Infinite time?

[charris]

It seems to me possible that there is an infinite time, specifically that of the past. All that would be required is for a previous event or cause (depending on you interpretation of QM).

I mentioned this, and was met with the objection, "If the past was infinite, then it would have taken an infinite amount of time to get here." I personally think this objection is pointless, so maybe if you think this is the case you could expound upon it. If you disagree, then if you could post your reasons as well I would appreciate it.

Also, if you disagree because of other reasons, I would like to hear them.

[fredonly]

Re: “entropy is the cause of the apparent arrow of time�

Entropy on the macroscale is the only thing in existence that isn't symmetric in the direction of time. However, this is only on the macroscale. On the microscale, there is not a thing that cannot work the same in CPT symmetry. This is because the second law of thermodynamics is probabilistic, and that it applies to the observed affects on the macroscale of what happens on the microscale (aka entropy). The macro-observation is what gives us the apparent arrow of time. If we were to only view things on the micro scale, then we would have no sense of the direction of time. This is a 1.0000000000000001 on the scale of belief. (It isn't strictly '1' because I don't believe anything can be stated for absolute certainty, except things like 'there is a computer in front of me at this moment' type of thing.)

I see two consequences; tell me if you agree with them.
1) If entropy is the cause of time, and past time is infinite, then entropy also had no beginning. Looking back through the infinite past, as time approaches -∞, entropy becomes smaller and smaller; there can be no minimum entropy (there could be an asymptotal limit, but not an absolute limit).
2) An infinite past time implies the big bang did not initiate time or entropy; instead the big bang was an event in time.

[charris]

I see two consequences; tell me if you agree with them.
1) If entropy is the cause of time, and past time is infinite, then entropy also had no beginning. Looking back through the infinite past, as time approaches -∞, entropy becomes smaller and smaller; there can be no minimum entropy (there could be an asymptotal limit, but not an absolute limit).

The entropy before our universe wouldn't have any affect on the entropy of our universe. We know that the entropy of our universe was extremely small when inflation happened, and it increases from there. But, on the quantum level, as far as we know, entropy doesn't have any noticeable affects. If quantum fields are what came before our universe and exist for an infinite time, which is what I would hold, then there would be no entropy to take into account. This is speculative, however, given that we don't have a quantum theory of gravity.

2) An infinite past time implies the big bang did not initiate time or entropy; instead the big bang was an event in time.

No objections here.

[fredonly]

I see two consequences; tell me if you agree with them.
1) If entropy is the cause of time, and past time is infinite, then entropy also had no beginning. Looking back through the infinite past, as time approaches -∞, entropy becomes smaller and smaller; there can be no minimum entropy (there could be an asymptotal limit, but not an absolute limit).

The entropy before our universe wouldn't have any affect on the entropy of our universe. We know that the entropy of our universe was extremely small when inflation happened, and it increases from there. But, on the quantum level, as far as we know, entropy doesn't have any noticeable affects. If quantum fields are what came before our universe and exist for an infinite time, which is what I would hold, then there would be no entropy to take into account. This is speculative, however, given that we don't have a quantum theory of gravity.

If there was no entropy to take in to account, and entropy is the cause of time, wouldn't this imply there was no progression of time?

[RevSpecter]

I have posted this quote a few times here. I would defer to one of the greatest thinkers of our era on this topic.

Hawking being an is an atheist is no surprise. I have read all (that I know of) of Hawking's popular books, I believe he was in his prime when he wrote the 'brief history of time'. However, he hides behind the same excuse that many logical positivists use. I might add the 'I don't know so the answer isn't important' excuse is similar to what many atheists hide behind. He simply refuses to address the question saying that without tangible evidence etc a question is not important. So, with all due respect that is no answer, it's a excuse. Many brilliant men other than the atheist Hawking do ponder what happened ’before’ the big bang. I defer to them rejecting Hawking's surrender. So with all due respect (and I mean that) by your exclusive (so far) use of Hawking's proof. I must take your answer as a surrender to ignorance.

Hubble's observations suggested that there was a time, called the big bang>>>>snip<<<<An expanding universe does not preclude a creator, but it does place limits on when he might have carried out his job!>>>>Stephen Hawking, A Brief History of Time (New York: Bantam, 1988), pp. 8-9.]

Yes, I agree that God designed the universe to run (within the limits of) by natural law, Einstein said the same. He said I do not doubt that the universe was created by God but I wonder if he could have created it any other way, or words to that effect. And that makes perfect sense and dovetails exactly into the biblical and theological theory of creation.

Time prior to the big bang is irrelevant and I'm sorry... but a god is not required.

In addition Hawking tells us that he does not believe that the universe began. He is wrong on that count too. You do know that he was proven wrong and admitted so by forfeiting a bet. And he has changed his mind about one of his very pet theories concerning black holes and information. Ie Information can escape from black holes after all. So I would be careful while using Hawkins exclusively.

"The question is: is the way the universe began chosen by God for reasons we can't understand, or was it determined by a law of science? I believe the second. If you like, you can call the laws of science 'God', but it wouldn't be a personal God that you could meet, and ask questions."

Again much like Einstein may have thought about God, but I feel Einstein’s God may have been a bit more personal. Nevertheless one of his friends had this to say about Hawking; Gary Gibbons. "His style of doing science is quite dramatic: he will propose a thesis and defend it to the last, until it is overthrown by better reasoning." So again while I admire Hawking I believe his atheism which gives rise to rid science of traditional Big Bang theory, and failing that to eliminate God from the grand scheme (and also failing) limits him, and has caused much of his failures, again much like like Einstein attempting to disprove QFT (Quantum field theory).

So, please forgive me for not agreeing with your ideas especially concerning the personal nature of God. I may not agree with traditional Christianity on this issue either, however I agree far more with Christianities description of Elohim (the Hebrew name for God) than Mr. Baruch Spinoza descriptions.

rs

[Board]

Hawking being an is an atheist is no surprise. I have read all (that I know of) of Hawking's popular books, I believe he was in his prime when he wrote the 'brief history of time'. However, he hides behind the same excuse that many logical positivists use. I might add the 'I don't know so the answer isn't important' excuse is similar to what many atheists hide behind. He simply refuses to address the question saying that without tangible evidence etc a question is not important. So, with all due respect that is no answer, it's a excuse. Many brilliant men other than the atheist Hawking do ponder what happened ’before’ the big bang. I defer to them rejecting Hawking's surrender. So with all due respect (and I mean that) by your exclusive (so far) use of Hawking's proof. I must take your answer as a surrender to ignorance.

Nonsense. If by "surrender to ignorance" you mean "appeal to authority" Hawking is one of the few real authorities on this matter. Are you suggesting otherwise?

Who are these "many brilliant men"?

It is most definitely not an excuse. Are you suggesting that there is a tangible way to discover what happened prior to a big bang? Do you hold some great insight that the world does not?

It is more a philosophical question than a scientific question at this point in time. Until the math begins to point toward something there is no reason to speculate.

Gary Gibbons. "His style of doing science is quite dramatic: he will propose a thesis and defend it to the last, until it is overthrown by better reasoning."

I would expect nothing less from a scientist. If the thesis is not worth defending to the last then why present it in the first place?

[lewiy]

A scientist has changed his mind? Changed his views? For your information, that is exactly what science is about. You make a hypothesis, you test it, if it works, you present it to others so they can test it too. If they find it to be wrong, you must give it up.

Scientists change their views on things all the time. This does not mean that everything they have ever thought or hypothesised is wrong. The problem comes when people refuse to change their minds even when all the available evidence points against them and this is the problem with religions. Christians naively assume that everything that could be known, WAS known, by illiterate tribesmen over 2000 years ago. They refuse to change their minds, they refuse to accept any other way that things can be.

I, personally, am pleased when leading minds change their views or accept they were wrong. This gives them much more credibility. I would also argue that, although theoretical physics is more philosophical, you will find few people as well versed on the subject as Stephen Hawking. He might not always be right, but he’s much more likely to be right than most of us. I’m happy to at least hear him out!

[RevSpecter]

What do you mean by “subscribe?�

Oh man, its not a common usage is it? Sorry that’s my language quirks again! Here is the dictionary description of how I use the word ‘subscribe’; 4. vi support view: to support or believe in a theory or view …Encarta ® World English Dictionary © & (P) 1998-2004 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.

Why rule out the possibility of predecessor states of the universe? There are a number of emerging theories about this.

I don’t rule out the many other theories, even the highly fantastic ones! However, I have to pick the best theory to establish my view of reality of the world eh? Ha ha! The classical big bang theory , even though its been around for a long time remains the best theory IMO and the only one that agrees with all the evidences including observational, mathematical, and many other evidences. A scientist recently said “The staggering amount of evidence in support of the Big Bang theory is simply overwhelming. So much so that the theory simply cannot now be overturned. What is known to agree with the theory today cannot be changed tomorrow, by any theory�. So, the big bang is just a theory like evolution is just a theory. And, (again) I do not reject any theory of beginnings and even encourage new and alternative theories of how the universe began. I would be bored to tears if the BB were the only thing out there, God is the only singular thing that I can conceive of as, well a singular that represents everything.

interesting. You would apply the label “God� to this ‘cause’. “God� could be a quantum fluctuation, or a collision of branes.

I am sorry even though that would be a fantastic explanation and one worthy of a wonderful science fiction book that’s not what I meant! Ha ha its my bad grammar rising its ugly head again! No the ‘cause’ that caused the universe to begin to exist was there ’before’ the big bang happened ! Ouch! I know it sounds silly. However think about it. Time was created at the moment of the big bang. What ever the ’cause’ is must be something unknown to science. I make the case that this ’cause’ has the attributes of God, and so God is the most likely, reasonable and rational explanation for the ’cause’ that caused the universe to begin to exist. I am not saying the ‘cause’ can not be something other than God such as a unknown natural reason.

BANE to athesists? Are you serious? It’s simply an unresolved challenge, but an active branch of theoretical physics.

Yes I am deadly serious. The BB fits theology like a glove. Many a secular scientists already admit that fact. However as I said I do not rule out any theory secular on non secular. I just happen to think when all the evidences are stacked up the theist side has 99% of the chips on their side!

I actually consider the KCA a plausible argument – in a narrow sense. It’s a reasonable argument for there being an actual first cause. Where Craig goes wrong is in his leaps from this narrow point, insisting the “cause� must be a personal agent – with all the complexity that entails. I’d be happy to debate the points with you if you like.

No need unless you really want to arrive at the same stalemate I have journey to with a hundred other atheists (but not agnostics who seem to have the ability to change their paradigm (in this case the belief of God) more easily than atheists when discussing the evidences. However I would be happy to do a check to see if the problem areas are the same. If you would be so kind as to give me a breif abstract as to your biggest concern against the KCA we will see? I like to debate in good faith because its how I learn, and you seem very civil, give and take debate partner.

Sure, it’s possible. But it’s also true that there is something that was uncaused (i.e. the first cause). Assigning the characterstic of “personal agent� to the first cause is not a deduction. The universe itself (in a prior state of timelessness) could have been the first cause.

Craig would disagree but I don’t. I believe that the KCA can only prove a God like (ie possessing God like attributes, therefore for I believe God is the best way to define the ‘cause‘) ‘cause’ caused the universe to begin to exist. Thanks so much for your reply and I look forward to discussing this in more detail with you.

Too bad we members in this forum don’t have a teak wood paneled dark study, overstuffed corinthian leather chairs, an decadently expensive decanter of expensive brandy with a box of $100 dollar cigars (hey I am being modest! Some cigars go as high as $750 ea, seesh! my motorcycle isn’t worth that much! Well, the dirt bike)….Hey that gives me an idea, more later!

rs

[RevSpecter]

The reason I disagree that infinite time exists is because I subscribe to the Big Bang model of how the universe began.

Your phrasing makes me suspicious of how much you know about it... The big bang doesn't rule out an infinite time. There are numerous explanations that allow this, and the theory of inflation makes it almost necessary for there to at least be time before our universe.

Maybe its your ignorance that is the problem? Please leave the peeing contests in the Junior High locker room where it belongs, I neither have the time nor the patience for such wastes of time. I simply do not take insults well and reward respect with respect and insult with insult, and the members of this forum don't deserve to hear an personal argument between a theist and an atheist (or an ?) when a nice discussion is so easy to have instead.

Ok I did not say that the classical BB theory ruled out infinite time. Your being confrontational! I said I choose the classical big bang theory because it suggests that time was created in the first three min of the big bang. I accept the version that tells us that spacetime was created along with the four forces. No I do not want to debate the and the intricacies and possibilities thereof. I leave that to the mathematicians. Myself ? I hold an masters in theology and am a serious amateur astronomer and cosmologist, my secondary hobbies are the natural sciences excluding biology.

So you're saying that time began in a moment of time? (I think you meant t=10^-6, btw). If there is a point where time didn't exist, then the switch from no time to time would be t=0, not t=10-6 (or 10^-6).

Read the first three min lecture you will know what I think.

http://www.astronomy.ohio-state.edu/~po ... early.html

Of course all this is theory. Its all hotly debated and nothing is for sure. So I considering the available evidence, I believe spacetime was created about the same time matter, space, and gravity. If it makes you feel better, the idea that time is preceded the big bang would make a ID even easier to give evidence for!

If a cause doesn't exist in time, it has no ability to do anything, being that events (like causing something to happen) take place in time.

That is precisely what I said and the reason I brought up causality. However there are ways around that. I am researching the possibility that causality may exist without time, if so that could easily explain how a ‘cause’ could effect change w/o time.

You did, but neither I nor freedonly did. We kept it strictly non-metaphysical.

Of course I did, I was speaking of my explanation of the KCA etc. and how it relates to this thread! The KCA (as described by Craig, Koon and others) is more than just Philosophy, it by necessity uses science etc in a round about way. There are times that your beloved math fails, and when hard science is not sufficient to describe the question. You only have to take a course in the philosophy to understand why that's the case.

It is

Certainly

Not in the slightest. We have plausible scientific explanations even without the theory of quantum gravity, and it will only get better. No metaphysics required (and none wanted).

Ha ha yes well its been a while so we will see who is correct in the end. I might add that there are billions of people that do want metaphysics Kurt Godel being a ex member of that group. The largest blunder of the western mind was the exclusion of metaphysics at the turn of the century, and now we are paying the price with our ignorance and useless physics (‘past’ the event horizon, or ‘before’ the first three min after the big bang 'banged').

However, that said, I dearly hope that you are correct, because if we can develop an ‘new physics’ (and I believe we can and will be forced to), we will finally find God the ID, using the blood hound of science.

The KCA fails on numerous accounts, even if time did begin at the big bang.

Well no it doesn't, its never been defeated, nevertheless, that is your opinion, and I am exceedingly happy it's only that.

rs

[Goat]

The KCA fails on numerous accounts, even if time did begin at the big bang.

Well no it doesn't, its never been defeated, nevertheless, that is your opinion, and I am exceedingly happy it's only that.

rs

Uh. yes it has been shown to be faulty. You can not show the premises to be true.

Nor, can you show any reasonable logic to jump from 'There is a first cause' , to 'The first cause was a personal agent' .. the 'logic' that Craig uses is one big logical fallacy.

It's one giant appeal to personal belief.

[fredonly]

The KCA fails on numerous accounts, even if time did begin at the big bang.

Well no it doesn't, its never been defeated, nevertheless, that is your opinion, and I am exceedingly happy it's only that.

rs

Uh. yes it has been shown to be faulty. You can not show the premises to be true.

Nor, can you show any reasonable logic to jump from 'There is a first cause' , to 'The first cause was a personal agent' .. the 'logic' that Craig uses is one big logical fallacy.

It's one giant appeal to personal belief.

Your comments seem cavalier. KCA is certainly a valid argument (which does not require true premises), and it has not been unequivocally proven unsound (i.e. the premises proven to be false). There are arguments for and against the premises, but there are no proofs the premises are correct or incorrect. If it's an appeal to personal beliefs, it is such an appeal in either direction.

To be clear, I'm referring to the core KCA - not Craig's faith-based leaps from it, in which he insists the first cause "must be" a personal agent. The core is:
1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause.
2. The universe began to exist.
3. Therefore, the universe has a cause.

I assume you question premise #1, but accept premise #2 - am I right? My contention is that premise #1 is neither proven nor disproven, but it is plausible to accept it because it is intuitive, and is not disproven. This makes KCA a reasonable argument (not a mathematical PROOF per se, because of the equivocal nature of premise #1).