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

[value]

... 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.

... 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.

You are defending the Kalam cosmological argument.

I'm an atheist.

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

What would be your opinion on his argument for a beginning of time?

The "beginning of time" is an obvious oxymoron (logical impossibility; X<X form). In the absence of time, there can be no "beginnings". If time exists, then logically it has always (permanently; infinitely) existed.

Time as a physical variable can exist in mathematical physics and it exists as long as its theory requires it to exist. Mathematical objects simply are; beginning and end of variables are unintelligible in that sense.
When sufficiently complex (as deemed by their adherents), internally consistent mathematical theories create mathematical-physical (logical) worlds that can be imagined to be, in a weak collective sense.

These worlds are purely hypothetical and are private to specialists for the most part.
That is, these worlds are not, and cannot possibly be actual in anyone's sense of actual. Therefore no-one lives in them.

There are other senses of exist that in no way correspond to the mathematical or physical versions of the word.
We generally imagine that we exist in one of these other senses, without closely examining what we might mean by exist.

The existence of time that you speak of would merely consist of a mental concept, an experiential memory with as foundation a belief in time. Is that correct?

I believe that it would be wrong to assign validity to the idea that that type of existence is assumptorial of nature (meaning: that it can be assumed for the purpose of communication). The 'existence of time' as communicated, isn't valid within the scope of 'the communicated'. When it comes down to it, it merely consists of a 'belief' (dogma), of which it could be said that that belief isn't a valid ground for the assertion 'existence'.

This is what Einstein might have meant: "Time does not exist — we invented it.". By saying this, he refers to time, but in the same time he denies its existence by placing it in the scope of 'belief' (dogma) and the subsequent idea that 'belief' is no ground for what is commonly perceived to be valid within the scope of existence.

[value]

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?

... 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.

... 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.

The paper by philosophers Alex Malpass and Wes Morriston (cited in the OT) specifically addresses the proposition posed by the Kalam cosmological argument that time must have had a beginning so it is interesting to discover whether the reasoning of TP is to be considered valid, and thus, whether it would challenge the paper.

The paper 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’.

At question is whether TP's argument regarding traversing the infinite can be considered valid.

[RJG]

The paper by philosophers Alex Malpass and Wes Morriston (cited in the OT) specifically addresses the proposition posed by the Kalam cosmological argument that time must have had a beginning...

This ("time must have had a beginning") is as silly as saying "something can exist before it exists". Complete non-sensicalness.

[Lagayascienza]

I thnk I'm with you on this one RJG. I can't see why time must necessarily have a beginning any more than it must necessarily have an end. Similarly, I don't see why space must have a beginning and/or an end. Space and time could both be infinite. The extent of space and time will depend on the sort of universe we live in, and about that, there is still no consensus. It is very nearly flat, and if it is indeed flat, it will be infinite. What is clear from mathematics is that actual infinities, or infinite sets, can exist. For example, the natural numbers are an infinite set. If you were immortal, you could keep counting forever without coming to an end.

[The Beast]

From 3D to @D or from 2D to @D or both.
The quantum foam exists in the state of oscillation from (previous, natural?) superimposition of states. Coherent states give mass and mass can exist with multiple dimensions. In the human system of coherence, the incorporation of superimposed quantum states is possible due to coherence methods acquired (evolution). IMO, it is consciousness. This interaction (experience) edits coherence hence decoherence (change). I could explain decoherence in classic mechanics as
A1: Two bodies cannot occupy the same space.
A body is represented as a 3D object in space with coordinates (x, y, z). Axis z is considered the spacetime continuum. We exist in the state of coherence(body) and interact with quantum oscillations that change coherence from one state to another in the spacetime axis.
What can be 2D?
In my opinion superimposition of states exist in 2D… although there is oscillation waiting for causation (thought/thinking as causation). 3D is a row of 2D’s.
The question of stopping time (existence) is whether stopping causation is possible, which means stopping quantum oscillations, which means erasing the 2D plane, which means a definition of nothingness. However, I think….

[Ezeakor Oliver]

Well, I don't think one can have precise certainty on this. But it's just a perspective. I'd argue that we were created and factioned into time, so it's credible to assume that our thought-pattern can't escape 'time', so we can't really argue that reality. So if time has an end, let's get to it, if it doesn't, let's ride on as well.

[value]

Well, I don't think one can have precise certainty on this. But it's just a perspective. I'd argue that we were created and factioned into time, so it's credible to assume that our thought-pattern can't escape 'time', so we can't really argue that reality. So if time has an end, let's get to it, if it doesn't, let's ride on as well.

Can you please explain that 'we were created' idea, and how it relates to time, in more detail?