An Infinite Past?

[seer]

This is your claim and not sufficient in a balanced argument.

Jim, does time effect a timeless [greater cosmos]? Does [the greater cosmos and Natural Law] move through past, present and future? Or is everything an "eternal now" to [the greater cosmos and Natural Law]? I have said time and time again there are [unknowns you cannot use as logical fallacies] when dealing with such the [greater cosmos and Natural Law]. Can an atemporal [greater cosmos and natural law] form a temporal universe without becoming temporalf? YES. But in the greater cosmos and natural law, Infinite Regress and Miracles do not play a role. Also, science cannot explain how God creating the universe and acting in the universe leads to an infinite regression of acts into eternity past? You have to give evidence that is not based on 'I believe so.

I'm not sure who you are speaking to Shuny, but if there are differing physical events in you imaginary greater cosmos then there is time. Since time is simply an abstraction to mark successive physical events. They only way time would not apply to your imaginary universe is if nothing physical ever happened in it.

[seer]

If God is eternal into the past, and God creates, and there is a distinction between before and after in those things that he creates, then it is no different than the infinite regress problem that you pose for the universe. Thats the point I've been trying to make. Is infinite regression itself a mystery? Yes, afaik it is. But the God/creation notion doesn't solve it since it is no less a mystery from either point of view.

Nonsense Jim, I'm sorry - how does a timeless being doing one act (like creating the universe) constitute an infinite regression of physical acts? And it is no mystery that reaching a specific point (like this present universe) via an infinite number of past physical events is impossible. Again my example: I will give you eternity (so time is no issue). Now travel back to the cause of this universe, then to the cause that caused that, then to the cause that caused that, etc... No matter how many causes you were able to reach you could never reach them all for no matter how many you reached you would always have an infinite number ahead of you - always... It is irrational Jim. You need a stopping point, or rather a beginning. I call that God.

[shunyadragon]

I'm not sure who you are speaking to Shuny, but if there are differing physical events in you imaginary greater cosmos then there is time. Since time is simply an abstraction to mark successive physical events. They only way time would not apply to your imaginary universe is if nothing physical ever happened in it.

The different physical events are the formation of the singularity and universes which have space/time. Space/time begins with formation of the singularity and the universe.

[Tassman]

And what is your point Tass? Mine is that there is zero evidence for an eternal past for matter and energy. That was the main point of this thread. So I'm glad you agree.

The notion of an “eternal past”, as you seem to understand it, is meaningless. One cannot have an “eternal past” when time doesn’t exist; as Shunya says: “Space/time begins with formation of the singularity and the universe”.

And despite your erroneous belief to the contrary, Vilenkin is not supporting your argument: “I would like to suggest a new cosmological scenario in which the universe is spontaneously created from literally nothing, and which is free from the difficulties I mentioned in the preceding paragraph. This scenario does not require any changes in the fundamental equations of physics; it only gives a new interpretation to a well-known cosmological solution”.

http://www.mukto-mona.com/science/ph...om_nothing.pdf

A quantum vacuum, or Zero-Point energy is not nothing, there is still energy. And where is your evidence that a quantum vacuum exists outside of this universe? And you still end up with an infinite regression of physical events to get to this preset point.

Correct! “Nothing” doesn't exist even though some physicists (e.g. Vilenkin above) misleadingly use the term when they actually mean the quantum vacuum. The quantum vacuum is as you say something and there’s good reason to believe it has always existed. In quantum field theory the vacuum state is the quantum state with the lowest possible energy. It contains no physical particles but instead consists of fleeting electromagnetic waves and particles that pop into and out of existence.

But until such time cosmologists have unified the key theories of General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics they can’t claim certain evidence of it. Nevertheless, it is confidently predicted - hence the number of proposed models of which your favorite Vilenkin hypothesis is but one of several. All have their strengths and weaknesses. Last week’s discovery of primordial waves, if confirmed, takes science closer to connecting these two foundational theories of modern physics (i.e. Quantum Mechanics and General Relativity) but some predictions take longer than others to confirm. E.g. confirmation of the predicted Higgs Boson, the so-called god particle, took 50 years.

Nonsense, there is no cause for God. He is eternal.

Evidence please!

Of course Tass, you have the great god Quantum Vacuum - immortal, invisible and all powerful! Sad really...

Nope! I’m an atheist.

To JimL

Jim, does time effect a timeless being? Does God move through past, present and future? Or is everything an "eternal now" to Him? I have said time and time again there are mysteries when dealing with such a Being. Can an atemporal being create and act in a temporal universe without becoming temporal Himself? But as a materialist you do not have the option of appealing to mystery - cause and effect must rule the day - infinite regression must be a fact, either that or miracle. Also, you have to explain how God creating the universe and acting in the universe leads to an infinite regression of acts into eternity past?

Indeed! So why deal with the concept of an alleged eternal being at all? There are sufficient problems, paradoxes and apparent contradictions in cosmology without adding a redundant fantasy figure into the mix.

[Leonhard]

I'm not sure what the point is to the thread anymore, both Shunya, Tassman and apparently JimL have all ceded Seer's original point: The universe is not past-infinite. Even if noone was persuaded by his argument.

Shunya argues that it had a beginning in some sort of grand timeless Cosmos, Tassman and JimL (if I read you right) that it came from from an unchanging quantum field for which it is impossible to talk about prior moments.

It seems people have opened up a lot of new discussions about what this implies. Seer would, and so would I, that the appropriate deduction is God. The rest are arguing for some sort of naturalistic view. And shunya... I'm afraid that even after 7 years of reading I have accepted that only you have an idea of what you're arguing for.

However if the main point is conceded I think the thread has run its course, and propose that this discussion be split into appropriate new threads.

[Tassman]

I'm not sure what the point is to the thread anymore, both Shunya, Tassman and apparently JimL have all ceded Seer's original point: The universe is not past-infinite. Even if noone was persuaded by his argument.

Shunya argues that it had a beginning in some sort of grand timeless Cosmos, Tassman and JimL (if I read you right) that it came from from an unchanging quantum field for which it is impossible to talk about prior moments.

It seems people have opened up a lot of new discussions about what this implies. Seer would, and so would I, that the appropriate deduction is God. The rest are arguing for some sort of naturalistic view. And shunya... I'm afraid that even after 7 years of reading I have accepted that only you have an idea of what you're arguing for.

However if the main point is conceded I think the thread has run its course, and propose that this discussion be split into appropriate new threads.

The “appropriate deduction” is never God in lieu of a possible naturalistic explanation - as the long history of false attributions to various deities has shown; whether it was ascribing lightning to an angry Thor, or sunrises to Ra making his daily journey across the sky in his solar barge etc, etc, etc. All these wondrous occurrences turned out to have natural explanations even though they were beyond the scope of available knowledge at the time. Thus there is good reason to think that naturalistic explanations will always apply.

[seer]

The notion of an “eternal past”, as you seem to understand it, is meaningless. One cannot have an “eternal past” when time doesn’t exist; as Shunya says: “Space/time begins with formation of the singularity and the universe”.

And despite your erroneous belief to the contrary, Vilenkin is not supporting your argument: “I would like to suggest a new cosmological scenario in which the universe is spontaneously created from literally nothing, and which is free from the difficulties I mentioned in the preceding paragraph. This scenario does not require any changes in the fundamental equations of physics; it only gives a new interpretation to a well-known cosmological solution”.

Of course Vilenkin is supporting my point that there is no evidence for an eternal past, and Vilenkin himself uses the term "eternal past." So the term is not meaningless, there is still zero evidence that matter and energy always existed. And you ask for evidence of God, but there is zero evidence that this universe was born from a quantum vacuum, yet you are willing to believe that is the case. And contrary to your assertion there is no evidence that this quantum vacuum existed before this present universe or outside this universe. There is certainly no evidence that it existed forever. But since we are making assumptions without evidence perhaps a quantum vacuum is how God created ex nihilo - that would fit nicely with classic Christian theology.

Hebrews 11:3
By faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that the things which are seen were not made of things which are visible.

[Leonhard]

The “appropriate deduction” is never God in lieu of a possible naturalistic explanation - as the long history of false attributions to various deities has shown; whether it was ascribing lightning to an angry Thor, or sunrises to Ra making his daily journey across the sky in his solar barge etc, etc, etc. All these wondrous occurrences turned out to have natural explanations even though they were beyond the scope of available knowledge at the time. Thus there is good reason to think that naturalistic explanations will always apply.

So in other words you agree with the conclusion of Seer's OP, yay or nay?

You can rightfully criticise him for not adding the 4th point that ought to have been there, so its not really a deduction yet. He's supposed to arrive at a reducto ad absurdum, and then conclude that one of the premises were wrong, namely that the universe is infinitely old.

At least that's what he's been trying to argue for during this thread. And it seems everyone is in agreement, though we see differently on what sort of beginning it is.

[Carrikature]

As far as premise one is concerned - given an infinite past what would prevent all possibilities from becoming actual? As far as premise two, I think at this point we can agree that it may be possible.

I missed the weekend, but I see that lao tzu has answered this much better than I could have.

Yes, then that would not be a possibility. So like I said, I see the problem in premise two - It is possible for all matter or energy to not exist? Or as I modified premise two, with Carrikature - is it possible for all energy to lose the ability to work.

I think lao tzu answered this, but I'll expand a little. "Possible in some universe" is not the same as "possible in this universe". You could have an infinite past and still not realize certain possibilities in this universe.

[Carrikature]

I'm not sure what the point is to the thread anymore, both Shunya, Tassman and apparently JimL have all ceded Seer's original point: The universe is not past-infinite. Even if noone was persuaded by his argument.

Shunya argues that it had a beginning in some sort of grand timeless Cosmos, Tassman and JimL (if I read you right) that it came from from an unchanging quantum field for which it is impossible to talk about prior moments.

It seems people have opened up a lot of new discussions about what this implies. Seer would, and so would I, that the appropriate deduction is God. The rest are arguing for some sort of naturalistic view. And shunya... I'm afraid that even after 7 years of reading I have accepted that only you have an idea of what you're arguing for.

However if the main point is conceded I think the thread has run its course, and propose that this discussion be split into appropriate new threads.

So in other words you agree with the conclusion of Seer's OP, yay or nay?

You can rightfully criticise him for not adding the 4th point that ought to have been there, so its not really a deduction yet. He's supposed to arrive at a reducto ad absurdum, and then conclude that one of the premises were wrong, namely that the universe is infinitely old.

At least that's what he's been trying to argue for during this thread. And it seems everyone is in agreement, though we see differently on what sort of beginning it is.

I'm rather a minor player in the discussion, but it seems that lao tzu and myself both take issue with seer's first premise.


I'm curious, though. What do you take to be the difference between past-infinite and some timeless cosmos (of whatever form)?

[seer]

I think lao tzu answered this, but I'll expand a little. "Possible in some universe" is not the same as "possible in this universe". You could have an infinite past and still not realize certain possibilities in this universe.

Well sure, but given an infinite past, if all energy could lose the ability to work then we would have never reached this universe since energy would long ago lost the ability to do anything.

[Carrikature]

Well sure, but given an infinite past, if all energy could lose the ability to work then we would have never reached this universe since energy would long ago lost the ability to do anything.

I like sets because they're so useful, so here's a layout:


Superverse ∈ {Universe1,Universe2, ..., UniverseN, Multiverse1, Multiverse2, ..., MultiverseN}

*Mind, this is not to say that multiverses exist, but only that they would be included within the Superverse set.*


SuperversePossibilities ∈ {SuperPossibility1, SuperPossibility2, SuperPossibility3, ..., SuperPossibilityN}

UniversePossibilities ∈ {Possibility1, Possibility2, ..., PossibilityN}


That is, the set of possibilities for the Superverse is distinct from the set of of possibilities for a given universe. These possibilities may overlap, but we have no way of knowing that (and positing such is unwarranted). With this in mind, what you've done with the quoted statement is to move an element of UniversePossibilities into the set of Superverse Possibilities. We don't know what is in either the set of SuperversePossibilities or UniversePossibilities. We can't just move from one set to the other the way you have. What's more, the very possibility suggested is expressed in terms of a universe-specific formulation that may not translate well, if at all, to the Superverse. How, then, can anyone say that we would not have reached this universe?

Back to your argument. Lao tzu demonstrated the first premise to be flawed. The set of possibilities for a given universe is not necessarily identical to UniversePossibilities. The set of possibilities as argued is not time-dependent. That's left to the realization of a given possibility. In that case, an infinite past is not enough. For your argument to work, you have to show the following:

1) 'energy losing the ability to do work' (henceforth EnergyWork) is a possibility either in SuperversePossibilities or UniversePossibilities
2) the set of possibilities for this universe includes EnergyWork
3) enough time has elapsed in this universe for EnergyWork to have been realized
4) all other necessary conditions (if any) for EnergyWork have been met

Ultimately, the answer to every one of these items is a big unknown. Even if we granted #1 and #2 for the sake of argument, we still have to establish #3 and #4.

[Carrikature]

I'm not sure what the point is to the thread anymore, both Shunya, Tassman and apparently JimL have all ceded Seer's original point: The universe is not past-infinite. Even if noone was persuaded by his argument.

Upon further review, I think you're wrong. If seer's original point was that this specific universe is not past-infinite, I don't think anyone would have disagreed in the first place. His actual point and argument is that in a past-infinite universe nothing would/should exist.

[seer]

1) 'energy losing the ability to do work' (henceforth EnergyWork) is a possibility either in SuperversePossibilities or UniversePossibilities
2) the set of possibilities for this universe includes EnergyWork
3) enough time has elapsed in this universe for EnergyWork to have been realized
4) all other necessary conditions (if any) for EnergyWork have been met

Ultimately, the answer to every one of these items is a big unknown. Even if we granted #1 and #2 for the sake of argument, we still have to establish #3 and #4.

Of course #1 and #2 are not necessarily provable. But I don't see any logical roadblocks, and I certainly don't think it is warranted to assume that Energy/Work acts differently in the Superverse as opposed to our observable universe. And if you have an infinite past then time would be no hindrance, by definition there has been enough time (for lack of a better word) for every possibility to be realized. Unless there was some kind of physical restraint that made the case impossible I don't see any inherent restrictions.

[robrecht]

It seems to me infinity is not well conceptualized by us. Yes, it is a clearly enunciated idea, but we only have a very limited experience of infinity (therefore none) thus we do not really comprehend the concept very well. We can use it in mathematics of various kinds and therefore also in physics. But if we try to reason about infinity, I think we get stuck pretty quickly because of our limited comprehension. Add the element of randomness to the equation (in order to solve it) and we end up with completely counterintuitive results such as the sum of all natural numbers is —1/12. We can prove that but we know that this sum of an infinite number of numbers is itself not infinity but —1/12. Then when we go from such a simple matter as natural numbers to the multifarious complexity of personality and try to speak of some Infinite Interpersonal Being, we cannot even agree if such a 'concept' is even meaningful! How could anyone ever hope to prove the existence of such (a) Being to anyone who does not even think that such a concept is even meaningful, let alone the source of all meaning? And, truth be told, the best theologians (in my opinion) are the first to admit that any 'concept' or definition of God is impossible. So this is certainly not an ad hominem against agnostics or atheists. And yet those who believe certainly feel they have some kind of knowledge or intuition or experience of 'God'. I think the best anyone can do is make God evident through Interpersonal love and respect of our neighbors and enemies.