The Beginning

Originally posted by jaywill
If time is infinite how could an infinity of number of moments be traversed over for us to arrive at today ?

Why couldn't they? There is after all an infinite amount of time for the traversal to take place. I must warn you though that playing with infinity will get you no where.

If the universe is infinitely old how come all the stars have not dispersed into the coldness of space, all the black holes radiated themselves into nothing according to Hawking's theory of black hole radiation?
Because nobody every said that the universe was static for an infinite amount of time or that black holes were infinitely old. Did you read the references I gave regarding the big bounce?

Originally posted by jaywill
Yes, we can imagine many things.

Some mathematicians, however, cannot imagine how an infinity of past time could be traversed so as to arrive at the present moment.

To these theorists the present moment proves that a [b]finite number of moments were traversed and therefore time had a beginning.

Its a point to ponder.[/b]

Can you give us a reference? Do they also claim that it proves that time can be divided into a finite number of indivisible pieces? If not then they are stuck with Zeno's paradox. The same applies to space.

I agree that it is an interesting point to ponder, but it doesn't constitute proof. Further it would contradict various theist claims about God being infinite.

Originally posted by jaywill
[b]====================================
Of course, but the point is that it's possible to imagine a universe that is infinite but still has stars and galaxies.
===================================

Yes, we can imagine many things.

Some mathematicians, however, cannot imagine how an infinity of past time could be traversed so as to arrive ...[text shortened]... ber of moments were traversed and therefore time had a beginning.

Its a point to ponder.[/b]

This sounds interesting - do you have a reference for it?

Originally posted by jaywill
[b]====================================
Of course, but the point is that it's possible to imagine a universe that is infinite but still has stars and galaxies.
===================================

Yes, we can imagine many things.

Some mathematicians, however, cannot imagine how an infinity of past time could be traversed so as to arrive ...[text shortened]... ber of moments were traversed and therefore time had a beginning.

Its a point to ponder.[/b]

So what if some mathematicians think this?
Some people think that there was this guy living in the Middle East a couple of thousand years ago who turned water into wine, raised people from the dead, and was in some sort of menage a trois with god.
There are many different people out there, with many different beliefs and viewpoints. Doesn't mean that one automatically makes any others invalid.

Originally posted by twhitehead
First of all, that is nothing more than an unfounded claim - not supported by any known laws of physics and the current evidence strongly suggests otherwise.
Secondly and more importantly, the whole concept suggests you are imagining a time and place in which 'nothingness' exists and thus something must 'begin'.
If the universe is the only existence, th ...[text shortened]... e has nothing to do with it. Life is a relatively recent development in the universe.

If the universe is the only existence, then there is no such place for things to be 'magically' beginning and so the problem simply doesn't exist.
-------------------------whitey-------------------------

The problem exists because you contend that the universe did infact "begin". If it did "begin" then it cannot have begun within the confines of space/time. It would be a timeless , causless event. The fact is that if there is no space/time (or anything for that matter) then such a beginning would be inexplicable or impossible to explain.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
First of all, that is nothing more than an unfounded claim - not supported by any known laws of physics and the current evidence strongly suggests otherwise.
-------------------------------------whitey-----------------------------------------------

What evidence?
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Secondly and more importantly, the whole concept suggests you are imagining a time and place in which 'nothingness' exists and thus something must 'begin'.
----------------------------------whitey--------------------------------------------------

I have no such concept - that bit is in your head not mine - I am saying that nothingness is exactly what it means - sweet FA. As for "something must begin" - it's you that are saying that existence itself has a "beginning" . not me. By implication you must believe that existence is not continuous or eternal. The word beginning suggests this. Maybe you need to find a new word here because if you say "the universe began " then to me it implies that there must be a state where the universe is not , or a state of nothingness. (nb - By state I do not mean a reality or space/time just a way of phrasing it)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
And no such 'state' is being proposed in the first place. It is all in your head.
--------------------------------whitey----------------------------------------------

Logically if you say that the universe has a beginning then you are saying that it has not been around forever. If it has not been around forever , then nothingness must be a reality (or "unreality"😉. Hiowever , if you say "the universe has been around forever " then how can it have "begun"?

Originally posted by jaywill
Some mathematicians, however, cannot imagine how an infinity of past time could be traversed so as to arrive at the present moment.

Lets have some fun with this.
Lets suppose the future is infinite (whether in the universe or in heaven doesn't really matter).
Then there exists some point in the future that is an infinite time from now. But some mathematicians cannot imagine how the infinity of time between now and then can be traversed so as to arrive at that point in the future. So that point cannot be reached and is thus not part of our future. Therefore the future is finite. At some finite point in the future the universe and God and everything else will cease to exist.

Originally posted by knightmeister
The problem exists because you contend that the universe did infact "begin". If it did "begin" then it cannot have begun within the confines of space/time. It would be a timeless , causless event. The fact is that if there is no space/time (or anything for that matter) then such a beginning would be inexplicable or impossible to explain.

Agreed.
But that is not in any way equivalent to saying 'something from nothing' or your argument about nothing never giving rise to something.

What evidence?
Quantum mechanics strongly suggests that most events in the universe are uncaused. Further it strongly suggests that particles do 'magically' appear throughout space-time.

...then to me it implies that there must be a state where the universe is not , or a state of nothingness.
And that is what I dispute. At no point do I propose any such 'state' as to have a 'state' you must have space time yet the claim is that spacetime is finite.

Logically if you say that the universe has a beginning then you are saying that it has not been around forever.
No, that does not follow. I am saying that forever is finite (at least in one direction).

Originally posted by amannion
So what if some mathematicians think this?
Some people think that there was this guy living in the Middle East a couple of thousand years ago who turned water into wine, raised people from the dead, and was in some sort of menage a trois with god.
There are many different people out there, with many different beliefs and viewpoints. Doesn't mean that one automatically makes any others invalid.

=============================
So what if some mathematicians think this?
Some people think that there was this guy living in the Middle East a couple of thousand years ago who turned water into wine, raised people from the dead, and was in some sort of menage a trois with god.
There are many different people out there, with many different beliefs and viewpoints. Doesn't mean that one automatically makes any others invalid.
======================================

If there is not a specific logical fallacy for this kind of attitude, I would invent one. Maybe I would call it "Argument from Apathy"

ie. "Who cares what someone thought? Therefore my idea is right."

Can't I also use the argument from apathy and say "Well, who cares that someone thinks that time had no beginning? What I say is right."

First I would say that "imagine" is a weak word concerning this. Some mathematicians have calculated by thier more rigorous methods that time should have a beginning. It is not simply their daydreaming. It has been demonstrated at least by a major mathematician that an actual infinite past time is mathematically not logical.

It is a point for a laymen like me to ponder. An infinite amount of time would take infinity to traverse. So if infinite time in the past is a fact then HOW could there be a present moment ?? It would take infinity to reach TODAY.

I can't just dismiss it. Sorry. You go ahead and do so if you wish. I can't. He's got a good point. And I am not a mathematician.

===============================
"Some people think that there was this guy living ..."
=================================

This is simply your diminuative talk perhaps to show off how flippant and erreligious you can be.

And I think you're just trying to provoke me. Anyway, Jesus didn't speak or act simply like "this guy". Had Jesus simply been said to have turned water into wine, I might have thought that was simply another mythology.

The problem is that the WORDS of Jesus have such impact that they match His deeds. He taught things and spoke things in which performing a miracle is kind of consistent with the authority of His teaching.

Now, water into wine. The apostle john calls this a "SIGN" which implies it is a symbolic act which actually points beyond itself to something more profound. In other words it was not the intention of the Son of God to simply "do a trick".

The turning of water into wine, many feel, symbolizes the turning of death into life. John emphasizes that this was the "first sign" that Jesus did. Some believe John is establishing the basic principle of his Gospel. Jesus Christ turns man's death into life.

That is man's spiritual death, psychological death, and actual physical death. Man is filled with death in his whole being. The weakness, the running out of enjoyment all siginify the presence of death in man. The "six" jars of water may mean man who was created on the sixth day. Man is filled with death of all kinds.

In the height of man's party the life runs out. The enjoyment runs out just as the wedding feast ran out of wine. Jesus turns the water into wine. John records this first sign of Jesus to establish the principle of his Gospel. Christ is life. He is the divine and eternal life of God. And Christ turns man's death into eternal life.

But their talking about the Beginning here. So I get back to that now.

Originally posted by twhitehead
Lets have some fun with this.
Lets suppose the future is infinite (whether in the universe or in heaven doesn't really matter).
Then there exists some point in the future that is an infinite time from now. But some mathematicians cannot imagine how the infinity of time between now and then can be traversed so as to arrive at that point in the future. So ...[text shortened]... t some finite point in the future the universe and God and everything else will cease to exist.

==============================
Lets have some fun with this.
=====================================

First the word "imagine" was not a good word. It has been mathematically demonstrated by the methods at their disposal that the idea of traversing infinite past time to arrive at today leads to a logical problem that mathematics fails to solve.

I did not mean that some mathematicians could not imagine. They could not SOLVE the problem. If there is a counter argument about it I would be interested to see it. I do not think the person who proposed the mathematical problem of an infinite past time had any spiritual or religious dog in the fight.

==========================
Lets suppose the future is infinite (whether in the universe or in heaven doesn't really matter).
==========================

Infinite past time in heaven I think has the same problem. But anyway ...

===============================
Then there exists some point in the future that is an infinite time from now.
================================

That doesn't make sense to me because any "point" of time in an infinite time from now could have a point AFTER it. So then it would not be a point in "an infinite time from now". It would be a point in some finite time from now.

=====================================
But some mathematicians cannot imagine how the infinity of time between now and then can be traversed so as to arrive at that point in the future. So that point cannot be reached and is thus not part of our future. Therefore the future is finite. At some finite point in the future the universe and God and everything else will cease to exist.
=====================================

================================
But some mathematicians cannot imagine how the infinity of time between now and then can be traversed so as to arrive at that point in the future.
=====================================

The problem is not with imagination so much. That was not a good word for me to use. The problem is that by their formulaic methodologies the proposition of infinite past time leads to mathematically illogical results.

For instance - what is infinity minus infinity?

The place to start seems to me to extend math language somehow to deal with the problems of actual infinite amounts of things. I think an actual infinity only exists in the mind in the natural world.

=============================
So that point cannot be reached and is thus not part of our future. Therefore the future is finite. At some finite point in the future the universe and God and everything else will cease to exist.
================================

I don't follow this too well. The last sentence seems to come out of nowhere and for no reason.

And I am having a difficult time locating the "fun" part.

Is it at the point where you say God ceases to exist, is that where you're having all this fun ?

Originally posted by jaywill
And I am having a difficult time locating the "fun" part.

Is it at the point where you say God ceases to exist, is that where you're having all this fun ?

You got it.
Essentially, if infinite time is impossible it applies to the future as well as the past.

I think thats 'fun' because it totally destroys the whole concept of eternal life that theists love so much.

Originally posted by jaywill
First I would say that "imagine" is a weak word concerning this. Some mathematicians have calculated by thier more rigorous methods that time should have a beginning. It is not simply their daydreaming. It has been demonstrated at least by a major mathematician that an actual infinite past time is mathematically not logical.

It is a point for a laymen li ...[text shortened]... ahead and do so if you wish. I can't. He's got a good point. And I am not a mathematician.

I am still waiting for a reference because as far as I can tell from what you have presented it is not that much different from Zeno's Achilles and the tortoise paradox.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zeno%27s_paradoxes#Achilles_and_the_tortoise

I have a degree in maths and I see nothing illogical about an infinite timeline. I would like to see these 'rigorous methods' the mathematicians you refer to used and how they drew the conclusion.

Originally posted by twhitehead
Lets have some fun with this.
Lets suppose the future is infinite (whether in the universe or in heaven doesn't really matter).
Then there exists some point in the future that is an infinite time from now. But some mathematicians cannot imagine how the infinity of time between now and then can be traversed so as to arrive at that point in the future. So ...[text shortened]... t some finite point in the future the universe and God and everything else will cease to exist.

What does it mean to say 'the future is infinite' -- 'an infinite time from now'? 'Infinite' is shorthand for n+1... You can't imagine an infinite future: you have to keep counting. That's why kids say 'uncountable'.

'Infinity' only works in a loop.

Why not look for the gaps between instants for infinity?

These are just idle observations!

But this is fun stuff:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hilbert%27s_paradox_of_the_Grand_Hotel

Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
What does it mean to say 'the future is infinite' -- 'an infinite time from now'? 'Infinite' is shorthand for n+1... You can't imagine an infinite future: you have to keep counting. That's why kids say 'uncountable'.

Just because we cant imagine something doesn't make it impossible. That is why jaywill withdrew that word from his claim.
There are countable infinities and uncountable infinities so don't get us confused by equating infinity with uncountable. (yes I know, the kids don't know better).
And for this reason, infinite is not shorthand for n+1.

'Infinity' only works in a loop.
I don't understand.

Originally posted by twhitehead
Lets have some fun with this.
Lets suppose the future is infinite (whether in the universe or in heaven doesn't really matter).
Then there exists some point in the future that is an infinite time from now. But some mathematicians cannot imagine how the infinity of time between now and then can be traversed so as to arrive at that point in the future. So ...[text shortened]... t some finite point in the future the universe and God and everything else will cease to exist.

Lets suppose the future is infinite (whether in the universe or in heaven doesn't really matter).
Then there exists some point in the future that is an infinite time from now.
----------------------------------whitey----------------------------------------------

I don't think that really follows. A point in future time would have to be a finite time away. What would actually be true would be that there exists an infinite NUMBER of future points in time. They would all be a finite time from now but by the same token there would be an infinite number of them.

Originally posted by jaywill
[b]=============================
So what if some mathematicians think this?
Some people think that there was this guy living in the Middle East a couple of thousand years ago who turned water into wine, raised people from the dead, and was in some sort of menage a trois with god.
There are many different people out there, with many different belief heir talking about the Beginning here. So I get back to that now.

[/b]You've missed my point - and got way too hung up on my Jesus riff which I admit was a touch flippant.
I'm not saying my argument is right, or wrong.
I'm merely saying that just because you can find someone who supports your particular viewpoint, it doesn't therefore follow that this is correct.

And just what does 'erreligious' mean?