So, you want to have existed since forever...

Upchurch

Papa Funkosophy
Joined
May 10, 2002
Messages
34,265
Location
St. Louis, MO
It is only common sense that something has been around forever. I mean, there had to be something before the Big Bang. Void. Time. God. Something. Right?

Okay, let's ignore that physical evidence tells us that spacetime isn't absolute. Let's ignore that it doesn't even makes sense that there is a time before the existance of spacetime. Let's focus on what it means to be something that has an eternal past. An infinite past.

For the sake of this argument, I'm going to assume that there is a prefered time line that extends backwards from a specific point (let's call it November 22, 2005) for an infinite amount of duration. It is absolute and all things can be measured against it in a common, un-changing metric that is constant throughout the universe and time. Let's call it a year. Let's also assume that there is some there is something (we'll call it X) that exists on this time line in the distant, infinite past and that X cannot age, decay, or be distroyed. Based on its definition, X can only be something that is eternal, but what you choose to call it (e.g. God, Time, Void, Ed, FSM, etc.) really doesn't matter. I'm only going to use one to prove my ultimate point, but feel free to apply it to your favorite eternal thingie.

To recap more simply, we've got a thing, X, that is forever many years in the past from November 22, 2005. The first question that springs to my mind is: how many years must X wait until it has traveled along the time line to November 22, 2005?

Well, an infinite number of years is a long amount of duration to calculate, so let's make it easy on ourselves and figure out how long it takes X to reach only half that duration. Half of infinite duration would take X infinity years to transverse. That puts X infinite years closer, but still infinite years away from November 22, 2005. How long will it take X to travel the remaining infinite years? Let's cut it in half and try again.

...or not. I'm sure you can see where I'm going with this obvious adaptation* of Zeno's Paradox.

X, having existed since forever, can never reach a specific point in time because there will never be enough years. That includes time itself. If time existed infinitely long ago, it could never be measured in enough years to arrive at our current time. The presant would never get here.

Obviously, the presant is here, therefore time did not exist infinitely long ago. Further, if time did not exist infinitely long ago, then it must have a beginning. Further2, if time has a beginning, then all things must have a beginning.

Therefore, nothing can have existed forever.


* read "rip off"
 
I'd counter with a "time started at 0" and then moved forwards and backwards, spreading across all the positive and negative integers. Perhaps even going infinitely fast across the negative integers.

I know it's a stupid idea, but finding counter-examples in philosophy is just SO EASY.
 
I'd counter with a "time started at 0" and then moved forwards and backwards, spreading across all the positive and negative integers. Perhaps even going infinitely fast across the negative integers.
Oh, but what happened before time started at 0 and then moved forwards and backwards?!?

um... well, nothing, as shown above.
 
If we think of time as a dimension, why not infinite?

It's mathematically describable.

..... 2397985356295141.3 (whew!)

The Eternal One has just finished reciting the digits of pi backwards. :p
 
This is certainly a very interesting theory. However, I think it rather shows the shortcomings of human logic than those of infinity. Using this kind of thinking, there is no such thing as eternity at all, with the argument that we can't understand it.
This may sound incredibly stupid - after all, with the thinking I'm using, you can disprove any logical conclusion by pointing to the flaws of logic. But it may be useful to at least be able to imagine infinity and eternity, and since science may have to face them at some point, I don't think we should exclude them from our thinking.
Also, there are serious problems with using infinity as a usual mathematic number. I'm by no means a mathematician, but for example:

How many square roots are there of 1? Two, of course. 1 and -1. But not if we start counting with infinity. For example, what is (∞-1)²? Let's see.

(∞-1)² = (∞-1)(∞-1) = ∞²-2∞+1 = ∞-∞+1 = 1

So, there's another square root of 1. Now, what's (2∞-1)²?

(2∞-1)² = (2∞-1)(2∞-1) = 4∞²-4∞+1 = ∞-∞+1 = 1

Look, another square root! Anyone wanna try (3∞-1)²?
In other words, if you use infinity like this, there's an infinite (if you pardon the expression ;)) amount of square roots of 1. Which makes kind of difficult to solve most equations.

Sorry for bringing up mathematics in the R&P Forum, but I simply wanted to question the use of infinity when calculating things like this.
 
Cool, but it all makes my head hurt. Upchurch, on that note (perhaps). I've always wonderd why God picked this period in eternity to create humans? Religion seems to find purpose in everything. What purpose for now? Must be a mystery.
 
It is only common sense that something has been around forever. I mean, there had to be something before the Big Bang. Void. Time. God. Something. Right?

Isn't time just a feature of matter? You've made a clear, understandable case for the impossibility of an eternal, infinite existence within the confines of time and matter (unfortunately that rules out the Flying Spaghetti Monster, and his noodly appendage of vengeance will wreak creamy retribution upon you for your sauciness). But for eons (or so it seems) the theists have argumed for a Supreme Being beyond time, space and matter.

Or have I totally missed your point?
 
Isn't time just a feature of matter? You've made a clear, understandable case for the impossibility of an eternal, infinite existence within the confines of time and matter (unfortunately that rules out the Flying Spaghetti Monster, and his noodly appendage of vengeance will wreak creamy retribution upon you for your sauciness). But for eons (or so it seems) the theists have argumed for a Supreme Being beyond time, space and matter.

Or have I totally missed your point?

Right, and if God, er the Flying Spaghetti Monster, has/is/will existed forever (you try doing the conjugation of the perfect past-present-future tense in infinite time!) then when did God (i.e. FSM) create the universe? A little tricky to answer, aye?
 
Or have I totally missed your point?
Despite my ambiguity, I was primarily aiming at the concept that time has no beginning. But, you've got an excellent point. I did forget God's tendency to suspend logic and reason when it is inconvenient.

Funny, though. I never considered the FSM to be eternally old. Why else would there have been the Time of the Great Boiling?
 
This is certainly a very interesting theory. However, I think it rather shows the shortcomings of human logic than those of infinity. Using this kind of thinking, there is no such thing as eternity at all, with the argument that we can't understand it.
Do you think I've made this sort of mistake? To my thinking, I was pointing out the general populaces' casual usage of "forever" or "eternity" (i.e. infinite) in describing a real things like time.
Sorry for bringing up mathematics in the R&P Forum, but I simply wanted to question the use of infinity when calculating things like this.
No, I think you're exactly right. It doesn't make sense to apply infinity in this way. I think that is what people don't understand when they insist that time must have existed forever and so on.
 
I don't think the example very well, since it assumes a god which travels in time. Since Christians (and a fair few others) posit their god to be omnipresent, existing at every point in space, he might as well exist at every point in time (he's not just everywhere, he's everywhen!). Assuming an infinite time (in both directions) and infinite space (in all directions), the question of why he created the world four thousand years before himself is as relevant as asking why he created it at this place in space.
 
My problem with this is exactly the same as my problem with one of lifegazer's comments:

Infinite time does NOT mean an infinite duration between two fixed points in time. The present (one 'fixed' point - ok, actually, a continually moving point) can be compared to various points in the past to determine a fixed (or systemically increasing) duration, without requiring 'infinite time' between the two points. Further, since 'time' is not, as we imagine, some thing that 'grows from the past into the future', but a backdrop which, in theory, from the moment time existed did so infinitely and instantaneously into past and future as a fabric, of sorts (remember, 'time' is a bad term - this is spacetime that we're discussing), there is no problem with infinite time before and infinite time after.

And, essentially, all we know for sure is time had to exist at the moment the first change - whatever change that may have been - occured. If there was a 'first change'.
 
Further, since 'time' is not, as we imagine, some thing that 'grows from the past into the future', but a backdrop which, in theory, from the moment time existed did so infinitely and instantaneously into past and future as a fabric, of sorts (remember, 'time' is a bad term - this is spacetime that we're discussing), there is no problem with infinite time before and infinite time after.
Mmmm'kay. I didn't realize I had communicated so poorly.

Upchurch said:
Okay, let's ignore that physical evidence tells us that spacetime isn't absolute. Let's ignore that it doesn't even makes sense that there is a time before the existance of spacetime. Let's focus on what it means to be something that has an eternal past. An infinite past.
I'm arguing within the idea that time is an infinite straight line to show the internal inconsistancies of the idea itself, thus invalidating it. I know this isn't how time is. I'm exploring an alternate and purely logical (rather than physical) explination as to why time is not a infinitely long line.

For this argument, it doesn't matter that we know how spacetime actually works. I'm falsifying this "eternal past" concept from the inherent flaws of the concept itself.
 
Mmmm'kay. I didn't realize I had communicated so poorly.


I'm arguing within the idea that time is an infinite straight line to show the internal inconsistancies of the idea itself, thus invalidating it. I know this isn't how time is. I'm exploring an alternate and purely logical (rather than physical) explination as to why time is not a infinitely long line.

For this argument, it doesn't matter that we know how spacetime actually works. I'm falsifying this "eternal past" concept from the inherent flaws of the concept itself.

Ah... so what you're saying is... that you've created this nice Man-o-Straw, and are proceeding to burn it accordingly, to 'falsify' the idea of 'eternal past'?

Interesting.

Nonetheless, the 'internal consistancy' you seem to be showing is nothing more than Darren's 'infinite distance between fixed points' problem. As such, it's not a very valid point.
 
How many square roots are there of 1? Two, of course. 1 and -1. But not if we start counting with infinity. For example, what is (∞-1)²? Let's see.

(∞-1)² = (∞-1)(∞-1) = ∞²-2∞+1 = ∞-∞+1 = 1

So, there's another square root of 1. Now, what's (2∞-1)²?

Infinity is not a number. ∞-∞ = indeterminate. It's not 0.
 

Back
Top Bottom