thomaq

1.what you are describing here is theoretical infinity or "potential" infinity, not "actual infinity". time is moving towards potential infinity, and by definition can never "make it" to infinity because there is no end to infinity.

2. i'm totally ok with that. lets ask the question this way, “If we are at the present, how many moments have passed for us to get here?”
the answer is most definitely NOT an infinite amount. that would be impossible by definition.

3. now you, like those several others, have not understood the point. (here is where you say, "because your points are meaningless" and then proceed to NOT give reasons why). option 2a of the OP is specifically referring to the theory that time DID NOT begin, and thus there IS NO starting point. the whole point is that because there is no starting point, it is impossible to get to the ending point (which is the present).

4. again, i never defined any starting point. by definition there is no starting point, and it is this fact which makes my point.

madmax2976

Hey thomaq,

I alluded to one before, but I’ll flesh it out some.

3. The universe was created accidentally by some mischievous students who exist in a metaverse. Or – the universe was created purposefully by some alien scientists experimenting with the creation of quantum singularities – they also exist in a metaverse. These are similar enough to treat them as one option.

4. There was a timeless quantum void which existed prior to the universe, from which the universe “sprang” into existence . (Since you don’t agree with Stenger’s coherent view of “nothing”, but rather hold to some incoherent philosophical usage.)

Based on your usage of “nothing” I will concur that option #1 you offered is irrational.

You have not in any way shown that option 2 is irrational however. To the contrary is it is trivially true, since “always” translates to “all time” and the only time we know of is the time that is a feature of this universe. If you want to talk about transversing infinities and so forth, and correlate that to transversing infinite moments, then you’ll have to first demonstrate there were any moments at all to be traversed.

You seemed to have some objection regarding a change from a timeless state of affairs to one with time, but I fail to understand it.

If you mean this is necessarily so, then I say this is false. The #4 option I offered above is another alternative.

Well the first option could definitely be construed as a straw man since your attempted refutation of it depends on a usage of nothing that physicists don’t adhere to. When people say, “there is nothing in the box”, they don’t mean that there is no thing whatsoever in the box – i.e. that its completely devoid of air, particles and even space itself. However, this seems to be precisely the usage that you are constraining “nothing” to be – not even a void could exist. This is a philosophical usage of “nothing” that has no relevance to anything as far as I know, not one that physicists consider.

That’s fine. Hec, I have to go back and remember what it is I wrote.

In any case, I’ve offered 2 additional options to the ones you proposed and I haven’t see you demonstrate that 2b is irrational. As for 2a being irrational, I’ll let others hash that one out.

thomaq

first, we need to clarify some terms. i am using the term universe as " everything that exists". so when metaverses, or alien scientists are brought up, they would fall into my definition of universe. but i am willing to use the term universe to mean "our universe as we know it". but my reasoning would still apply to a metaverse. your option number 3 falls right into option 2a. in this metaverse, some sort of duration or time would exist. now we have to ask, could there be an infinite amount of past moments in this metaverse. the answer is no. so option 3 is really not a new option. it suffers all of the irrationalities of option 2a.

thomaq

this is exactly what option 2b is. let me also add that most people on here would take exception to your statement many here would say that you cannot use the term "prior" to the universe, becasue time is a product "of" the universe. but i agree with you that "prior" can have meaning other than temporal. Quentin Smith is one of many that would agree with us.

now, what seems to make option 4 (or 2b) irrational, is the absence of a reason or cause for the shift from timelessness/spacelessness to time/space. one might say say that causality does not apply. first, there seems to be no good reason to assert this. second, if causality does not apply, why does spontaneity?

thomaq

there is no such thing as option 2. there is either option 2a or 2b. they are completely seperate. the only thing that connects them is that they both agree that "nothingness" can never be a state of reality. i should have just called them options 2 and 3 (rather than 2a and 2b) to avoid confusion. each option stand completely alone.
2a offers that there was no beginning to time (no big bang), and thus there are an infinite amount of past moments that lead up to the present.
and
2b which is a variant of your option (4) listed above

thomaq

its not a straw man. i have had conversations with people who think that option 1, as i presented it, is the case. i would happily acknowledge that people who use the term "nothing" might use it differently than i did. now, i dont think it makes sense to say "nothing" and by that, refer to "something", but i would never attribute my usage to their intent. and thus no straw man has occured.

acronos

You have said two contradictory things. You said, "there is no starting point." Then you said basically, if we start at the beginning (a starting point) and count to now, we cannot arrive at now if we crossed infinity. The way you worded, "If an infinite amount of moments have to pass before we can get to the present, when will we arrive at the present? The obvious answer is Never.” implies and requires a starting point at the beginning of time to begin counting. Your two statements contradict each other.

Because we are having so much trouble communicating here, let me word this another way. It is the phrase, "when will we get to the present?" in your question that specifies the counting direction. If you phrased it "when will we arrive at the beginning of the universe?" then that would mean you start counting now and count backwards. Since you said, "when will we arrive at the present?" you have to start at the beginning and count to the present. By ending your count on the present, you require the count to start at the beginning of time.

Let me try yet another way, if we start at a point 5e100 years ago and count till now, when will we reach now? If we start at a point 5e10000 years ago and count till now, when will we reach now? If we start at a point [infinity] years ago and count till now, when will we reach now? Think about these questions because they reveal the problem in what you are saying. You have to have a starting point to begin counting. Infinity doesn't have a starting point so you CANNOT start counting there. It is impossible to begin counting at the beginning of an infinitely old universe. There is no beginning of an infinitely old universe. When you decided to start counting at the beginning, at that instant you created a starting point at the beginning and we were no longer talking about infinity. We are not talking about infinity because of constructs that you created in your question, not because it is impossible for such an infinity to exist.

It does not matter which direction time is moving now. It is possible for time to start at a point now and go backwards toward infinity forever. It is also possible for time to start at a point now and go forwards toward infinity. The universe has to be thought of as a whole. Our current place and direction of movement in time is irrelevant, just as our current position in space and direction of movement is irrelevant to whether space is infinite or not.

We disagree here on another point. I have not seen any evidence that I find convincing that “potential” or theoretical infinities cannot exist in our universe. I read your two quotes at the beginning trying to resolve Xeno's paradox. They were basically statements of opinion not proofs. My resolution to Xeno's paradox is that infinity can be crossed with a second infinity. The infinite number of points is overcome by a steadily increasing speed for crossing those points until that speed reaches infinity at the point of contact. Xeno's paradox is proof to me that infinity can be crossed. If something that is impossible happens then something is either wrong with your premises or logic.

An implied premise in your second proof is that there are no theoretical infinities. It basically goes:
P1) There are no theoretical infinities.
C1) Therefore, the universe is not infinitely old.
That is the real core of your argument, and since I don’t agree with the premise, I don’t find it very convincing.

thomaq

i agree that there are theoretical or potential infinites. "actual" infinites are impossible or at best irrational. in P1, replace the word "theoretical" with "actual", that would be my position in a round about way.

Normal

To all people saying things like "There was no before" and "Time started at the big bang", these are logical fallicies. The current measurement of T=0 at the start of the big bang is due to calculations that galaxies were D=0 apart from one another at that time, meaning T=0 is all we can logically comphrend relative to the start of our universe. This does not mean that time did not exist "before" T=0, it means time was irrelevent to our universe before T=0.

thomaq

i never said anything about counting. the whole concept of counting makes no sense when talking about infinity, especially when there is no such thing as a beginning.

1. when you say this:
"By ending your count on the present, you require the count to start at the beginning of time."
the fact that you said "beginning of time" shows me that you still are not understanding the issue. option 2a is the option where time is infinite and thus has no beginning.

2. you are asserting that the universe is infinitely old. while giving no reasons to think that.
to say that the universe is infinitely old, is like saying "i counted to infinity". this is impossible. you can never count to infinity. it is the same as saying the infinite past is complete. but there IS no "complete" when it come to infinity.