Infinte Regress Timeline...

[skepticalbip]

Then if you don't want "proof" that it is real, then we can only make logical arguments from assumptions. The devil is in the assumption.

It is generally assumed that any effect had to have had a cause. This is the only experience we have ever witnessed in the real world. Even quantum fluctuations require a pre-existing spacetime for them to occur in. It would be an assumption opposed to experience to assume that there could be an uncaused cause.

So if we assume that spacetime had a beginning, the natural logical question would be, "What caused the beginning to happen?" If there was a cause for the beginning then what we thought was a beginning wasn't. It was just an effect of a prior cause. Ergo: spacetime is eternal.

An argument that time began requires making an assumption of an uncaused cause which is contrary to our experiences. However, "god folks" like the assumption because, for them, god was the original uncaused cause.

You are saying there is no first cause simply to make your argument work.

You are making a statement about reality. "Definitely no first cause".

You are assuming what you claim to be proving.

What argument demonstrates there was no first cause?

Fuck...
I said the devil is in the assumptions. This isn't a proof. It is a logical argument based on the assumption that it is our experiences in the real world (which is a fact) and that it is always valid (an assumption).

An argument that there was a beginning would have to make the assumption of an uncaused cause which is contrary to experience. Arguably a weaker argument since it would be necessary to argue how an uncaused cause could occur even though we have never seen one.

It seems fairly evident that it is easier to argue that what we experience, observe, and measure is likely a better description of reality than a belief that has none of those attributes.

But as I keep saying "we don't really know".

 

[Kharakov]

The question is; Is an infinite reality possible?

The real question is how can anyone think that a finite reality is possible. The existence of a finite reality has the implication that something came from nothing, which is completely illogical.

I've yet to hear a good argument HOW it is possible for an infinite reality to be possible, besides the fact that humans don't know everything. An argument from ignorance.

Definitely an argument from ignorance, and totally unnecessary. Nothing existing is impossible.

People have said over and over, It is possible. How is it possible? How is it possible for something to have always existed?

It is impossible for something or someone to come into being from nothing. Therefore the fact that we exist at all indicates something always exists.

 

[Juma]

Easy. Numbers are countable and infinitely many.

A number is not in my formulation a "countable" entity.

I cannot see it or measure it. It has no dimension. It exists neither in time or space. It is a concept.

Now you add extra requirements not incuded in you post? i asked you to make a concise and complete formulation. Since it obviously wasnt complete you failed the attempt.

Now formulate it again but be concise an complete this time.

 

[Mageth]

It always exists. Do you really think "something from nothing" is more logical than "something that always exists"?

That's not an explanation. That's a dismissal.

It always existed because it always existed.

What other option is there? Either it's possible for something to come from nothing, or it's not. If it's not possible for something to come from nothing, then it must be the case that something always existed.

Pick your poison.

 

[ryan]

I agree it will take what we call the imagination to come up with any argument.

I just would like to see an argument.

Here is one off of the top of my head.

Postulates: Let's assume that at least nothing or something can exist, which I tentatively think is unarguable. And if you can also assume that there is only one kind of nothing, i.e. nothing is unique, then keep reading.

If nothing existed, then we know that something, where something = x energy + (-x) energy, comes from nothing. So at any point that there is nothing, there will be something. Therefore in a reality of only something and nothing, something will always exist.

 

[Mageth]

It doesn't explain because we don't know. It is one of the possibilities of reality. The other is that reality could be finite. An infinite reality is as possible as a finite reality. "God fearing" folk like the finite because it gives them a gap to squeeze their god into. Some philosophers like the finite for whatever mental quark they have and some philosophers like the infinite because of whatever mental quark they have. To try to argue that either "has to be" the case is arguing nonsense. Science generally takes the stand of "we don't know" but examines the "what if" in either case.

The question is; Is an infinite reality possible?

And that is what we are examining. I think there are some good arguments against it.

I've yet to hear a good argument HOW it is possible for an infinite reality to be possible, besides the fact that humans don't know everything. An argument from ignorance.

People have said over and over, It is possible. How is it possible? How is it possible for something to have always existed?

Ask the same questions for a finite reality.

To me, the question of the possibility of one or the other is rather a waste of time. The fact is that there is something. Therefore either something came from nothing, which has its own issues, or something always was, which you can't swallow and declare to be impossible. Both case are difficult to get our minds around. But I think it's a given that there is something, and therefore...see my previous post.

But then, NATURE (so to speak) doesn't give a flying fuck what you, I, or anyone else thinks is possible or not possible. If "infinite reality" as you call it is what is, then so be it. You and your logic that struggles with the notion of infinities in reality would be wrong. If "reality" is finite, then "something comes from nothing" must be true.

Reality doesn't give a damn if you think infinities don't exist. If reality requires infinities, then infinities exist, in spite of our difficulties conceiving of them.

 

[ryan]

That's not an explanation. That's a dismissal.

It always existed because it always existed.

What other option is there? Either it's possible for something to come from nothing, or it's not. If it's not possible for something to come from nothing, then it must be the case that something always existed.

Pick your poison.

You beat me to it!

 

[Mageth]

What other option is there? Either it's possible for something to come from nothing, or it's not. If it's not possible for something to come from nothing, then it must be the case that something always existed.

Pick your poison.

You beat me to it!

And I'd also note that if it is possible for something to come from nothing, then it may still be the case that something always existed.

"We don't know" is still the best answer to all this...

 

[Mageth]

A number is not in my formulation a "countable" entity.

I cannot see it or measure it. It has no dimension. It exists neither in time or space. It is a concept.

Now you add extra requirements not incuded in you post? i asked you to make a concise and complete formulation. Since it obviously wasnt complete you failed the attempt.

Now formulate it again but be concise an complete this time.

untermensche can't say how many fingers he has, and if he get hit in the head by three rocks, he wouldn't feel a thing.

 

[untermensche]

A number is not in my formulation a "countable" entity.

I cannot see it or measure it. It has no dimension. It exists neither in time or space. It is a concept.

Now you add extra requirements not incuded in you post? i asked you to make a concise and complete formulation. Since it obviously wasnt complete you failed the attempt.

Now formulate it again but be concise an complete this time.

It was most certainly included.

It can in theory be distinguished from that which is not the atom and be observed as a discrete entity.

 

[untermensche]

Fuck...
I said the devil is in the assumptions. This isn't a proof...

No kidding. It isn't anything. It isn't an argument at all.

It is saying that it is possible for time in the past to be infinite because I say so.

It is totally worthless.

 

[untermensche]

I agree it will take what we call the imagination to come up with any argument.

I just would like to see an argument.

Here is one off of the top of my head.

Postulates: Let's assume that at least nothing or something can exist, which I tentatively think is unarguable. And if you can also assume that there is only one kind of nothing, i.e. nothing is unique, then keep reading.

If nothing existed, then we know that something, where something = x energy + (-x) energy, comes from nothing. So at any point that there is nothing, there will be something. Therefore in a reality of only something and nothing, something will always exist.

If at all times nothing and something allegedly exists then at no time does nothingness exist.

 

[Kharakov]

Do you really think "something from nothing" is more logical than "something that always exists"?

The scientific interpretation of Occam's razor (When you have two competing theories that make exactly the same predictions, the simpler one is the better.) definitely favors your point, but the original version (Entities should not be multiplied unnecessarily.) definitely doesn't.

My head actually hurts right now. This is an evil topic.

It's because you're entertaining the logical fallacy of something appearing out of nothing. Try to think of all the ways that 1 is the logical equivalent of negative fluffy and you'll get a headache too.

Anyway, the additional entity of "nothing" may be... a useless additional entity. Although I suppose people like to talk about it... so it can be argued that nothing is not an unnecessary entity.

 

[untermensche]

The real question is how can anyone think that a finite reality is possible. The existence of a finite reality has the implication that something came from nothing, which is completely illogical.

All observation projected back into time converges at a single point.

How is this not finite?

It is impossible for something or someone to come into being from nothing. Therefore the fact that we exist at all indicates something always exists.

You are making claims about physical possibility.

Is it illogical to say that time did not exist then it did?

I don't think so. It is just an empty claim in need of a mechanism.

 

[George S]

All observation projected back into time converges at a single point.

How is this not finite?

This is the essence of the Hawking-Penrose theorem. But instead of finite we get 'undefined.' See Sean Carroll for the case where the 'contraction' (due to running time backwards) stops at 1, never reaching 0. Continuing running time backwards we find an expanding universe in which backwards time seems forward.

It is impossible for something or someone to come into being from nothing. Therefore the fact that we exist at all indicates something always exists.

You are making claims about physical possibility.

Is it illogical to say that time did not exist then it did?

Quite illogical. The "then" implies time's preexistence.

I don't think so. It is just an empty claim in need of a mechanism.

Time simply is a result. We note natural frequency. Time is not a thing that keeps everything from happening at once, rather it is the result of the fact that change takes time -- a direction to connect versions of changing reality.

Time appears when there is space and energy. To be energy there must be elsewhere that is 'downhill.' There must be gradients. At one time, time 1, there was something happening. Something found a downhill to follow. We call that the Big Bang.

 

[George S]

Reality simply is. Let us limit ourselves to 2 states.

0 represents non-reality, 1 reality.

Observation yields a 1. Get used to it. For us humans it is temporary.

 

[skepticalbip]

Fuck...
I said the devil is in the assumptions. This isn't a proof...

No kidding. It isn't anything. It isn't an argument at all.

It is saying that it is possible for time in the past to be infinite because I say so.

It is totally worthless.

It, at least, is based on observation of cause and effect. The only other possibility (which you continually assert is truth) is based on nothing but completely unsupported belief.

And as said in the post that you clipped:

.....................snip...............

It seems fairly evident that it is easier to argue that what we experience, observe, and measure is likely a better description of reality than a belief that has none of those attributes.

But as I keep saying "we don't really know".

 

[Kharakov]

You beat me to it!

And I'd also note that if it is possible for something to come from nothing, then it may still be the case that something always existed.

"We don't know" is still the best answer to all this...

No it isn't. That something has always existed is a tautology- for even if nothing is what everything came from, nothing is something that everything came from.

 

[Kharakov]

All observation projected back into time converges at a single point.

No- current theories cannot probe beyond a certain point, which isn't saying much.

How is this not finite?

Funny you should say that. Current theories aren't well equipped to deal with the infinite energy and density of the alleged "point".

Finite? right.

It is impossible for something or someone to come into being from nothing. Therefore the fact that we exist at all indicates something always exists.

You are making claims about physical possibility.

No claims- simply stating a tautology- nothing causes nothing, so it never exists.

Is it illogical to say that time did not exist then it did?

Sure is. There has always been time to change.

 

[untermensche]

This is the essence of the Hawking-Penrose theorem. But instead of finite we get 'undefined.' See Sean Carroll for the case where the 'contraction' (due to running time backwards) stops at 1, never reaching 0. Continuing running time backwards we find an expanding universe in which backwards time seems forward.

The observation is that all has moved from a single point.

The rest is speculation, not observation.

Quite illogical. The "then" implies time's preexistence.

There is nothing illogical about saying time started.

What would be illogical would be saying time occurred before it started. Or it existed before it existed.

Saying we have no idea how time could have started is not the same as saying the concept of time starting is illogical.

Time simply is a result. We note natural frequency. Time is not a thing that keeps everything from happening at once, rather it is the result of the fact that change takes time -- a direction to connect versions of changing reality.

Time appears when there is space and energy. To be energy there must be elsewhere that is 'downhill.' There must be gradients. At one time, time 1, there was something happening. Something found a downhill to follow. We call that the Big Bang.

This is speculation but it doesn't matter.

There is nothing illogical about saying all the conditions that cause time exist started.

It is not illogical to say that something started.