for a ‘start’ is introduced (or else an impossible infinite regress).
I was trying to think of a timeless environment for which there would be no starting event and I could not come up with anything similar to spacetime - that is fundamentally sequentially ordered. So I though of the concepts of an unordered set of events or a graph of nodes. Both are abstract, but both do not have a starting point - so they can represent unordered, timeless existence. Really, I'm trying to think of ideas that get around questions like this:
- What caused the first movement?
- What caused God to have his first thought?
- What caused potential to become aware?
- Events would happen somewhere in space but all be 'concurrent' with each other in a sense
- There is no first event
- Time as we know it would be a specialised, ordered subset of the 4th dimension
Potential is timeless - it doesn’t make sense to say that it goes from one situation to another. There was never a time when potential wasn’t aware.
The thing about a linear history of the universe is that time doesn’t work like that. We’ve sequentially ordered it all the way back to the BB from an imagined perspective of observers who experience ‘time’ in a particular way.
But not every observer experiences time the same way that humans do. Apparently dogs can smell events, getting an olfactory map of your day as you walk in the door. Of course, you’d have to ask a dog if these events are sequentially or spatially ordered - or perhaps they’re ordered by value...but I digress.
Quoting Devans99
Time is the fourth dimension: it is a relative aspect of our awareness of the universe, just like the others. Time appears to have ‘started’ from our perspective 13.8 billion years ago, because that’s the point back to which we can trace our broadest perspective of the universe in time. Once we begin to explore the 5D ‘universe’, it’s no longer relevant when this 4D cosmological event ‘started’, because there is no time outside of it.
Awareness of the 5D universe is not an environment - that’s too limiting as a description. Think of it as a broader ‘experience’: space, time and value. It’s how you feel intuitively in relation to events that orients you in the 5D universe, not when that event occurs, or where.
Quoting Devans99
It seems to me that you’re struggling to grasp the concept of multiple dimensions. Movies and fiction books tend to give the impression that alternate dimensions are a different place - as if the fifth dimension has its own space, completely different to our own. This is a misguided view, based on a poor understanding of time as a dimension of awareness.
The 5D universe includes our 4D cosmos. Like time, it is a relative aspect of our awareness of the universe. Humans have already been developing their capacity for 5D awareness for thousands of years. We understand the 5D universe in terms of abstraction and hierarchies of value: numbers, mathematics, measurements and morals, logic and rational thought. It enables us to relate to events in terms of value over and above where or when they occur in spacetime: like the mathematics that gets us to the moon and back. It enables us to consider and evaluate events outside our physical 4D existence: such as the extinction of dinosaurs, the creation of a black hole, or the implications of destroying the earth’s ecosystem.
We just haven’t considered it as a dimension, because for most of us, it is everything we value: all that we know and all that we don’t. It is the Infinite.
Time appears linear to us (presentism/growing block theory). The other touted way it could work is a 4D block universe view (eternalism). We do not know which view is correct (they could both be wrong).
The problem with the 4D block universe view of the universe is that all is static and eternal, as in a still picture (when viewed from a 4D perspective). This presents a number of challenges:
1. We cannot sense the past or future. We do not appear to be 4D spacetime worms
2. Dynamic processes like evolution to not fit well with the static nature of 4D block universe
3. Causality is a feature of time and even within the 4D block universe view, causality exists and is sequential. But a never ending sequence of causally related events is impossible - it must start somewhere and the question is then what is the cause of that start. Time, as a sequential ordering of events, has a definite start (maybe the BB). If we represent the time dimension as a line, then it has to have a start and something must be sequentially before time (in respect of that dimension). Eternalist views do not explain what that something is and how it morphed into the sequential time that we are familiar with.
4. The universe appears fine-tuned for life. This requires a fine-tuner. In the 4D block universe view, everything is equally eternal - everything has existed forever - the universe and its fine tuner would be co-eternal - so when viewed from that perspective, there is no room for a fine-tuner to come before the creation of 4D block universe and fine tune it. That can maybe be skirted with multiple universes all of differing configurations, but it’s not a very parsimonious solution.
So whilst acknowledging that a purely eternalist universe is a possibility, I am also interested in looking for at possible alternatives of a more dynamic nature - that would not have the problems mentioned above. Hence I suggested that the timeless environment has a pseudo-dimension that is actually an unordered sequence of events but it contains a subset of ordered events that represent our familiar, sequential time.
Quoting Possibility
But you have potential which is nothing by itself - it has to lead to the actual. What is the mechanism by which this happen? Does time exist as a dimension when this happens? Then it would be a sequential, cause and effect based mechanism (even when viewed from the 4d block universe perspective, causality, thus sequentiality hold)- which is impossible.
I believe your model has 3 spacial dimensions and 1 time dimension? What purpose does the 5th dimension serve beyond being a larger container for the 4D universe? I don’t see how the presence of a 5th dimension would make for a timeless environment?
Potential energy is always associated with pre-existing energy/matter. I do not understand the existence of potential by itself?
Quoting Possibility
You can view time from the 4d block universe perspective, but it is still sequentially organised - all time-like or space-like dimensions can be represented on a graph by an axis - so they are fundamentally sequentially organised - which means the time dimension has to stretch back forever (impossible - infinite regress) or start at some point (what is the reason why it started?).
Quoting Possibility
The argument in the OP is that time as we know it (as a linear ordering of events) must have had a start. That may or may not have been the Big Bang, but the point is, it is more than just an ‘appears’ to have started, it is that it actually did start. Something about the nature of the universe is quite different in the no time picture to the time picture - something physically changed. That is why I’ve suggested that our time is itself part of a larger, non-sequential ‘dimension’.
Rovelli has it that space-time is Einstein's gravitational field. Rovelli is trying to model the spacetime quanta with 'loops' and 'spin-foams'. All the types of fields (electromagnetic, particle, etc.) lie atop one another, this being called 'covariant', so, then, all that there is are covariant quantum fields—that's it, finis; nothing more, anything seeming else having to be emergent.
So, we can also banish space, time, and particles (they are subsumed in fields, as 'lumps'). Now what?
Time's speed changes when we go higher or lower, faster or slower.
Quoting Devans99
Heck if I know, but maybe dark energy was always around but was dominated by gravity earlier on; it seems to be a fuel that ever keeps on giving.
This demolishes claims of infinite divisibility, and so Zeno's hare beats the tortiose. Analog falls, digital rises; there is no continuum.
As for more on relationalism, we can add 'Things' to our list of impossibles. 'Things' aren't; happenings/event are! A rock is merely a long event!
Happenings are ubiquitous, meaning ever-present; change is all; there is never not any change; there is a continual transitioning. I wish it would stop so I could sleep for a week.
The Great Existence has order, action, and simultaneous unity and plurality—the inter-relatedness of all the particulars perhaps being the underlying unity of Reality.
Dualism, being a reality of two, as usually the opposites of spirit and matter, often gets rejected, for there can be no interpenetration/interaction of distinctly different categories.
The same for Dualism’s similar extension, Pluralism, with even more distinct categories, for it, too, cannot explain unity.
Processism, such as in Buddhism, is a dance without dancers, a process without agents acting. These so-called process-only occurrents cannot make it as relata. (not sure how I arrived at this). Monism, subsuming procession, such as all is in and of something, like Brahman, cannot explain pluralism/diversity.
Considering the above mergers, we are left with just Monism and Pluralism.
Relationalism, then, goes beyond them each, admitting both, in a balance, which empirical quality is bolstered by our experiencing each in Reality. We have brains that echo both unity and multiplicity, for we can understand holistically, in parallel, as well as understand details, sequentially.
Back to the future:
[i]“Traces of the past exist, and not traces of the future, only because entropy was low in the past. There can be no other reason, since the only source of the difference between past and future is the low entropy of the past.”
“In order to leave a trace, it is necessary for something to become arrested, to stop moving, and this can happen only in an irreversible process—that is to say, by degrading energy into heat. In this way, computers heat up, the brain heats up, the meteors that fall into the moon heat it; even the goose quill of a medieval scribe in a Benedictine abbey heats a little the page on which he writes. In a world without heat, everything would rebound elastically, leaving no trace.”[/i]
Excerpt From: Carlo Rovelli. “The Order of Time.” Apple Books. https://books.apple.com/us/book/the-order-of-time/id1291981686
Time is mostly constituted by us; take music, for example, from my own Rubaiyat:
Memory’s traces recall the last heard tone;
Sensation savors what is presently known;
Imagination anticipates coming sounds;
The delight is such that none could produce alone.
Fields making up empty space? Sounds like substantivalism. All the fields I’m aware of have time as a determinate variable; a field is just a static picture without time - so time is a requirement for fields to exist and time is not a field in itself. So I do not see how the time dimension could emerge from fields.
Quoting PoeticUniverse
To solve the puzzle of the actually infinite, it seems we have to choose either eternalism or discreteness (or both). I am not so sure about vanilla eternalism. That would suggest everything in existence is co-eternal from a 4D perspective. How could such a seemingly sequential structure as space-time ever exist as a single, co-eternal whole? So we need to consider discreetness.
For each motion we make, do we complete an actual infinity? Actual infinity seems (otherwise from continuous motion) an unrealisable and disprovable concept; how for example could a real world set have a non-finite cardinality? It would cross the t’s and dot the i’s if the world turned out to be discrete. Quantum loop gravity is a discrete theory for example.
Quoting PoeticUniverse
Change may need a vessel. Playing pool without a pool table is difficult. That vessel gives us tell-tale signs such vacuum energy and dark energy. Something must have preexisted spacetime (by some unknown measure) - meaning something physical changed when spacetime began - therefore spacetime must be a physical thing.
Quoting PoeticUniverse
Quantum engagement seems like interaction of matter linked via a separate world. The start of time also seems to be the intersection of two different realities. There are maybe many such realities, some forever disconnected, others able to influence each other.
Quoting PoeticUniverse
I think that substantivalism does not preclude either Monism and Pluralism. Foe example, if spacetime is fields and energy/matter are fields then we have a form of monism. Likewise, switching energy/matter to strings and spacetime to dark energy or ether, yields a form of pluralism.
Quoting PoeticUniverse
Both the time and space dimensions are fundamentally sequential. Sequential things need a start (or else they are actually infinite - an impossibility). Things that have a start are physically real. So time is real IMO.
The cool thing about this conjecture is that we engage the possibility that discrete states are reflected as a set (a or maybe a bag, cf Java) without order. And the reason for the lack of, or even the potential for, an order is that 'the bulk' in which the states reside, exist distinct from the laws of thermodynamics which give rise to the ordering (time as we know it). Each state is reversible with respect to the next and so no glass whole/glass broken conundrum. The quantum is fundamental to the universe whereas the 4 fundamental forces (or maybe 3 + gravity) that we are familiar with exist as a result of the symmetry-breaking in the early universe.
The only aspect of what we recognize as time that exists in the universe in the absence of the Big Bang is the various states of existence that exist within the potential.
How do the field lines of potentiality cross to give rise to actuality?
Conceptually, I have no clue how that can make sense. Can it mirror the process by which matter and anti-matter pairs can spontaneously arise in a vacuum (a process I have not internalized conceptually)?
Not substantivalism, but relationalism, because there's no empty space; 'space' doesn't exist in addition to something else. Space-time literally is Einstein's gravitational field. 'Space' is the span of relations.
'Space' was always a problem, in that it had to be impossibly infinite in whatever quantity it had ascribed to it, such as it having volume as its only quantity.
Quoting Devans99
Yes, the quantum discreteness demolishes the continuum—which we can add to our impossibles' list. Granularity rules.
No, this is when viewed from a 5D perspective - when we do the maths and relate events outside of our own 4D perspective (ie. our physical existence).
Are you suggesting here that two discrete events cannot relate to each other? That if we accept that all is process, then there is no relata?
Another excerpt from Carlo Rovelli’s ‘The Order of Time’:
“For a long time, we have tried to understand the world in terms of some primary [i]substance. Perhaps physics, more than any other discipline, has pursued this primary substance. But the more we have studied it, the less the world seems comprehensible in terms of something that is. It seems to be a lot more intelligible in terms of relations between events.”[/i]
No, a process is a good idea. I got it from my maybe garbled notes and perhaps 'processism' shouldn't be there or should have been something else. I should have left the whole thing out since I was already questioning it upon rereading it.
“[i]The absence of time does not mean, therefore, that everything is frozen and unmoving. It means that the incessant happening that wearied the world is not ordered along a timeline, is not measured by a gigantic tick-tocking. It does not even form a four-dimensional geometry. It is a boundless and disorderly network of quantum events. The world is more like Naples than Singapore.
If by ‘time’ we mean nothing more than happening, then everything is time. There is only that which exists in time.[/i]”
- Carlo Rovelli, “The Order of Time”
There is no ‘4D block universe perspective’ - you are either looking for time from within the 4D block universe (in which case ‘everything is time’), OR you are looking at the 4D block universe from beyond time (in which case the world is a ‘network of quantum events’ organised not sequentially, but by value relative to the observer).
Here is a probably meaningless dimensional analysis equation if 'c' is a ratio:
(externally, 4D block) as dddd / ('c' light speed) as d/t = (internally, space-time) as dddt
Not necessarily. Pool is a two dimensional game played in four dimensions, hence the need for a three dimensional ‘vessel’ to contain the play. Change, on the other hand, is a 4D event. It only requires a 3D vessel if you’re trying to portray it in only two dimensions.
It would be very neat, but can time really emerge from timeless thermodynamic phenomena? If entropy increases causes time to flow, we would expect time to flow faster where entropy is increasing faster. Has this ever been observed?
There are other possibilities for the pre-Big Bang rather than timeless quantum soup. Quantum soup does not explain why the universe is fine tuned for life (without resource to unparimouous multiple universe models). We could imagine a macro world with a non-linear time dimension. It might or might not have the familiar 3 spacial dimensions. In that world, a timeless intelligence would compute the requirements for a life supporting universe and craft some sort of bomb that would set off the chain reaction leading to time/inflation/the BB.
Quoting Possibility
Time has a start implies something physical must have changed when time started which implies time is a physical thing.
I don’t see how your statement relates to what you quoted from me. I have never agreed that time has a start. It appears to have a start when measuring changes in a 3D world from within a 4D universe, when we assume that time is structured, sequential. Physical refers to what is perceived through the senses as opposed to the mind; what is tangible and concrete. If you’re looking for time as something physical, then all you will find is evidence of change.
But when we look at the 4D cosmos from an eternal 5D perspective: when we recognise that the 4D block universe is structured not by time but by value, then the question becomes: a ‘start’ in relation to what?
Quoting Devans99
Entropy does not cause time to flow. The growth of entropy is time’s arrow, not its speed.
Carlo Rovelli, again:
[i]“...if I could take into account all the details of the exact, microscopic state of the world, would the characteristic aspects of the flowing of time disappear? Yes. If I observe the microscopic state of things, then the difference between past and future vanishes.”
“Just as with the movement of the Earth, the evidence is overwhelming: all the phenomena that characterise the flowing of time are reduced to a ‘particular’ state of the world’s past, the ‘particularity’ of which may be attributed to the blurring of our perspective.”[/i]
Well the original point you made about a counting God in an eternal universe is, in my opinion, a worthless thought experiment. An eternal universe has no need for a God. I can't even make a logical argument against it because it's tainted by the ambiguity of a fictional being. Sorry.