Philosophy Discussion Forums | A Humans-Only Philosophy Club

[Bahman]

To show this we first notice that any act including the act of creation has a before and an after. This means that time is needed for any act since there is a before and an after in any act. The act of creation however includes the creation of time as well. This means that we need time for the creation of time. This leads to an infinite regress. The infinite regress is not acceptable. Therefore, the act of creation from nothing is logically impossible.

It's a weird question to try to get your head round, for me anyway. But here's how I see it.

I understand time to be a marker of change.

Time allows change to occur.

Without change, time is meaningless.

That is not true. Time can pass without any other change.

I know change exists because my conscious experience changes.  I assume the change in my conscious experience represents the sequentially changing universe my experience represents. (Time being relative doesn't mean it doesn't exist as marking change, just that how we experience and measure it is relative, I think).

And I understand logic to be a human concept which is rooted in our observation and understanding of how our universe works.

Now within our already existing universe as we experience and understand it, to say time/change/anything is created out of nothing/no time/no change at a particular  temporal moment seems illogical.  Because we live in a pre-existing universe and only understand time as marking the change from one state of affairs to another, which we experience and have coherent and reliably predictive ways of explaining.

However, if we're talking about the creation of our universe, we're considering a different state of affairs we call 'nothing' (aka not our universe) and we have no access  to  how things work 'outside' or 'before' our universe.  If or how time, stuff changing, or logic can make sense to us outside what we can access from within our universe.  So for example if we're considering the existence of some creative force which is responsible for the existence of our universe (including time, stuff and logic as we experience/understand it), we have no way of knowing what the conditions in which such an act of creation might or might not occur.  That's assuming the notion of 'outside our universe', or outside what is epistemologically accessible to us, is itself meaningful.

One of the main premises is that any act requires times since any act deals with a change. Agree or disagree? The other premise is that there was no time before the point of creation. Agree or disagree?

We can speculate, but using our 'in-universe' notions of logic based on how our universe seems to work to do so,  could well be simply not understanding the implications of trying to say anything about what is outside what we can know or understand.  Or if it even makes sense to try.

On the other hand if we consider our universe to be eternal/infinite having no temporal beginning, we run into apparent paradoxes, in which our logic seems incapable of reconciling our universe's infinite past with reaching this point now, and now, and now, like Xeno's arrow. Or how our spatially infinite universe which encompasses everything can expand.

Eternal universe is illogical since it takes infinite amout of time passage to reach from infinite past to now.

[Gertie]

GE

Gertie wrote: ↑Yesterday, 5:27 pm
I struggle with infinity, but re Xeno isn't the point that to move from point A to B, which can lie anywhere along a timeline, the distance can always be halved, an infinite number of times? Effectively creating never-endingly closer 'first' points. So if the closest point is never-endingly divisible, it might as well be never-endingly far away? In which case nothing can ever change its position and we're in a static universe.

(I don't believe we are in a static universe btw, the point is that our logic can't resolve such apparent paradoxes).

Aristotle dealt with those paradoxes pretty well. He distinguished between "actual infinities" and "potential infinities." Actual infinities are those present in the external world; potential infinities are those that arise via our method of describing the world. E.g., the "points" on a line don't represent particles or any other physical or phenomena; they exist as concepts --- mental constructs --- only. A given point on a line is just a ratio of a portion of the line to its total length; not a physical "thing" or place. Physical motion is not constrained by such imaginary artifacts.

The points between location A and B represent real locations too tho. 

The archer shoots the arrow from actual location A and it arrives at actual location B.  But there are an infinite number of actual locations between location A and B, if the distance between any two actual  locations can always be halved, creating a new actual location to reach, from the first moment of travel.   It looks like a genuine real world paradox to me?

The same goes for time. If I move through time, the moment now to moment one hour from now is comprised of an infinitely divisible  number of moments, so I can't move through time.


So back to the infinite universe. If nothing  can move then the universe is static, not expanding.  If nothing can move then nothing can change, time is meaningless anyway, imo.   But if itime is somehow a thing in itself which flows onwards towards the future in a static universe, then it's in the same quandary of having to traverse infinitely divided moments.

Re a 'bounded expanding universe', if you take Bahman's position that the universe must be infinite because a created universe isn't logical, then if we apply the notion of infinity to the size of the universe we hit a paradox too. If the universe is infinite, it is everything, and if it's everything (including space) there's nothing for it to expand into, but it seems to be expanding.
I agree that if "the universe" is construed to mean, "everything that exists or has ever existed," then its creation is not logical; for that would entail that something was created from nothing.

Right, as far as our human  'in-universe'' logic' goes.   But my point is our concept of what is logical derives from our observations and theorising on how our universe works (I think this might mean I'm with you on that 'metaphysics' doesn't really add anything, not sure exactly what metaphysics is to be honest, it's still on my list). To us, nothingness can't do anything.  But we can't know anything about what does or doesn't lie 'beyond' what we can identify as our universe. What the rules are, how it works, if something can come from nothing, and whatever else might imaginably/unimaginably be going on. Or not.

It might be like expecting an ant to understand the standard model of physics.  It doesn't have the toolkit. 

Physicists, however, don't give that term so wide a scope; they consider it to be finite, with a size constrained by the speed of light (matter could only have traveled so far in the ~14 billion years since the Big Bang). If it is finite there is no problem with expansion --- it creates more space as it expands. It doesn't need space in which to expand --- it expands into nothingness (we can only speak of "space" when we have 2 or more separated entities).

I'll happily assume they know better than me, most 14 year olds probably understand cosmology better than me .  But... if nothingness has the quality of 'able to be expanded into', we're already saying something about its nature, and starting to blur the concept of nothing...

Again, my point is that a universe created from nothing and an infinite universe both have logical probs.  But if we remember that our logic arises from noting how our universe works, it isn't necessarily going to work when we're addressing issues of the universe's  creation or infinity.

We can and should have a go at applying our logic to the question, but if our logic could handle it, we'd probably have cracked it.

[GE Morton]

It is a very contentious issue whether there is such a distinctive kind of modality that is stronger than nomological/physical modality and weaker than logical (logico-conceptual) modality. The core idea is intuitively plausible to me, but a precise definition is hard to come by. Nonetheless, the essentialist approach to metaphysical modality (as developed and defended by Kit Fine and others) isn't vacuous. According to it, what is metaphysically necessary/possible/impossible is determined by what is and what isn't compatible with a thing's essence or nature (= the set or sum of its essential properties).

There's the rub --- what are it's essential properties? I take an "essential" property of a thing, an X, to be one such that, if not present, the thing is no longer an X. E.g., a closed plane figure that does not have 3 sides is no longer a triangle. So what is an essential property of a thing is just a matter of how the term denoting it is defined. There are no "metaphysical" essences.

That reduces "metaphysical necessity" to logical necessity:

For example, if I am essentially a member of the species homo sapiens, then it is metaphysically impossible for me to be or become a member of a species of alligators. It would also be logically impossible for me if my actually being an alligator entailed a logical contradiction. Does it? If yes, what contradiction does it entail?

Yes, it involves a contradiction, because the definitions of those terms ("human" and "alligator") are implicit in any argument involving them, and can be made explicit. So one can't (logically) be both a human and an alligator (I can't both have and not have scales or sex chromosomes). My becoming an alligator, however is a different story: while that is physically impossible, it is logically possible --- SF writers have explored such metamorphoses frequently.

[GE Morton]

Of course, being a human alligator does entail logical contradictions. For example, humans have sex chromosomes and alligators don't; so if I were a human alligator, I would both have and lack sex chromosomes, which is a logically contradictory state of affairs. However, that my being a human alligator is logically impossible doesn't mean that my being an alligator is logically impossible too.

Yes, it does --- once the referent of "my/me" is specified. If those terms refer to a human, then we're back to the previous comment.

[GE Morton]

Eternal universe is illogical since it takes infinite amout of time passage to reach from infinite past to now.

If the universe is eternal (which is what we are hypothesizing) then an infinite amount of time HAS passed before now.

[GE Morton]

The points between location A and B represent real locations too tho. 

Sure. But representing a real location doesn't make that representation a real location. Those points are just our means of representing a location.

The archer shoots the arrow from actual location A and it arrives at actual location B.  But there are an infinite number of actual locations between location A and B . . .

No, there are not. A "real" location is a place where something exists or something happens. There are a large number of atoms along that path, but that number is finite. The apparent infinity of "points" is only an artifact of our conceptual and descriptive apparatus.

The same goes for time.

Yes, it does --- a "real" period of time is an interval wherein something exists or happens. "Moments," like points, are conceptual artifacts.

But my point is our concept of what is logical derives from our observations and theorising on how our universe works (I think this might mean I'm with you on that 'metaphysics' doesn't really add anything, not sure exactly what metaphysics is to be honest, it's still on my list). To us, nothingness can't do anything.  But we can't know anything about what does or doesn't lie 'beyond' what we can identify as our universe. What the rules are, how it works, if something can come from nothing, and whatever else might imaginably/unimaginably be going on. Or not.

Well, that sort of thing is what many metaphysicians endeavor to explain, and usually offer up "explanations" that are not verifiable or falsifiable and lead to no confirmable predictions. Thus they have no explanatory power. The best we can do "metaphysically" is produce a theory that is at least coherent and not illogical. The cyclic universe seems to satisfy those criteria.

[Sculptor1]

To show this we first notice that any act including the act of creation has a before and an after. This means that time is needed for any act since there is a before and an after in any act. The act of creation however includes the creation of time as well. This means that we need time for the creation of time. This leads to an infinite regress. The infinite regress is not acceptable. Therefore, the act of creation from nothing is logically impossible.

It's a weird question to try to get your head round, for me anyway. But here's how I see it.

I understand time to be a marker of change.

Time allows change to occur.

Without change, time is meaningless.

That is not true. Time can pass without any other change.

Prove it!

[Bahman]

Eternal universe is illogical since it takes infinite amout of time passage to reach from infinite past to now.

If the universe is eternal (which is what we are hypothesizing) then an infinite amount of time HAS passed before now.

But an infinite amount of time cannot pass given the definition of infinity.

[Bahman]

To show this we first notice that any act including the act of creation has a before and an after. This means that time is needed for any act since there is a before and an after in any act. The act of creation however includes the creation of time as well. This means that we need time for the creation of time. This leads to an infinite regress. The infinite regress is not acceptable. Therefore, the act of creation from nothing is logically impossible.

It's a weird question to try to get your head round, for me anyway. But here's how I see it.

I understand time to be a marker of change.

Time allows change to occur.

Without change, time is meaningless.

That is not true. Time can pass without any other change.

Prove it!

Which one do you want me to prove?

[Sosein]

Time can pass without any other change.

I dont think time can pass without any other change, i see time as an unit of measurment for motion, for change. I also think that motion, or change, is immanent in the cosmos - panta rhei seems to be true.

"Act of creation from nothing is logically impossible"

It is one of the older questions in the book - if nothing exists, and when usually nothing comes from nothing, how can there be something rather than nothing ? You see if nothing doesnt exist, therefor all things must be formed by preexisting things, therefore material existence itself must be eternal. I myself believe creatio ex nihilo, god as the first cause, to be true.

[GrayArea]

"Self-causation is possible for self-causation itself."

hilarious tautology.

You sound like you're more furious than you are laughing at something. I know that people get mad at something they don't get, but you need to know that being mad at something you don't understand won't make it any less true.

[Eckhart Aurelius Hughes]

What I would say is that, due to special and general relativity, most namely the relativity of simultaneity, I believe change is incompatible with determinism, if--and the word if here is a key word--we assume there is nothing transcendental to the 4D block universe.

Most specifically, I generally mean causal determinism, but I would conjecture that logically it applies to any reasonable definition of or form of determinism one could propose. To me, it seems almost like basic grammar in a sense, simply because of the way the words fit together: If the future and/or past can change, then they aren't determined, ipso facto.

There is change in a "4D block universe" if and only if it is not the case that all of its temporal parts are qualitatively identical, i.e. if and only if it has at least two temporal parts which aren't duplicates of one another.

The 4D block universe does not have "temporal parts". It is four dimensions of timeless spaceless spacetime. It does not have a dimension of time, hence why when it is mapped as a series of 3D slices it results in the relativity of simultaneity. Objectively, there are no 3D slices, and no two events/things in 4D spacetime can be described as objectively happening simultaneously (i.e. as being objectively on the same 3D slice), at least insofar as it is not the case that all events across all of 4D spacetime are objectively happening simultaneously, which granted is one way to think about eternalism and the timelessness of objective reality (i.e. the universe as an eternal spaceless timeless 4D whole).

Please do reply in my topic dedicated to the unreality of objective time:

Neither time, time-ness, unconscious here-ness, unconscious now-ness, nor any unconscious presence exist.

[Eckhart Aurelius Hughes]

I doubt we can agree that change really exists.

That conclusion of mine (that change does not really exist) is included in my argument that neither time nor timeness really exist (without appealing to conscious presences at least) at statement number 44 of 48 in the numbered statements of the argument:

[44] Assuming there is nothing transcendental to the 4D block universe, without objective time, change is incompatible with determinism.
Example: If the Big Bang and the death of the Sun are changing or could change, then determinism is not true.

[Emphasis added.]

So you believe in block universe and determinism. How do you define determinism?

I wouldn't necessarily say that.

What I would say is that, due to special and general relativity, most namely the relativity of simultaneity, I believe change is incompatible with determinism, if--and the word if here is a key word--we assume there is nothing transcendental to the 4D block universe.

Most specifically, I generally mean causal determinism

Let me ask you this question then since you evade to define determinism: Is it correct to say that only one state of affairs is actual in 4D block universe at any given point?

I am not sure what you mean when you ask, "only one state of affairs is actual in 4D block universe at any given point?"

At one given point of what?

Is the "point" to which you refer a 0D point?

Is it a 0D spatiotemporal point in timeless spaceless 4D spacetime?

In what sense could affairs exist at a point as you use the term "affairs" and the term "point"?

Now for example, you are reading what I am writing. You then reply to me. So there are two state of you that both cannot be actual at the same point.

There's two things making me not understand what you are saying or asking:

1) The word 'you' is very equivocal, which I explain in detail in my book In It Together via the concept of what the book calls "The Two Yous".

2) I am not sure what you mean by "actual at the same point".

The human we call 'Scott' is not a 0D point and does not exist at a singular 0D point.

How can you be in two different state of affairs, one after another one, if you don't move in 4D block universe?

Surely, the answer depends on what is meant by the very equivocal word "you".

As I point out in my book, In It Together, and in less detail in my forum topic about self-transcendence and ego death, what most people would refer to as "me" or "you" is something I (and basically all neuroscientists) do not believe really exists either.

Nonetheless, the structure of the question seems to be of the form, "How can dogs exist on two different continents?" Or, "how can the unchanging unmoving line on the unchanging piece of paper be both on the left side and the right side?"

How can it not be?

Why would it not be?

How do such things even warrant explanation?

Of course a line or shape or even simply a set of small dots can be on both sides of an unchanging piece paper.

[Sculptor1]

It's a weird question to try to get your head round, for me anyway. But here's how I see it.

I understand time to be a marker of change.

Time allows change to occur.

Without change, time is meaningless.

That is not true. Time can pass without any other change.

Prove it!

Which one do you want me to prove?

You say time can pass without change.
That is not a statement you can make.

[Sculptor1]

"Self-causation is possible for self-causation itself."

hilarious tautology.

You sound like you're more furious than you are laughing at something. I know that people get mad at something they don't get, but you need to know that being mad at something you don't understand won't make it any less true.

Fro two words you conclude that I am "furious"???
You might want to look at why you feel that way.
Alternatively you could try to support and defend your tautology.