Beoran

It is possible. IF every event has a cause, then there are no uncaused events, and hence there cannot be a first, uncaused event. IF this is the case, then this also means that time is eternal, and that the univere in itself has existed eternally. The big bang was then not the beginning, but only a great transition.

capnkirk

This question excludes one critical piece of information. TIME is a PROPERTY of MATTER! Therefore the instant of the Big Bang is the BEGINNING of TIME! Therefore there can be no Infinite Regress. Our consciousness, hence our language, cannot concieve outside of time so discussions become very difficult. It is like asking "What was before 'time'?" Without a time reference, 'before' has no meaning because it has no context.

Clutch

According to our best empirical theory, the spatio-temporal universe had a beginning. The question is whether this is necessarily true, though.

There is no incoherence in the idea of a universe with an infinite past. Aquinas did not understand the notion of infinity.

Jarlaxle

If there is a finite amount of matter, would it follow that there is a finite amount of time as well?

Bob K

What is time?

Here is a proposed operational definition: Time is the use of time-intervals for the measurement of the occurrences of events in sequences of events.

There are two types of time-intervals (TIs): variable time-intervals (VTIs) and invariable time-intervals (ITIs).

When VTIs are used, in common clocks, atomic clocks, etc., in variable time-interval clocks (VITCs) which are not designed to be motion-sensing and self-adjusting for changes of velocity/gravity, or otherwise intended to by synchronized by radio signals, then time, the measurement of time-intervals for the measurement of occurrences of events in sequences of events, history, will appear to vary when such clocks are subjected to changes of velocity/gravity.

A. Einstein, on page 99 of his book, Relativity, defined time thus: “Mechanical clocks serve for the definition of time.”

AE thus used VTIs, variable time-intervals, for the development of relativity, and, thus, in his theories, time was variable, and, being variable, was not independent of space, thus permitting the concept of spacetime.

When ITIs are used, in clocks which are designed to be motion-sensing and self-adjusting, or otherwise synchronized by radio signals, so everywhere such ITI clocks (ITICs) are to be found, the measurement of time is identical, then we have universal time, absolute time, which can be used for measuring time from an arbitrary Timepoint, T0, forwards into the future and/or backwards into the past:

Infinity <- Backwards <- T-2 <- T-1 <- TO -> T+1 -> T+2 -> Forwards -> Infinity

We find, therefore, no end to the measurement of ITIs into the past or the future, therefore we see what is temporal infinity, the infinity of time, with time never having a beginning nor an ending.

ITIs give us the independence of time from space. Regardless of where they are in space, how fast they are traveling in space, regardless of accelerating, decelerating, or of constant velocity, regardless of reference frame, ITIs in ITICs give us the independence of time from space, and thus eliminate spacetime as a necssary physical concept.

This understanding of time gives us an understanding of the temporal reality, which is time itself and its infinity its infinite, never-ending measurement of time-intervals, therefore its infinite duration.

Space, the spatial reality, the unbounded, infinite vastness, which would be a pure vacuum if not for the presence of matter/energy, physics, has no substance, no limiting distances, and thus gives us an understanding of spatial infinity, and, though having no substance, having yet the infinity of duration in time.

Matter/energy, physics, the physical reality, has been observed to be indestructible, only convertible, matter convertible into energy and vice versa, and experimentally confirmed, E = mc2 and m = E/c2, matter/energy has infinite duration in time, and, therefore had no beginning and will have no ending.

Though infinite in duration, matter/energy, physics, the physical reality, is limited in quantity, and therefore is finite, and, therefore, has a finity (the opposite of an infinity).

The spatial reality, space, the temporal reality, time, and the physical reality, matter/energy, combine to produce the universe.

Because of the infinity of the unbounded space which is the spatial reality, the infinity of the measurement of time into the future, or backwards into the past, using invariable time-intervals, and the infinity of the duration of the physical reality, physics, matter/energy, we have an understanding of the infinite nature of the universe, no beginning, no ending.

Causality is people/things/events who/which are comprised of matter/energy and who/which are causes causing/creating people/things/events who/which are likewise comprised of matter/energy and who/which are effects, cause-and-effect, graphically, cause -> effect.

The source of causality is the physical reality, matter/energy, which, having infinite duration, no beginning and no ending, proves the necessary reality of infinite succession of causality. All regressions seeking a cause will come back to matter/energy as the source of causality.

Thus, there never was a first cause, nor will there ever be a final effect which shall not become a cause of another effect.

Nothing will ever come from nothing; something will always come from something, and always has.

The universe, comprised of the spatial reality, space, the temporal reality, time, and the physical reality, physics, matter/energy, could not have begun in a Big Bang, nor can it be ended in a Big Crunch. Space was thus not created in a Bang, nor time, nor matter/energy, and space will not be eliminated/destroyed in a Crunch, nor time, nor matter/energy.

Thus, from an understanding of time, we can understand the infinite vastness and duration of space, the infinite duration of matter/energy, and the infinite duration of time itself.

[ December 17, 2002: Message edited by: Bob K ]</p>

Mr. Sammi

Bob K,

I do not think that the use of human knowledge to describe the universe and accurately make a prediction is concievable on the scale of the universe. On the human scale this is adaquate, but to extrapolate back near a first cause leaves doubt in a philosopher's mind.

It could be possible there was no single event but a set of simultaneous events which constitutes the BIG BANG. Shall we call it the BIG BANGS theory?


You speak of an understanding of time AND the use of this viewpoint to further comprehension of our universe. I agree, but what is this special understanding you are sharing with us?

Is this variable time intervals & invariable time intervals? Does this mean once a human measures a time interval IT automatically becomes a VTI. This would mean ITI is only a concept.

As you quote the M = E/c-squared, what does this mean philosophically. If you noticed the heaviest elements scientists tried to add to the perodic table were unable to manifest, were unable to show their stability even in the chamber. What does this tell us about this form of Einstein's equation?


Sammi Na Boodie ()

Mr. Sammi

We all know one of the faults of determinism is the first clause. This is usually ignored by determinists.

What would be the cause of all causes? This would have to be Existence. We believe existence to be composed of energy and mass. We perceive this existence through time and space. We believe that for things to exist (without us) these things need somewhere to be and they need to show their stability if even to rub ions on their neighbours. Being somewhere in our brains means space and having a regular effect means time.

What then does all this mean without all this?


Sammi Na Boodie ()

Keith Russell

Greetings:

Matter is a form of energy, and energy cannot be created or destroyed.

The 'Big Bang' was the beginning of the current form of existence, but it was not the beginning of existence itself.

Keith.

Primal

I take a different view of causality then most. Most see it as a sort of dual cause-effect type relationship. Object one hits object two, which hits object three etc.

I see causality as basically just motion. Moving in any direction in a certain way, so that when objects interact they interact in a different way according to the nature of each object. This interaction merely creates new "cause and effect" motion, where new objects and motions arise.

So the question of infinite regress for me is not "is there forever a cause and effect relationship"?

That question for me is not "is there an cause without an effect"? That is impossible, since an object or cause must first be an effect if all causality is cause and effect.

This creates question of original causes though: as infinite regress seems impossible. For what could start the chain? There had to be a first cause for a first effect. The chain couldn't have just started for no reason or been going on forever; this is because the entire process presupposes some sort of origin itself. One object had to start hitting the others. If this isn't so, then its not really a chain. Unless it goes in circles. Every effect we know has an origin, hence there must be an ultimate origin(cause) to the chain itself. Less we refute the first principle of every effect demanding a cause.

But then that ultimate origin would itself need an origin. Seems we are stuck in a vicious cycle. Either we admit that something exists without cause(the infinite chain itself) or we admit to an ultimate cause. Each brings problems with it.

That's more or less: domino/mechanistic causality. The clockwork kind. And it does face the problem of whether the chain was infinite, or originated.

My view of motion is less like clockwork and more like ships sailing through sea or space. Things just move, that's causality. Causality then doesn't demand cause or effect: it underlies it. It is velocity in a vacuum. Now can something move forever? Yes, why not?

This sort of motion does not demand anything.

It has to go on forever in fact. Well existence does, if it is to move at all. That means the universe or at least part of it is always moving. The universe as a whole as some velocity in the vacuum.

This is because if everything never moved: there'd be no interaction or movement at all. Why would there be? Objects at rest stay at rest. This goes for the universe as well as its parts. The alternative is that they randomly, just start moving. And that is absurd.

This viewpoint of causality being eternal motion, I suppose you can call it eternalism or whatever; avoids the problem of original causes entirely. Seince I am not saying every motion is an effect and hence demands a cause: I am saying motion just is. That certain things like existence and motion just are.

The alternative is randomnism i.e. these things just pop out of nowhere.

God is not an exception as God would have to first exist and be moving to cause things to exist and move. Otherwise God is randomly doing so.

Circularity does not get around this either: as the circle would have either had to always be present or started itself by something external.

[ December 18, 2002: Message edited by: Primal ]

[ December 18, 2002: Message edited by: Primal ]</p>

John Page

Primal:

Can you clarify for me, there seems to be an inconsistency. Causality arises due to motion and the nature of each object? Also, are you drawing a distinction between "motion in any direction" and "motion in any direction in a certain way"?

Cheers, John

Cheers, John