Easy Be

Eh,

If most cosmologists predict that time was created during the big bang then predicting what created the big bang would be virtually impossible.

Is time needed in defining something?

What caused the big bang will by definition have zero chance. Since zero doesn't actually exist in probability the odds will be some number over infinity.

SRB

There is an equivocation here in use of the word "end." An infinite sequence can have an end in one direction provided it is boundless in the other direction (e.g. the positive integers considered in ascending order).

Let me define some terms:

infinite-a = having no beginning
infinite-b = having no finish

Past time is certainly not infinite-b, since the past "finishes" at the present moment, as you point out. If a sequence is infinite-a, however, it can have one end (i.e. a finish) provided it is boundless in the other direction, and has no beginning. You are supposed to be proving that past time cannot be infinite-a, but you have only proved that past time cannot be infinite-b.

With the equivocation in the word "end" removed, your argument can be summarised as follows:

(1) If the past were beginningless, it would be infinite-b.
(2) If past time were infinite-b it would not finish at the present.
(3) Past time finishes at the present.
(4) Thus, the past is not beginningless [from (1)-(3)].

My response is that (1) is false (or at best question-begging) and hence your argument is a failure.

SRB

luvluv

Nevertheless, to reach the here and now, reality will have had to have traverssed an infinite amount of actual events in time. Even if there could be an infinite regress, it would still be impossible for the present momment to ever arrive.

SRB

I can supply a proof that it impossible to start at an instant of time, traverse an infinity of successive moments, and then arrive at finishing moment. But that is not what is being proposed. If the past is beginningless, then there was no first moment, not even a first moment infinitely far back in the past. If the past is beginningless then any past moment you might pick out is a finite distance from the present.

What is called for here is some non-question-begging argument which makes use of clear, preferably labelled, steps. We have not as yet seen anything like that from you.

SRB

luvluv

But the issue is that the present momment will not have started at some finite point back in the past, it will have started INFINITELY in the past. Which, again, means it will have never arrived.

I haven't thought about it that much. I don't consider it possible but I don't have the mathematical knowledge to demonstrate it. There would be better people to ask. But certainly an explanation with this many logical connundrums would have to be considered, at best, problematic. I imagine someone with your beliefs (or lack thereof) would never consider the possibility were it not for what the alternative implies.

tronvillain

luvluv:
Do we know now that energy and matter cannot be created or destroyed? Well, it is certainly supported by the observational evidence, but there is no logical reason that it could not be created or destroyed.

tronvillain

luvluv:
The problem you are having appears to be that you consider "the present moment" to be something unique moving forward in time. You are treating time like distance and then complaining that it would take forever to traverse an infinite distance, but does that actually make any sense? No. If you are going to treat time like distance and then discuss how long it takes to travel a given distance you are going to have to invent some sort of higher level time, and that leads to a completely unproductive infinite regress. It is far simpler to abandon the idea of a unique and moving present, which completely eliminates the problem, as "the present moment" is simply another points on an infinite line, not a point moving along an infinite line.

SRB

I take it that you mean that if the past is beginningless then at least one moment of past time occurred infinitely long ago. If you think that, then you are dead wrong. If the past is beginningless then every moment of past time occurred a finite time ago.

I consider myself an open-minded sort of person. I don't think very much hangs on whether the past is beginningless or not, and I suspect that the scientific evidence provides at least some support for the theory that past time had a beginning. All arguments for the impossibility of a beginningless past that I have seen, however, are faulty for one reason or another. So it is not permissible for you to assume that they are sound.

Recall that it is you, not me, who asserts that a beginningless past is impossible but then admits that you haven't thought about it much and have no good argument for what you claim to believe. It seems clear who holds the more rational position and who, if anyone, has the hidden agenda.

SRB

HRG

No, it will not have "started infinitely in the past". It will never have "started" at all.

There is no "infinitely large negative number" where the negative number start

BTW. what are your objections against traversal of an actual infinite, if you have infinite time to do so ? It is even possible to traverse an actual infinite in a finite time:

1st step takes 1 hour, 2nd step 1/2 hour, 3rd step 1/4 hour etc.

Regards,
HRG.

luvluv

If it never started, it would never get here.

The actual infinite we are talking about traversing IS time. I'm not talking about traversing some infinite terrain WITHIN time, I'm talkling about the infinite terrain OF time.

I'll tell you what, I will agree to remain agnostic on the issue officially, since I can't prove that it can't happen and you (probably) can't prove that it can. I'll just say that the issue is so problematic that it seems impossible to me that it actually obtains, and so therefore I will opt towards a first cause because it does not seem likely to me that an infinite regress is possible.