Wyrdsmyth

I don't think I am missing the point of thomaq's OP at all... In fact, I think I zeroed in on it quite well. Read my last message. I wrote:

bd-from-kg

thomaq:

1. On your three “cases” or “lines of reasoning”

You say:

In a sense that’s true, but that’s because I think that all of your arguments in the OP don’t make sense..

Thus your possibility (1) is “The universe ‘sprang’ into existence out of nothing...”. But this is nonsensical. The universe could not have “sprung” into existence, because the notion of “springing” (no matter how you express it: “came” into existence has the same problem) involves time, and time is a feature of the very universe that you’re talking about. It’s as if, when asked how human beings came to exist you were to reply “They were created by a very wise man.” Also, “springing” logically requires that there be something to spring. The universe itself could not have been what did the “springing”, since it didn’t exist until the “springing” event was completed.

The correct statement of the logical possibility that you appear to be referring to here is “In the space-time continuum we call ‘the universe’, there is a first time – i.e., a time T1 such that for any time T, T1 comes before T.” Unfortunately for your argument, this leads to no logical difficulties whatsoever.

Now let’s look at (2): “The universe has always existed.” Now in a sense this is trivially true (as several posters have pointed out): it is necessarily true that at any time T, the universe existed at that time. But that’s because time is a feature of this universe. It’s rather like saying “At any move M in a chess game, the chess game is going on.” Obviously this is true by definition, since a move of a given chess game is part of the chess game, so it logically requires that the chess game be going on.

But that doesn’t seem to be what you have in mind. What you seem to intend by (2) is something like “There might be times prior to the existence of the universe, but there aren’t.” But the premise here is false: it is logically impossible that there should be times prior to the existence of the universe, just as it is logically impossible that there should be moves in a chess game that precede the beginning of that game.

The correct statement of the alternative to (1) is:

(2) “In the space-time continuum we call ‘the universe’, there is not a first time.”

This actually breaks up into two subcases:

(2a) There is no first time, but for any delta-T > 0 there is a time T such that there is no time prior to T minus delta-T. (That is, the set of times in this universe forms an open or half-open set. This is not the same as having the timeline extend backward indefinitely.)

(2b) Not only is there no first time, but for at least one delta-T > 0, for any time T there is a time prior to T minus delta-T. (Actually it can easily be shown that if this is true for any delta-T > 0 it is true for all delta-T > 0.) This says that this universe’s timeline extends backward indefinitely.

Once again it is perfectly clear that either (2a) or (2b) is logically possible. But since you claim otherwise, let’s look at this more closely.

2. Is an infinite past logically impossible?

In attempting to demonstrate that (2b) is logically impossible, you say:

One more time: when you speak of “getting to” the present, what do you have in mind as the starting point? Questions like “How long does it take to get to point X?” and “Is it possible to get to point X” are meaningless unless some starting point is specified. For example, consider “Is it possible to get to point X, which is outside the event horizon of this black hole?” The answer is “It depends. If you’re inside the black hole, no. If you’re outside it, yes.” Similarly, the answer to “When will we arrive at the present?” is “We’ve just arrived there.”

As I pointed out before, questions of this kind obviously presume that the starting point is the “first time”: if the past is infinite, one couldn’t “get to” the present starting at the first time. But of course if the past is infinite there was no first time.

I know you’re having trouble getting your mind around this, but try to understand it: there is no logical contradiction in supposing that the past is infinite. But if you’re still determined to prove that there is, I must point out that alleged proofs that a concept is self-contradictory are held to a very high standard. A corollary of Godel’s Completeness Theorem is that if a statement is self-contradictory, it’s possible to rigorously derive any statement – in particular, any contradiction, such as “X and not-X” - from it. So if it’s logically impossible for the past to be infinite, you should be able to show how to rigorously derive a contradiction from it. You haven’t come within a million miles of doing so. You just make a few meaningless statements, then say “Obviously this is irrational”. That won’t do.

You illustrate this point nicely when you say:

Fine. I can see (and I’ll be happy to demonstrate on request) how to derive a contradiction from the assumption that God created a world with married bachelors, or square circles, or 3 horned unicorns. Now you show me how to derive a contradiction from the assumption that God has created a world with an infinite past. No hand-waving, please. All premises must be spelled out, and the only inference rule permitted is modus ponens

On the other hand I can demonstrate (once again) how it is clearly possible for God to create such a world. Let’s start at the beginning: We’ll have God do something really simple: to create a static world with just one time; call it T1. Can He do that? Sure; He’s omnipotent. Now let’s have him create another world with just one time; call it T2. Easy. OK, let’s get a bit more challenging: let’s have Him create a world with a million times, then a billion, etc. Still no problem, right? I mean this is God we’re talking about. Next let’s have Him create a world with an infinite number of times.

At this point you may to be tempted to say “Wait a minute. Are these times in the past, or the future, or what?” to which the answer is, “From God’s perspective this question is meaningless; He exists outside time (or at least outside our time – i.e., this universe’s time. (This is necessarily so, because He created this universe’s time. Similarly, He exists outside the time of any universe that He creates. Of course, from the perspective of creatures living in a universe He creates, the question depends on the relationship between the time they’re at and the time in question. Thus, if a trog in our hypothetical universe is living at time T1, the answer to the question whether T2 is in the past, present, or future is: If T2 < T1, it’s in the past, if T2 = T1 it’s in the present’ if T2 > t1 it’s in the future.”

So at this point it should be clear that it’s no more problematic for God to create a universe with an infinite number of times than it is for Him to create a universe with an infinite number of places. And the temporal relationships between these times is entirely at His discretion. If He chooses, He can create a universe with the property that for any given delta-T, for every time T1 there’s another time T2 < T1 such that T1 – T2 > delta-T; just as He can create a universe with a similar spatial property. (in fact, this is especially clear for our universe, since in this universe time and space are two aspects of the same thing. so if God should create a universe like ours (i.e., one where GR holds) which is spatially infinite in all directions, He will have ipso facto created a universe which is temporally infinite in both directions.

What you don’t seem to “get” is that God wouldn’t have to create the timeline for a universe that He creates by “traversing” it in “real time”. In other words, He wouldn’t create each hour one at a time by “experiencing” that hour; it wouldn’t “take” Him an hour to create one hour’s worth of the universe. If someone were to ask Him “Are you done?”, He would never have to say,. “Hold your horses. I’ve still got an infinite amount of time to create here. Get back to me at the end of Eternity.” He could create all of the times on that universe’s timeline all in one go.

Once again I invite you to think of the entire universe – past, present, and future – as a single entity, and remember that the “times” in this universe are only divided into “past, present, and future” from our local perspective. This division has no “objective reality”. From God’s point of view (which is to say, from a global or “timeless” point of view) all of this universe’s times are equally “the present”. Once you succeed in grasping this perspective, all will become clear.

3. This universe’s time and “absolute time”

What really seems to be in the back of your mind is some sort of notion of “absolute time” that exists independently of this universe, so that it makes sense to say that in terms of this absolute time the universe came into existence at some time TAC or that it “always” existed. But if so, “absolute time” cannot be this universe’s time. [We know this because relativity theory tells us that this universe’s time is not absolute; it depends on the reference frame one chooses; it is affected by gravitation; etc.] The “time” TAC of the “creation event” (in your first option) has nothing to do with our time. So even if there was a “creation event” in “absolute time”, this tells us nothing whatsoever about whether this universe has a first time, or more generally which of my possibilities (1), (2a), or (2b) holds.

Moreover, the notion of an absolute time would have (according to your analysis) the same problems that ordinary time has. For example, is there a first “absolute time”? It seems clear that you’d object to this possibility. You’d say that it’s not possible that the “absolute timeline” suddenly “sprang into existence” and ask what “came before” this first time.

Now let’s consider the possibility that the “absolute timeline” stretches backward indefinitely. Don’t we then (according to your analysis) have the problem of “the impossibility of traversing an actual infinite amount of moments”? I mean, for “absolute time” to actually mean anything, it has to actually be some definite time on the “absolute timeline”. (In other words, it has to be meaningful in some sense to ask “what time is it in terms of “absolute time”; there has to be some sense in which this question has an answer.) But how was “the present” on the “absolute timeline” reached?

In short, your analysis only makes even minimal sense if we assume some kind of “absolute time”, but the notion of “absolute time” involves the very same apparent paradoxes that you discussed in connection with the question of whether this universe has a first time or an infinite past.

It should be clear at this point that we aren’t talking about a “problem with naturalism”, but a problem with this whole way of thinking about time and the “ultimate nature of things”. It’s not possible to think about it this way without landing in a logical paradox.

bd-from-kg

thomaq:

Well, I wouldn’t say that you’re claiming it, but that’s exactly what the argument in the OP purports to show. This is clear from its very structure:

(P1) Here is an exhaustive set of hypotheses regarding the universe available in a naturalistic framework.
(P2) But all of them are irrational.
(C1) therefore naturalism itself is irrational.

Both (P1) and (P2) must be true in order to reach the conclusion.

I suspect that you’re confusing epistemological possibility with logical possibility. You’re not certain that the argument is valid, so it’s epistemologically possible (to you) that some naturalistic hypothesis is logically possible. But the argument you present (as I understand it) purports to show that none of the hypotheses available to naturalism is logically possible.

Wyrdsmyth:

My reason for saying that you seem to be missing the point is that in your posts you repeatedly make the point that:

But this is no answer. To illustrate, suppose that we replace “naturalism is true” with “There is a planar map that requires five colors.” Now the classic proof of the four-color theorem replies: If that’s true, your map must fall under one of the following ten thousand (or so) cases. But I will now proceed to show, for each of these cases, that the hypothesis that it falls under that case leads to a contradiction.” It’s no good, in the face of this argument, to protest that you make no claim as to which of the possible cases your map falls under; in fact, that you don’t have any specific map in mind; you just claim that there is such a map.

The extensive discussions of what this or that current scientific theory has to say are similarly beside the point.

Wyrdsmyth

Well, to me it looks like you and I are making the same, or at least very similar points.

Alix Nenuphar

bd- from-kg:

That was a genuinely lovely piece of analysis; I particularly liked the chess-game analogy. :notworthy

Wyrdsmyth

I agree. I think you've laid out the clearest and best objections to the OP. I think you've nailed the mark much better than I have.

thomaq

EXCELLENT!!!!! one down two to go!!
this is exactly my point. thank you for clarifying it. so option one is not even an option (although some people subscribe to it). we no longer need to address option one of the OP.

thomaq

are you not the master of the straw man? no where have i ever said that this is an "exhaustive" set of hypothesis. i have been very careful and explicit to say that i would LOVE to hear more options. i have repeatedly asked for more options.

thomaq

1. Of course! i have never said other wise.

2. i have NEVER said nor implied that there may have been time before the universe. another straw man. once again let me explain. 2a, is the option which says that the universe (including time/space) had NO BEGINNING. option 2a says that their are an infinite amount of past moments and thus by definition NO starting points.
so, if the past is infinite, then by definition there was no starting point, no "first time", and thus you CANNOT get to the present if this is the case. yet we ARE in the present, and so (time going infinitely into the past) cannot be the case. this is simple mathematics. maybe you define infinity differently than i do. please give me the definition of infinity that you are using. most mathemeticians acknowledge that infinity is no where to be found in the actual physical world. the concept of an "actual" infinity is just an idea or a theory.
this is exactly right!! 2a as an option is irrational because there IS no starting point.

sodium

I'm going to present a cosmology, and you can tell me if you think it's rational. I'm not sure this cosmology is correct, but it does seem to me both plausible and naturalistic. But first, let's get some terms better understood.

First, let's consider what we mean by "exists". In everyday terms, we use exist to refer to things that exist now. Napoleon does not exist. My contention, however, is that this is only a matter of frame of reference. My cosmology gives no special priority to the you of today over the you of one month ago, or the you of one month from now. From the point of view of a god looking atemporally from outside the universe, there would just be a lot of you's, all thinking they lived in the now. So, I will begin to speak of atemporal existence, where all these you's are said to exist.

Now, the god mentioned before would note some consistencies, that would allow him to guess states of the universe further into the future based on its state at some time, or similarly, states further into the past. However, in neither direction can this guess be perfect. There are some events that are not predictable based on past events. The god would see that because of the structure of the universe, guessing into the past based on limited knowledge tends to be more accurate than guessing into the future, and recognize that this is why humans have the perception of traveling forward in time.

The god would notice that humans often speak of one thing as causing another thing. They do this when they have noticed a consistency by which they can guess a later event from an earlier one. Sometimes they can guess an earlier event from a later event, but they do not then say that the later event caused the earlier one. But to the god this would be a linguistic difference, based on how humans like to see the universe, and not based on some fundamental difference in the universe itself.

The god would notice that the dimension humans identify as time only goes so far in the direction they identify as the past.

The god would see that the universe is not alone, but in fact there are a very many of them, but most contain no life. However, since these are not connected in time or space, the god would observe no interaction between them.

And the god would see that these universes are all that exist.