Is the idea of something with no beginning logically impossible?

[Speakpigeon]

I thought metaphysics allows us to think outside the square.

And how would the subject of metaphysics not be a derail here?

So a past-eternal God is no more impossible than a past-eternal universe/multiverse/megaverse/ominverse.

Derail.

You can't help it...

Look, it's not so hard: So a past-eternal universe/multiverse/megaverse/ominverse is no more impossible than a past-eternal God.

A poor argument for sure, but then, not a derail.

But the real question is whether, throughout an infinite past, everything that possibly can happen has already happened an infinite number of times.

You'd be hard put to explain how something that hasn't happened yet could possibly have happened yet.

And if a thing HASNT happened yet, why not?

Why not could be because it's the way the universe is. I think it would be enough as a 'because'.

And, yes, it's perfectly possible to conceive of a universe with an infinite past where something new happens now and again.

I can't be certain it's what you really wanted to know but it's an answer to a question.
EB

 

[Speakpigeon]

I presume that there is a missing 'im' in the answer 'NO, it is not logically [im]possible', as this assumption is consistent with the thread and poll titles; I have voted accordingly.

I'd vote that way too, but don't want to forget in 3 years and wonder why the hell I voted the way I voted.

Hey Sugar, take a vote on the wild side.

Yeah!
EB

 

[Speakpigeon]

I don't think a past-eternal (ever-present) thing is magical per se.
If it is past eternal, then it is. No need to pretend.
Just a brute fact.

Not a fact. A reality, perhaps.

A fact is a piece of the real we happen to know.

You're not going to pretend you could actually know that the past is infinite?
EB

 

[Speakpigeon]

I don't think there is any substantive difference between talking about the eternal past and the eternal present (now).

The (perceived) existence of the past as something real and the reality of the present are both equally dependent on perception.

The brain in a jar can just as easily conjure up both/either.

It's a good point though you did get it the wrong way around.

There could be a substantial ('substantive' here is archaic, you've been reading way too much obsolete stuff) difference between infinite past and eternal present. What there isn't is a logical difference but a mere logical difference shouldn't be said to be substantive for fear of causing confusion.

The substantial difference could be in the ontology of these two perspectives.

We are at liberty to think of an infinite past as the same thing as an eternal present since the latter is certainly what things look like from a subjective perspective, an eternal present. But we can also think of it somehow as a physically real, one-dimensional, space, which is exactly the perspective which is used whenever we have some serious business to attend.

And, actually, we really don't know which it is. So, there you have a substantial difference, and yet, we can't decide on just logical grounds which it is.


Well, I guess it must be just what you meant.
EB

 

[Speakpigeon]

Asking if something is impossible is vague, but you weren't vague, as you specified usage. You didn't say physically impossible but rather logically impossible, so what you're asking has been fine tuned, so even if something is physically impossible, it's not therefore logically impossible.

There are many events that are physically impossible to occur, but that doesn't negate the fact those same very physical events are logically possible, so I'm going to be careful not to allow the physical possibility interfere with my analysis .

What's pertinent to consider is whether there's a contradiction.

Absolutely.

Also, I may wrong, but I can't see how the question of physical possibility (or impossibility) would even make sense for the question of an infinite past.
EB

 

[Speakpigeon]

Define "something".

Something: n. & pron. 1. a. Some unspecified or unknown thing.

Thing: n. 1. A material or immaterial entity, idea, action etc., that is or may be thought about or perceived.

EB

 

[Speakpigeon]

It's not really possible to draw any conclusion from this poll since I seriously messed up the second option. Sorry for that.
EB

 

[Lion IRC]

If the past is eternal why haven't robots invented AI replacements for humans yet?
They have certainly had more than enough time!

 

[fromderinside]

Not impossible. However man seems to need closure.

 

[bilby]

If the past is eternal why haven't robots invented AI replacements for humans yet?
They have certainly had more than enough time!

An eternal past neither implies eternal robots, nor eternal humans for them to replace.

 

[Shadowy Man]

If the past is eternal why haven't robots invented AI replacements for humans yet?
They have certainly had more than enough time!

Whether the universe is eternal or not, it's clear that before about 13.7 billion years ago, it was quite a different place.

 

[Cheerful Charlie]

Either God who created the Universe has no beginning, or the multi-Universe has no beginning. Your choice.

 

[fast]

Asking if something is impossible is vague, but you weren't vague, as you specified usage. You didn't say physically impossible but rather logically impossible, so what you're asking has been fine tuned, so even if something is physically impossible, it's not therefore logically impossible.

There are many events that are physically impossible to occur, but that doesn't negate the fact those same very physical events are logically possible, so I'm going to be careful not to allow the physical possibility interfere with my analysis .

What's pertinent to consider is whether there's a contradiction.

Absolutely.

Also, I may wrong, but I can't see how the question of physical possibility (or impossibility) would even make sense for the question of an infinite past.
EB

There is no logical contradiction, so it's logically possible.

As to being physically possible, it reminds me of the chicken and egg question. The first chicken came from the first chicken egg, and the first chicken egg came from two non-chickens.

The first event question brings in a new complication, but without the complication, the answer would seem to be a non-event. That does seem contradictory. I guess there is no first cause with an infinite past. But, how did it all get started, or has it been always? Even the first event of the Big Bang had a causal chain of events leading to it.

"Universe" shouldnt be too broad to exclude a first cause and so outside of the universe events precipitated first cause in the universe. If we expand the reference to exclude a non-universe, then wow, something's amiss, probably hiding amidst the language we speak.

Basically, no clue.