Philosophy Discussion Forums | A Humans-Only Club for Open-Minded Discussion & Debate

[psyreporter]

If you consider the non-intuitive character of time not having a beginning plausible and argue on behalf of such with the cited statements then that could be considered a defence of the Kalām cosmological argument. (considering that you posted those statements in this topic, a philosophy discussion).

So being nonintuitive, neither that time had a beginning nor that it didn't seem plausible. If they seemed plausible, then they wouldn't be nonintuitive.

You consistently referenced time as Tn (a change state) in this topic. Not once did you deviate from that vision that you have fiercely defended.

Example:

The problem is the "continuing flux of change." There's this state, and then it changes to that state, etc.

To get to any particular state, T, if there's an infinity of previous change states, it's not possible to arrive at T, because an infinity can't be completed to get to T.

Do you view time in other ways? If not, is a deviation of your reasoning with regard 'impossibility of traversing the infinite' possible in theory? If not, how is it possible to argue that it is non-intuitive to consider time to have had a begin?

Would you challenge your own reasoning to undo the implication of your statements that time must have had a beginning? If not, on what basis can it be said that your statements are not a defence of the Kalām cosmological argument?

So again, I know I'll have to repeat this 10,000 times, but I wasn't arguing that time must have had a beginning. For whatever reason, it's not possible for me to get this across to you.

Can you explain how the following arguments do not imply that time must have had a beginning?

Now, if there's an infinite amount of time prior to the creation of the Earth, how does the time of the creation of the Earth arrive. For it to arrive time has to pass through an infinity of durations, right? (Again, this is going by you saying that time is duration and that time as duration occurs independently of us.) Can time pass through an infinity of durations to get to a particular later time? How?

You don't seem to understand my comments to creation. The whole point is that if there's an infinite amount of time prior to Tn then we can't get to Tn because you can't complete an infinity of time prior to Tn. Why not? Because infinity isn't a quantity or amount we can ever reach or complete.

The problem is the "continuing flux of change." There's this state, and then it changes to that state, etc.

To get to any particular state, T, if there's an infinity of previous change states, it's not possible to arrive at T, because an infinity can't be completed to get to T.

It is clear that you considered an infinite amount relative to Tn (i.e. 6:38 p.m.) which would imply that time must have had a beginning.

[psyreporter]

Follow up of the paper Endless & infinite, published in Oxford's Mind journal in March 2021:

All the time in the world
My paper on the Kalam and successive addition argument came out in the journal Mind today. You can read it here:
https://academic.oup.com/mind/advance-a ... a2mzcxC0VY

Source: https://useofreason.wordpress.com/2021/ ... the-world/

Proponents of the Kalām cosmological argument (henceforth the 'Kalām'), in particular William Lane Craig (1979), seek to show that the past must have had a beginning, a moment of creation.

[SteveKlinko]

I think that just as Infinite Squares are not possible it is probably true that any Infinite Physical quantity of anything is not possible. Just because an equation in Science goes to Infinity, it doesn't mean that the Physical quantity in the equation is able go to Infinity. I think this is a limitation of what we can do with Mathematics. Seems like a minor limitation but it has big consequences when equations in Science go to Infinity.

The act of resizing an object presupposes the existence of that object. When it concerns time, one is to establish whether the context in which objects are possible to be perceived, has a begin.

When it concerns this question it appears that the error is made to exclude the observer from the consideration.

A "First Cause" cannot logically exist because it implies a begin and a begin cannot precede an observer because a begin requires an observer to be possible. A begin implies the start of a pattern and a pattern is bound (signified) by observation.

The begin that is introduced by the observing mind is logically the begin of the world itself. That would imply that the Universe is infinite.

A recent study suggested that all particles in the Universe are entangled by kind which would imply that objects (i.e. 'the Universe' or 'time' as a totality) are infinite by the applicability of kind.

(2020) Is nonlocality inherent in all identical particles in the universe?
The photon emitted by the monitor screen and the photon from the distant galaxy at the depths of the universe seem to be entangled only by their identical nature. This is a great mystery that science will soon confront.
https://phys.org/news/2020-03-nonlocali ... verse.html

I think the problem with time is that we think it is a separate Phenomenon from everything else in Physics. But Time might not even really exist as a Thing In Itself. Time is probably just a side effect of Matter in motion and the limits of Velocity in the Universe. So, it might not even make sense to talk about a nonexistent thing being Infinite or having a start.

[Terrapin Station]

If you consider the non-intuitive character of time not having a beginning plausible and argue on behalf of such with the cited statements then that could be considered a defence of the Kalām cosmological argument. (considering that you posted those statements in this topic, a philosophy discussion).

So being nonintuitive, neither that time had a beginning nor that it didn't seem plausible. If they seemed plausible, then they wouldn't be nonintuitive.

You consistently referenced time as Tn (a change state) in this topic. Not once did you deviate from that vision that you have fiercely defended.

Example:

The problem is the "continuing flux of change." There's this state, and then it changes to that state, etc.

To get to any particular state, T, if there's an infinity of previous change states, it's not possible to arrive at T, because an infinity can't be completed to get to T.

Do you view time in other ways? If not, is a deviation of your reasoning with regard 'impossibility of traversing the infinite' possible in theory? If not, how is it possible to argue that it is non-intuitive to consider time to have had a begin?

Would you challenge your own reasoning to undo the implication of your statements that time must have had a beginning? If not, on what basis can it be said that your statements are not a defence of the Kalām cosmological argument?

So again, I know I'll have to repeat this 10,000 times, but I wasn't arguing that time must have had a beginning. For whatever reason, it's not possible for me to get this across to you.

Can you explain how the following arguments do not imply that time must have had a beginning?

Now, if there's an infinite amount of time prior to the creation of the Earth, how does the time of the creation of the Earth arrive. For it to arrive time has to pass through an infinity of durations, right? (Again, this is going by you saying that time is duration and that time as duration occurs independently of us.) Can time pass through an infinity of durations to get to a particular later time? How?

You don't seem to understand my comments to creation. The whole point is that if there's an infinite amount of time prior to Tn then we can't get to Tn because you can't complete an infinity of time prior to Tn. Why not? Because infinity isn't a quantity or amount we can ever reach or complete.

The problem is the "continuing flux of change." There's this state, and then it changes to that state, etc.

To get to any particular state, T, if there's an infinity of previous change states, it's not possible to arrive at T, because an infinity can't be completed to get to T.

It is clear that you considered an infinite amount relative to Tn (i.e. 6:38 p.m.) which would imply that time must have had a beginning.

So, you must not understand the idea of explaining why something is counterintuitive, right?

[psyreporter]

You consistently referenced time as Tn (a change state) in this topic. Not once did you deviate from that vision that you have fiercely defended.

Example:

The problem is the "continuing flux of change." There's this state, and then it changes to that state, etc.

To get to any particular state, T, if there's an infinity of previous change states, it's not possible to arrive at T, because an infinity can't be completed to get to T.

Do you view time in other ways? If not, is a deviation of your reasoning with regard 'impossibility of traversing the infinite' possible in theory? If not, how is it possible to argue that it is non-intuitive to consider time to have had a begin?

So, you must not understand the idea of explaining why something is counterintuitive, right?

How can it be said that it is counter-intuitive to consider that time has had a beginning when considering your reasoning and fierce defence thereof in this topic?

As it appears, you use belief-as-such ('for whatever reason that does not need to be justified') as foundation for random claims instead of logical implications of what has been said.

I'm an atheist.

If you would argue that you are the Pope, it would make no difference when it concerns the examination of the validity of your reasoning.

Your argument could imply that you hold a belief on the basis of which you make assumptions about, or within, your reasoning.

If a Kalamist would make the exact same argument as you, would it be different?

The paper specifically addresses claim posed by the Kalām cosmological argument that time must have had a beginning and it ends with the following:

There are, of course, other arguments for the finitude of the past that we have not discussed – most notably, perhaps, the one based on the supposed impossibility of ‘traversing the infinite’. We shall have to leave them for another occasion.

Your defended argument concerns the impossibility of ‘traversing the infinite’ and thereby it is to be assumed that when you share your argument in this topic, that it is to be considered a defence of the claim posed by the Kalām cosmological argument that time must have had a beginning.

[Bluemist]

I think the problem with time is that we think it is a separate Phenomenon from everything else in Physics. But Time might not even really exist as a Thing In Itself. Time is probably just a side effect of Matter in motion and the limits of Velocity in the Universe. So, it might not even make sense to talk about a nonexistent thing being Infinite or having a start.

I have difficulty seeing which of many versions of 'time' you mean. Time in math is just another variable. Physics adopts this approach so that time is another bidirectional and reversible dimension. On a grand statistical scale this is a justifiable presumption. On a human scale time is neither uniform nor continuous, time pauses for me while I am asleep just as it slows down for my alarm clock when its battery is low. On subatomic scales there might not be any time at all.

[psyreporter]

I think the problem with time is that we think it is a separate Phenomenon from everything else in Physics. But Time might not even really exist as a Thing In Itself. Time is probably just a side effect of Matter in motion and the limits of Velocity in the Universe. So, it might not even make sense to talk about a nonexistent thing being Infinite or having a start.

At light speed there is no time and distance. For example, the moment that a photon is emitted from a star at billions of light years distance it will instantly hit Earth from the perspective of the photon.

Does light experience time?
But for light itself, which is already moving at light speed… You guessed it, the photons reach zero distance and zero time.
https://phys.org/news/2014-05-does-ligh ... -time.html

Neutrino's travel at light speed as well but are able to deviate from a state of timelessness to interact with the physical world. The idea and implications of this may be unexplored.

When a neutrino changes "flavor" or "color" it is in a transition state and therefore can be any mass. At the midpoint it is 0 mass and travels at speed c (light speed). When it becomes one or the other it has mass. In between it can have any mass, meaning even 0 mass. It's the same as Schrodingers cat. It works and is non-contradictory.

Neutrino's can change their mass up to 3000x in size, by themselves, which is called flavor switching or morphing. It is why the particle is called a 'ghost particle' (spooky particle).

On Earth's region around the Sun, it is estimated that 10 trillion neutrinos travel through every square centimeter of space per second. This includes underground, on the dark side of Earth and in the center of the Earth.

Most neutrinos originate from the Sun with the whole of Earth bathing in a continuous stream of neutrino energy. Some neutrinos originate from outer space. For example, in a Supernova explosion, 99% of energy is released into the Universe in the form of neutrinos.

What many people are unable to envision today is that the whole of Earth - including it's dark side - is submerged in a continuous stream of Solar-Neutrino energy. Essentially, people are living in a Solar-Neutrino energy environment.

Without time and distance a Neutrino would essentially be in a state that can be considered infinite. The ability to get out of that state may indicate that infinity is merely an idea that originates from an observing mind.

A pattern (value) cannot be the origin of itself. The begin that is introduced by pattern recognition (the observing mind) is necessarily the begin of the world itself (the begin of finitude and its corresponding implied totality that one assumes to amount to be 'objective reality'). Any inference within the scope of a pattern cannot be evidence of anything 'real'.

What preceded a begin on a fundamental level logically knows no end, which results in the idea of infinity.

[SteveKlinko]

I think the problem with time is that we think it is a separate Phenomenon from everything else in Physics. But Time might not even really exist as a Thing In Itself. Time is probably just a side effect of Matter in motion and the limits of Velocity in the Universe. So, it might not even make sense to talk about a nonexistent thing being Infinite or having a start.

At light speed there is no time and distance. For example, the moment that a photon is emitted from a star at billions of light years distance it will instantly hit Earth from the perspective of the photon.

Does light experience time?
But for light itself, which is already moving at light speed… You guessed it, the photons reach zero distance and zero time.
https://phys.org/news/2014-05-does-ligh ... -time.html

Neutrino's travel at light speed as well but are able to deviate from a state of timelessness to interact with the physical world. The idea and implications of this may be unexplored.

When a neutrino changes "flavor" or "color" it is in a transition state and therefore can be any mass. At the midpoint it is 0 mass and travels at speed c (light speed). When it becomes one or the other it has mass. In between it can have any mass, meaning even 0 mass. It's the same as Schrodingers cat. It works and is non-contradictory.

Neutrino's can change their mass up to 3000x in size, by themselves, which is called flavor switching or morphing. It is why the particle is called a 'ghost particle' (spooky particle).

On Earth's region around the Sun, it is estimated that 10 trillion neutrinos travel through every square centimeter of space per second. This includes underground, on the dark side of Earth and in the center of the Earth.

Most neutrinos originate from the Sun with the whole of Earth bathing in a continuous stream of neutrino energy. Some neutrinos originate from outer space. For example, in a Supernova explosion, 99% of energy is released into the Universe in the form of neutrinos.

What many people are unable to envision today is that the whole of Earth - including it's dark side - is submerged in a continuous stream of Solar-Neutrino energy. Essentially, people are living in a Solar-Neutrino energy environment.

Without time and distance a Neutrino would essentially be in a state that can be considered infinite. The ability to get out of that state may indicate that infinity is merely an idea that originates from an observing mind.

A pattern (value) cannot be the origin of itself. The begin that is introduced by pattern recognition (the observing mind) is necessarily the begin of the world itself (the begin of finitude and its corresponding implied totality that one assumes to amount to be 'objective reality'). Any inference within the scope of a pattern cannot be evidence of anything 'real'.

What preceded a begin on a fundamental level logically knows no end, which results in the idea of infinity.

Be careful when using words like Infinity. Infinity may not be a real thing either, just as time might not be a real thing. When an equation goes to Infinity it means there is something really, really, wrong with that equation. Because Time is in an equation says nothing about Time itself being real apart from that parameter being an aspect of other things happening in the system. Infinity is actually recognized a flaw in the Mathematical Theories of Physics that must be fixed.

[SteveKlinko]

I think the problem with time is that we think it is a separate Phenomenon from everything else in Physics. But Time might not even really exist as a Thing In Itself. Time is probably just a side effect of Matter in motion and the limits of Velocity in the Universe. So, it might not even make sense to talk about a nonexistent thing being Infinite or having a start.

I have difficulty seeing which of many versions of 'time' you mean. Time in math is just another variable. Physics adopts this approach so that time is another bidirectional and reversible dimension. On a grand statistical scale this is a justifiable presumption. On a human scale time is neither uniform nor continuous, time pauses for me while I am asleep just as it slows down for my alarm clock when its battery is low. On subatomic scales there might not be any time at all.

When you put it that way, there sure doesn't seem like there is any kind of Objective Time concept.

[psyreporter]

Without time and distance a Neutrino would essentially be in a state that can be considered infinite. The ability to get out of that state may indicate that infinity is merely an idea that originates from an observing mind.

What preceded a begin on a fundamental level logically knows no end, which results in the idea of infinity.

Be careful when using words like Infinity. Infinity may not be a real thing either, just as time might not be a real thing.

Would you disagree with Terrapin Station's reasoning? If so, can you explain why it why it would be invalid?

The problem is the "continuing flux of change." There's this state, and then it changes to that state, etc.

To get to any particular state, T, if there's an infinity of previous change states, it's not possible to arrive at T, because an infinity can't be completed to get to T.

When an equation goes to Infinity it means there is something really, really, wrong with that equation.

A mathematical equation presupposes a begin - the start of a pattern - after which infinity becomes only possible by the potential provided by the observing mind (e.g. a human can count into infinity). It involves potential infinity.

It is addressed in the paper:

Quote from Endless and Infinite: potential vs actual infinite

The most commonly heard proposal is that an endless series of future events differs from a beginningless series of past events in that it is a merely potential infinite, having none of the absurd implications of the actual infinite. It is this alleged difference that particularly interests us first. Is it the case that a beginningless series is an actual infinite, whereas an endless series would be only potentially infinite?

The answer might seem to depend on one’s view of time.

https://useofreason.wordpress.com/2020/ ... -infinite/
PDF: https://www.dropbox.com/s/16kwvcuqxf3ww ... 5.pdf?dl=0

With the concept actual infinity, one is to consider the nature of 'unbegun' (beginningless).

[SteveKlinko]

Without time and distance a Neutrino would essentially be in a state that can be considered infinite. The ability to get out of that state may indicate that infinity is merely an idea that originates from an observing mind.

What preceded a begin on a fundamental level logically knows no end, which results in the idea of infinity.

Be careful when using words like Infinity. Infinity may not be a real thing either, just as time might not be a real thing.

Would you disagree with @Terrapin Station's reasoning? If so, can you explain why it why it would be invalid?

The problem is the "continuing flux of change." There's this state, and then it changes to that state, etc.

To get to any particular state, T, if there's an infinity of previous change states, it's not possible to arrive at T, because an infinity can't be completed to get to T.

When an equation goes to Infinity it means there is something really, really, wrong with that equation.

A mathematical equation presupposes a begin - the start of a pattern - after which infinity becomes only possible by the potential provided by the observing mind (e.g. a human can count into infinity). It involves potential infinity.

It is addressed in the paper:

Quote from Endless and Infinite: potential vs actual infinite

The most commonly heard proposal is that an endless series of future events differs from a beginningless series of past events in that it is a merely potential infinite, having none of the absurd implications of the actual infinite. It is this alleged difference that particularly interests us first. Is it the case that a beginningless series is an actual infinite, whereas an endless series would be only potentially infinite?

The answer might seem to depend on one’s view of time.

https://useofreason.wordpress.com/2020/ ... -infinite/
PDF: https://www.dropbox.com/s/16kwvcuqxf3ww ... 5.pdf?dl=0

With the concept actual infinity, one is to consider the nature of 'unbegun' (beginningless).

The answer is similar to the solution of Zeno's Paradox. The description of the problem in Zeno's Paradox artificially causes the traveler to travel each half distance in the same amount of time, thus slowing him down to zero speed in the limit. But the traveler is going at constant speed so in the limit the traveler will in fact be traversing an Infinite number of half distances per time, compensating for the fact that there are an Infinite number of these distances.

So, for the State Transition Paradox the solution is similar. Only if you assume it takes finite time for each state change will you never get to the next state. But Time is going at constant rate and as the State change time between intermediate states gets smaller and smaller (--> 0) and the number of state changes goes to Infinity, the number of state changes per Time interval will go to Infinity because Time does not slow down in this non Relativistic case, which exactly compensates for the Infinite number of intermediate transition states.

[psyreporter]

The answer is similar to the solution of Zeno's Paradox. The description of the problem in Zeno's Paradox artificially causes the traveler to travel each half distance in the same amount of time, thus slowing him down to zero speed in the limit. But the traveler is going at constant speed so in the limit the traveler will in fact be traversing an Infinite number of half distances per time, compensating for the fact that there are an Infinite number of these distances.

So, for the State Transition Paradox the solution is similar. Only if you assume it takes finite time for each state change will you never get to the next state. But Time is going at constant rate and as the State change time between intermediate states gets smaller and smaller (--> 0) and the number of state changes goes to Infinity, the number of state changes per Time interval will go to Infinity because Time does not slow down in this non Relativistic case, which exactly compensates for the Infinite number of intermediate transition states.

Can a mathematics based infinite division mind experiment be compared to the mentioned change states of which Terrapin Station will argue that they are 'objectively real? What would be the basis for that claim?

TP mentioned the following with regard 'physical reality':

First, why would "what causes reality to exist" be necessary for knowing whether there is reality? (Keeping in mind that by "reality" here we're referring to the objective world.)

In the case that you argue that infinite regress of 'real world' change states are comparable to mathematical infinite division potential of length and time, would that not imply that idealism philosophy is applicable since both would necessarily consist of a mental concept?

What do you think of the following reasoning of Terrapin Station? Do you believe that it is valid? If not, how can you argue in the Inter Mind theory that it is clear that there is a causality trajectory from the Physical World to the Conscious World and not the other way around.

Now, if there's an infinite amount of time prior to the creation of the Earth, how does the time of the creation of the Earth arrive. For it to arrive time has to pass through an infinity of durations, right? (Again, this is going by you saying that time is duration and that time as duration occurs independently of us.) Can time pass through an infinity of durations to get to a particular later time? How?

You don't seem to understand my comments to creation. The whole point is that if there's an infinite amount of time prior to Tn then we can't get to Tn because you can't complete an infinity of time prior to Tn. Why not? Because infinity isn't a quantity or amount we can ever reach or complete.

The problem is the "continuing flux of change." There's this state, and then it changes to that state, etc.

To get to any particular state, T, if there's an infinity of previous change states, it's not possible to arrive at T, because an infinity can't be completed to get to T.

TP would share your idea that mind originates from the physical so if you would not agree with his vision on time, then it may be interesting to discover what the basis is in each case for the idea that mind originates from the physical.

So I'm a physicalist. I'm convinced that the mind is simply brain processes.

I don't at all buy determinism.

1. Do you believe in intrinsic existence without mind?
2. Do you believe that mind has a cause within the scope of physical reality?

Yes and yes. I'm a realist and a physicalist (aka "materialist").

[Terrapin Station]

How can it be said that it is counter-intuitive to consider that time has had a beginning when considering your reasoning and fierce defence thereof

The question was whether you understand the idea of explaining why something is counterintuitive.

[psyreporter]

How can it be said that it is counter-intuitive to consider that time has had a beginning when considering your reasoning and fierce defence thereof in this topic?

As it appears, you use belief-as-such ('for whatever reason that does not need to be justified') as foundation for random claims instead of logical implications of what has been said.

I'm an atheist.

If you would argue that you are the Pope, it would make no difference when it concerns the examination of the validity of your reasoning.

Your argument could imply that you hold a belief on the basis of which you make assumptions about, or within, your reasoning.

If a Kalamist would make the exact same argument as you, would it be different?

The question was whether you understand the idea of explaining why something is counterintuitive.

Would it merely concern the 'idea of explaining' with regard why anything is counter-intuitive? If so, would the basis of that be belief-as-such without the requirement to justify underlying reasoning?

[Terrapin Station]

How can it be said that it is counter-intuitive to consider that time has had a beginning when considering your reasoning and fierce defence thereof in this topic?

As it appears, you use belief-as-such ('for whatever reason that does not need to be justified') as foundation for random claims instead of logical implications of what has been said.

If you would argue that you are the Pope, it would make no difference when it concerns the examination of the validity of your reasoning.

Your argument could imply that you hold a belief on the basis of which you make assumptions about, or within, your reasoning.

If a Kalamist would make the exact same argument as you, would it be different?

The question was whether you understand the idea of explaining why something is counterintuitive.

Would it merely concern the 'idea of explaining' with regard why anything is counter-intuitive? If so, would the basis of that be belief-as-such without the requirement to justify underlying reasoning?

Say what now?