thomaq

i have a few questions maybe you all can help me with. if the universe always existed, does that mean time always existed. if so, then is an infinte regress of past moments possible? i apologize if this is an annoying question, but i'm seriously wondering about this. thanks.

JB01

No, not particularly annoying. Here's what I'd say, for what it's worth.

First, to answer the title question, I would say that an infinite past is logically possible (I reject the notion that it leads to some sort of paradox), but not necessarily physically possible.

Next, if by "universe", you mean the spacetime we observe around us when we look up at the sky with a telescope, then if it has always existed, then time has always existed - that's what "always" means.

However, if general relativity is true (and all observations to date have confirmed it), and if our inference of an expanding universe from the observed red-shift of almost all galaxies is accurate, then spacetime has probably not always existed, but began a finite time ago (with a "big bang"). If this is the case, then time as we know it has not always existed either but came into existence with our universe.

SanDiegoAtheist

Time is an illusion....lunchtime doubly so.

Sorry, couldn't resist.

Anyway, this particular conundrum is quite interesting...

The first problem is time and its relation to the universe. Our visible universe (the universe which came out of the "Big Bang") may very well have created time along with space - thus there would be no 'prior' event preceding the big bang in terms of temporal causality.

Many theories knocking about these days though indicate that our visible universe may be only an infinitesmal part of the cosmos (or multiverse) which contains our visible universe, but runs on different rules (e.g. the quantum foam universe, where the ultimate ground rules are those of quantum mechanics, and our "Big Bang" universe arose out of an uncaused fluctuation in the quantum foam).

However, even if it was the case that cause/effect relationships hold at the quantum level, and we're left with an infinite causal regress, I'm not sure that it is in fact a problem.

You see, there are two alternatives for explaining why there is something rather than nothing, and BOTH involve noncognitive concepts (things that just "don't compute" in our brains)...

1) infinite causal regress

and

2) an acausal first cause.

Neither one of them can I really wrap my brain around - both seem to have real problems as far as my thinking is concerned.

On the one hand, an infinite causal regress implies that we are at the end of a infinite string of events, contradicting our experience that an ACTUAL infinite cannot be traversed.

On the other hand, an acausal event seems by logic to only push that back one more step...as an acausal event which was eternally existant (e.g. the conditions of which were eternally possible, and the agent eternally present, both of which are necessary conditions, otherwise you simply have yet another example of something coming out of nothing which needs explanation), either should have brought the universe into existance necessarily and ALSO eternally (ergo, again eternal causal regress, with the universe coexisting eternally with its necessary cause), or would have had to change state to create the universe at a defined locus in whatever pseudo time the eternal acausal agent exists in - in which case the AGENT would have had to traverse an infinite amount of states to arrive at the 'decision' (conscious or not) to cause the universe.

Of course, there is another possibility - an infinite regress which CAN be traversed would be the circumfrence of a circle for example.

It seems to me that we simply aren't equipped to be able to answer this question - most of the answers seem to lead to insurmountable problems, yet the brute fact that we are HERE indicates that there is an answer...it simply appears to me that because of our dependence on cause/effect relationships bounded by time, we simply may not be intellectually equipped to be able to understand the answer.

Cheers,

The San Diego Atheist

Theli

I agree with this point. The universe can't be a product nor be dependent on infinite regress, since "infinite regress leading to the creation of our universe" doesn't allow a sourse for events happening in our universe now.

HRG

Beg to differ. In an infinite regress, every event - even every finite set of events - has a source. In any case, the infinite regress would take place within the universe itself (which is not a thing, but a set of things).

On the contrary, an infinite regress avoids the special pleading that proponents of a "first cause" need to do.

Regards,
HRG.

Ryanfire

Perhaps it's circular

Just an absurd hypothesis I threw together for fun.

Theli

I still see the problem.
If we were to trace the events (leading to the creation of earth(example)) backwards.
Would we find these 2 options?

1. A state were no prior events has any influence on earth's existence/specifics. Where assuming unproven prior events violates Ockhams Razor.

2. We find more and more events, tracing backwards wich earth's existence is dependent on. This would lead us to the conclution that at no state were earth's existence ensured. And we get no information on why earth and the universe exists in the first place. There simply isn't any.

How can this theory hold water?