What or how did everything start?

[Brian2]

And what is the problem with that?

If you can add to infinity then it is not infinity. It is a simple concept that mathematicians do not seem to understand in any real way.

But the point is that it isn't logically impossible. The math shows it is *logically possible*.

What, logically possible to add to infinity?

I'm willing to teach.

You can teach me as we go along here if you like.

 

[Brian2]

I think that you do given what is known about time.

What is known about time that shows I have a misunderstanding?

 

[Polymath257]

If you can add to infinity then it is not infinity. It is a simple concept that mathematicians do not seem to understand in any real way.

Well, then the way you think of infinity here is simply not the way that is appropriate when discussing infinite regress.

What, logically possible to add to infinity?

Absolutely. There are infinitely many even numbers. You can add the infinitely many odd numbers and get the infinitely many counting numbers.

No contradiction to doing that.

You can teach me as we go along here if you like.

Well, we can start with the notion of 'infinity'. All that it means is 'not finite'. And, in this situation, 'finite' simply means 'can be counted using a counting number'.

So, there are infinitely many counting numbers, infinitely many prime numbers, etc.

With this understanding, it is trivial to see that you can add to an infinite set. And this is the version of 'infinity' that is required for infinite regresses.

 

[Brian2]

OK, so why do you think you are an expert when it comes to time or the infinite?

I don't.

 

[Brian2]

In this case, though, it is.

Rudimentary is usually full of pre-conceptions that are very likely to be wrong. Until there is testing and attempts to learn where the initial ideas are wrong, there can be no confidence.

So rudimentary is not necessarily wrong just as I said.

 

[Brian2]

Did i say wrong or did i say misunderstanding?

I think you said misunderstanding. I said wrong.

 

[Brian2]

Well, then you have to find something better, since Newtonian time (the one most believe in) is dead. And the ontology I presented is accepted by most physicists and, I believe, philosophers, too.

Why is it dead?

Many things we know to be true seem absurd. And relativity is peanuts, compared with QM. But they are not absurd, since they break no laws of logic and are perfectly in agreement with observation (much more than the things they appear normal). The problem is our brain, which evolved for survival, not for ultimate truth, and therefore not to have a natural intuitions of these things that have no relevance in the daily struggle to survive. So, it is not the case that nature is absurd, but it is the case that brains evolved intuitions that simply do not correspond to fundamental truths, but are good enough to make it til evening. Which, needless to say, is additional evidence of the naturalistic origins of our mind.

I have no problem with the past and the future being relative to the now, even if my brain is pretty average.

And if you can imagine a God to just be, then you have the intellectual potential to imagine how things can just be. Unless, you like special pleading, of course.

Ciao

- viole

God would just be in a changless/timeless state. Can all things just be in that state?
Well I suppose they can if we deny our senses that show change.
If we have a determinist philosophy.
Why would all of what we perceive around us be, with it's cause and effects and etc if it did not come from some cause in the past? How would all of that just be? B theory seems like just a way of understanding A theory to me, except it is put in a box and said to have always been.
Why would time even exist in an orderly way so that we can go from one moment to the next?

 

[Brian2]

Well, the actual evidence supports the conclusion.

Which evidence?

Yes, precisely.
And why is that problematic?

The last time I heard, the evidence supported the beginning of the space time continuum and it's expansion.
Would a B theory of time include it's beginning?

Wrong. To 'just be' means precisely that there was no beginning to the state of affairs. ALL of time is within spacetime.

Why can't all of time be within spacetime without it actually having been filled with anything, like cause and effect events? Space is like that.

 

[Polymath257]

Which evidence?

Of a naturalistic origin for mind? Look at the whole of neurology, of the various experiments linking changes in the mind to changes in the brain. As to the evolution, look at the known ancestry and how the changes to the skull happened over time.

The last time I heard, the evidence supported the beginning of the space time continuum and it's expansion.
Would a B theory of time include it's beginning?

Yes, of course it would. Sort of like how a description of the surface of the Earth would include the south pole.

Why can't all of time be within spacetime without it actually having been filled with anything, like cause and effect events? Space is like that.

From what we know, space, time, and matter are all co-existent. Whenever one of them existed, so did the others.

The point that matter affects the geometry of space and time. We know this by actual observations.

 

[Heyo]

If we think about it for a second, all science fictions movies involving time travel must assume a variant of this ontology of time.

Nope.
For time travel to work in B time you'd have to bend it into a pretzel and have loose ends.
Time travel needs a many worlds interpretation with many variants of the many worlds.

I'm no fan of either. Quantum randomness is contradictory to determinist B time and many worlds seems to me a poster child of "multiplying entities". I like my future generally orderly but still open.

 

[Heyo]

God knew what He would do and when He started that is what the Bible calls the beginning imo.

That assumes god existed before time started, which as we have seen, is impossible as there is no before.

 

[viole]

Why is it dead?

Because , basically. B theory is vastly predominant in the scientific (physics) community. And its natural post discovery intellectuals, the philosophers.
So, definitely more than a speculation.

I have no problem with the past and the future being relative to the now, even if my brain is pretty average.

There is no "now". As Einstein said, Stubborn illusion

God would just be in a changless/timeless state. Can all things just be in that state?
Well I suppose they can if we deny our senses that show change.

The fact that all things are in a changeless/timeless state does not contradict at all our experiences of change. The question is whether we are not giving priority to the ontology deriving from human intuitions and perceptions, vs. our findings in physics. If you do, then you should deny the entire edifice of 20th century physics.

If we have a determinist philosophy.

Determinism is a physical consequence, independent from my philosophy and prejudices. Since your future is, currently, in the past of some other far away observer, determinism is necessary, since nobody can change her past, and therefore your future.

Why would all of what we perceive around us be, with it's cause and effects and etc if it did not come from some cause in the past? How would all of that just be? B theory seems like just a way of understanding A theory to me, except it is put in a box and said to have always been.
Why would time even exist in an orderly way so that we can go from one moment to the next?

Like Wheeler would say, time is there so that not everything needs to happen at once. And B theory is totally in opposition to A theory. The two things are different at the very ontological level.

And, by the way, causality is a very weak concept even under A theory. No modern physicist would use it, anymore. Only theologists like it, because it gives them the impression to have some scientifically fit arguments in favour a first cause. Which is actually nonsense, if we really understand the physics of the last two centuries.

Under A theory, causality strongly depends on a direction of time (from past to future), which is a macroscopic thermodynamical effect. Without that direction of time, you would not know what is a cause and what is an effect. Alas, there is no privileged direction of time at fundamental level. Ergo, causality makes sense only when the Universe has reached a certain macroscopic state in which thermodynamics (statists, mainly) is applicable. For sure, it would be meaningless to use causality for things like the so called birth for the Universe, even assuming 19th century physics only.

So, the bottom line, for what concerns first cause arguments, is that both in A theory and B theory, all naive cosmological arguments (Like Kalam) are undermined from the beginning. B theory is the nuclear option that kills it immediately (only the first premise would be true, while the second would be utterly false). Killing it under A theory is a bit more fun, but it would just take a couple of moves more.

Ciao

- viole

 

[Brian2]

Well, then the way you think of infinity here is simply not the way that is appropriate when discussing infinite regress.

Absolutely. There are infinitely many even numbers. You can add the infinitely many odd numbers and get the infinitely many counting numbers.

No contradiction to doing that.

Infinity is equal to infinity and is unreal.
The odds and even numbers thing is just trick mathematics.
In the real world with time as a line we could not be at this point yet if time had no beginning imo so I am definitely thinking of time (if not infinity) in the wrong way for infinite regress.
But even with B theory I cannot see how all of time and all of the events etc could just be unless it existed in timelessness.
Maybe my understanding of B theory is not right.

Well, we can start with the notion of 'infinity'. All that it means is 'not finite'. And, in this situation, 'finite' simply means 'can be counted using a counting number'.

So, there are infinitely many counting numbers, infinitely many prime numbers, etc.

With this understanding, it is trivial to see that you can add to an infinite set. And this is the version of 'infinity' that is required for infinite regresses.

I don't know why you say it is trivial to see that you can add to an infinite set.

 

[Brian2]

That assumes god existed before time started, which as we have seen, is impossible as there is no before.

So it would be that God existed in the beginning as the Bible says.

 

[Heyo]

So it would be that God existed in the beginning as the Bible says.

B theory of time doesn't prevent god from existing in the beginning, just before the beginning. But it also says that god can't have caused the beginning.

 

[Polymath257]

Infinity is equal to infinity and is unreal.

If you define it away, of course you won't be able to study it.

The odds and even numbers thing is just trick mathematics.

OK, so what is the trick?

In the real world with time as a line we could not be at this point yet if time had no beginning imo so I am definitely thinking of time (if not infinity) in the wrong way for infinite regress.
But even with B theory I cannot see how all of time and all of the events etc could just be unless it existed in timelessness.
Maybe my understanding of B theory is not right.

Well, I don't worry too much about A or B theory: they are made up by the philosophers and have little to do with what physics has discovered. But, as I said, the physics description is closest to the B theory.

I don't know why you say it is trivial to see that you can add to an infinite set.

Do you agree that the set of even numbers is infinite? Do you agree that the set of odd numbers is also infinite? Do you agree you can put them together and get an infinite set that has more than either?

You say it is a mathematical trick, but the math shows it is a consistent idea. And you have given no reason that mathematical result could not apply to reality.

 

[Brian2]

Of a naturalistic origin for mind? Look at the whole of neurology, of the various experiments linking changes in the mind to changes in the brain. As to the evolution, look at the known ancestry and how the changes to the skull happened over time.

But people can accept the B theory and I suppose, end up seeing time in that light, even if it is contrary to the intuitive flow of time seen in the minds of people.

Yes, of course it would. Sort of like how a description of the surface of the Earth would include the south pole.

So I guess that would mean that the B theory is a box of all of time from before the BB and on into infinity.

From what we know, space, time, and matter are all co-existent. Whenever one of them existed, so did the others.

And I guess would that mean that space time and matter would have existed elsewhere even if there was no space time and matter at the point of origin of this universe.

The point that matter affects the geometry of space and time. We know this by actual observations.

Does this have anything to do with the theory being true?

 

[Polymath257]

But people can accept the B theory and I suppose, end up seeing time in that light, even if it is contrary to the intuitive flow of time seen in the minds of people.

Intuition is a very poor judge in matters like these.

So I guess that would mean that the B theory is a box of all of time from before the BB and on into infinity.

I'm not sure how a 'box' is relevant. And, you are assuming there is time before the BB. That isn't clear.

And I guess would that mean that space time and matter would have existed elsewhere even if there was no space time and matter at the point of origin of this universe.

There was no 'point' of origin.

Does this have anything to do with the theory being true?

yes. Correspondence with observation is part of the definition of 'true'.

 

[Brian2]

Because , basically. B theory is vastly predominant in the scientific (physics) community. And its natural post discovery intellectuals, the philosophers.
So, definitely more than a speculation.

But is still a matter of contention amongst physicists and philosophers I hear.

There is no "now". As Einstein said, Stubborn illusion

From our perspective there is a now. From the pov of outside the B theory box it seems it would all be now.

The fact that all things are in a changeless/timeless state does not contradict at all our experiences of change. The question is whether we are not giving priority to the ontology deriving from human intuitions and perceptions, vs. our findings in physics. If you do, then you should deny the entire edifice of 20th century physics.

What are the findings in physics that point to the B theory?

Determinism is a physical consequence, independent from my philosophy and prejudices. Since your future is, currently, in the past of some other far away observer, determinism is necessary, since nobody can change her past, and therefore your future.

So determinism is true whether there is a God who knows the future or not?
I can see that possibility for the physical but if beings exist who have self determination, it seems that would upset determinism even in B theory.

Like Wheeler would say, time is there so that not everything needs to happen at once. And B theory is totally in opposition to A theory. The two things are different at the very ontological level.

It does look that way to an extent at least.

Under A theory, causality strongly depends on a direction of time (from past to future), which is a macroscopic thermodynamical effect. Without that direction of time, you would not know what is a cause and what is an effect. Alas, there is no privileged direction of time at fundamental level. Ergo, causality makes sense only when the Universe has reached a certain macroscopic state in which thermodynamics (statists, mainly) is applicable. For sure, it would be meaningless to use causality for things like the so called birth for the Universe, even assuming 19th century physics only.

You seem to be working with your mind made up about B theory.

So, the bottom line, for what concerns first cause arguments, is that both in A theory and B theory, all naive cosmological arguments (Like Kalam) are undermined from the beginning. B theory is the nuclear option that kills it immediately (only the first premise would be true, while the second would be utterly false). Killing it under A theory is a bit more fun, but it would just take a couple of moves more.

Ciao

- viole

Interesting

 

[Brian2]

OK, so what is the trick?

That you never reach the end of the even series or the odd series or the 2 combined into one set of counting numbers. So we can't just split it in 2.
Hmm I don't like that attempt.
Somebody was trying to explain infinite regression and eternity of time in the past to me and used the example of a rope that was infinitely long in both directions and we cut it, meaning that it was infinitely long in one direction and in the other. You could certainly add to the length of infinity by adding to the length of each piece of rope but "to my way of thinking" and when I try to debunk it, it would mean that a piece of rope cannot be infinitely long in both direction if we can add to it.
When it comes to time with "now" as the point of cut (in time) I would say that we would not be at this point in time yet if there was an infinity of time in the past, and we would never come to eternity in the future if we started now.
Even with B theory I would think the same thing would apply starting from a point of space/time in the box.

Well, I don't worry too much about A or B theory: they are made up by the philosophers and have little to do with what physics has discovered. But, as I said, the physics description is closest to the B theory.

I don't know what physics has discovered about all this of course.
But I guess that the truth might be some variant of the B theory (maybe a C theory) that needs to be thunk on a bit more.

Do you agree that the set of even numbers is infinite? Do you agree that the set of odd numbers is also infinite? Do you agree you can put them together and get an infinite set that has more than either?

Yes and no. Splitting it in half implies a finite number that could be split, but infinite just keeps going and going.

You say it is a mathematical trick, but the math shows it is a consistent idea. And you have given no reason that mathematical result could not apply to reality.

I no doubt would need to put some time and effort into working on that.