God and Pre-universe

[`mud]

Sum asks:"...God existed for an eternity before creation."
I have to ask: How many eternities are contained in our infinity.
And as Legion said: "...there are infinitely many infinities.."
I wander how many infinities there can be,
what's on the other wave of any infinite entitiy ?
I know, I know.....the other side, and then the 'void' ?
Damn.....nothingness again !
~
'mud

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

The spinning infinity
Dividing my head
The journey is long
I’ve broken my bread

Through chaos unmeasured
I’ve taveled far
To be in this place
Where all Shadows are

So I can but plea
Asking of divinity
Such Questions as are these
How eternal are infinities?

[Talking to divinity
especially the Trinity
must be done with symettry
the M.P.D. epitomy]

 

[lovemuffin]

Sure it does.

eternity
[ih-tur-ni-tee]
noun, plural eternities.
1. infinite time; duration without beginning or end.
(source Dictionary.com)​

So, what is your source for this rather odd definition?

See the SEP entry on Eternity, particularly the section locus classici.

 

[BSM1]

Well, there are infinitely many infinities.

Are there?

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

Are there?

Yes. The smallest is any set that is countable, which is equivalent to saying that it can be put in a one-to-one correspondence with the integers (or rationals, or whole numbers). The next is the reals. As every set is necessarily smaller than the power set of that set, the power set of any infinite set is strictly larger than that set. Let N be the natural numbers and P(N) be the power set of N. N is infinite, and as the power set of any set is greater than that set, P(N) is both infinite and greater than the infinite set N. P(P(N)) is the power set of the power set of N. It is necessarily greater than the power set of N and is infinite. One can repeat this indefinitely (i.e., P(P(P(P(...N...)))) or infinitely many power sets of the infinite set N).

 

[BSM1]

Yes. The smallest is any set that is countable, which is equivalent to saying that it can be put in a one-to-one correspondence with the integers (or rationals, or whole numbers). The next is the reals. As every set is necessarily smaller than the power set of that set, the power set of any infinite set is strictly larger than that set. Let N be the natural numbers and P(N) be the power set of N. N is infinite, and as the power set of any set is greater than that set, P(N) is both infinite and greater than the infinite set N. P(P(N)) is the power set of the power set of N. It is necessarily greater than the power set of N and is infinite. One can repeat this indefinitely (i.e., P(P(P(P(...N...)))) or infinitely many power sets of the infinite set N).

But aren't these all part of the greater infinity?

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

But aren't these all part of the greater infinity?

This is somewhat complicated. I cover some of the issues here: Infinities and the Infinite

 

[029b10]

Infinity in a finite universe?

While the term eternal is a specific reference to the nature of living substance, as the term mortal also. However, while the term finite defines the physical nature of an object which can be quantified, the term mortal and finite are consistent with the nature of both and living and non-living matter. Whereas the term infinite and the term eternal are not interchangeable, or least in my opinion. The reason being that the terms, mortal, immortal and eternal are specific references to the physical natural of living matter whereas finite and infinite are references to the physical nature of non-living matter.

Since Natural science is based upon the known and observed universe, only the physical natures of finite and mortal are observed and can be known in this universe. Since nature itself defines that the expanse and all things therein are finite, thus the concept of infinite can be construed as philosophical or theoretical, i.e. religious doctrine and not true science.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

Infinity in a finite universe?

1) While the evidence suggests that the big bang expanded, this leaves us both with the notion that all of spacetime expanded with the universe or that spacetime expanded in an already existing infinitely expansive space.
2) A central motivation for multiverse theories is the capacity for expansion result in inflationary universes/expand such that "pocket universes" are formed via event horizon boundaries. Thus we obtain infinitely many universes, regardless of the finite nature of any single one.

While the term eternal is a specific reference to the nature of living substance

It isn't.

However, while the term finite defines the physical nature of an object which can be quantified

It doesn't.

Whereas the term infinite and the term eternal are not interchangeable, or least in my opinion

Only lawyers use whereas in the above sense. Also, it's not whether they are interchangeable but whether they are relatable and if so how.

The reason being that the terms, mortal, immortal and eternal are specific references to the physical natural of living matter whereas finite and infinite are references to the physical nature of non-living matter.

False.

 

[BSM1]

This is somewhat complicated. I cover some of the issues here: Infinities and the Infinite

I understand what you're getting at ( at least in my extremely finite ability to do so) but because your examples exist on the known number line wouldn't that preclude them being a part of of the known infinite, no matter how infinitely small the division maybe? Can the numbers on the number line exist apart from themselves?

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

I understand what you're getting at ( at least in my extremely finite ability to do so) but because your examples exist on the known number line wouldn't that preclude them being a part of of the known infinite, no matter how infinitely small the division maybe? Can the numbers on the number line exist apart from themselves?

Actually my assertion isn't based on the number line. However, your insight here may help me here. Over the centuries, the "number line" has changedd. Time was that no irrational or transcendental numbers were considered part of the nuber line. Now they are. One major reason for this is that we can prove easily that there are infinitely many more irrational numbers between 0 and 1 then there are the entire infinite set of rational numbers.

 

[Skwim]

Just a thought: can there be more than one eternity?

Interesting question, but off hand I'd say no.

 

[corynski]

I come across many people that say God existed for an eternity before creation.

Putting aside all the problems coming from that idea. (time before time, eternity implies no end and so here we are, etc)

If God existed eternally before he made the universe, why did it take him so long?

Also, what did he exist in? Space is post-creation, as is time. A sequence of events must have happened before creation, right? So now he has no time.

Time is required to act (create) - Without it, God cannot do any action at all until he created time.

Or, perhaps an endless universe has always existed, and the universe is defined as 'all that exists'. But I think the notion of a 'creation' of anything must be brought into question. If we are talking about pea soup, we don't say we're going to 'create' a soup, but rather it is a recombination of stuff already in existence. But to create a universe out of nothing certainly would require a lot of nothing, would it not? What I do know is that science has evolved and changed very much in my short time here, so I would expect it to change even more in the future.

 

[Skwim]

See the SEP entry on Eternity, particularly the section locus classici.

Sorry, but I'm not inclined to wade through it all to find your point. Please copy and paste or give us your short version.

 

[BSM1]

Actually my assertion isn't based on the number line. However, your insight here may help me here. Over the centuries, the "number line" has changedd. Time was that no irrational or transcendental numbers were considered part of the nuber line. Now they are. One major reason for this is that we can prove easily that there are infinitely many more irrational numbers between 0 and 1 then there are the entire infinite set of rational numbers.

Now my eyes are really glazing over. I am obviously not equipped to intelligently give you much of an argument, but wouldn't infinity be the same theoretical number when discussing any set of numbers?

 

[The Sum of Awe]

Time is required for us to perceive actions. However, even for us different observers can observe the "same" event as unfolding over different intervals of time, and there is no preferred frame of reference. Also, on an ontological interpretation of spacetime, time doesn't exist at all, just our perception of it.

That much is obvious for anyone with a basic understanding of relativity. To claim time is an illusion isn't really inccorrect, but it doesn't make sense at some level.

Time is a measure, it holds no objective existence, it's just a tool for humans, describing how time is perceived by each individual observer. It's pointless to say time is an illusion, because it's just something we use. It's the same as saying inches, feet, etc. is an illusion just because that's how we measure it, while some other species might use an entirely different system altogether.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

but wouldn't infinity be the same theoretical number when discussing any set of numbers?

No. To describe (rather than give the details of) one of the proofs from that thread, I can show that if I assume that the infinite set of real numbers between 0 and 1 is equal in "size" (i.e., as both sets are infinite, I can always match any element/number in one set to one and only one in the other), it turns out that my assumption is wrong. In other words, There are infinitely more irrational number between 0 and 1 then there are natural numbers, even though both sets are infinite.

 

[BSM1]

No. To describe (rather than give the details of) one of the proofs from that thread, I can show that if I assume that the infinite set of real numbers between 0 and 1 is equal in "size" (i.e., as both sets are infinite, I can always match any element/number in one set to one and only one in the other), it turns out that my assumption is wrong. In other words, There are infinitely more irrational number between 0 and 1 then there are natural numbers, even though both sets are infinite.

Assuming you are right, and there is no reason not to, this would make a helluva bar bet.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

I come across many people that say God existed for an eternity before creation.

Putting aside all the problems coming from that idea. (time before time, eternity implies no end and so here we are, etc)

If God existed eternally before he made the universe, why did it take him so long?

Also, what did he exist in? Space is post-creation, as is time. A sequence of events must have happened before creation, right? So now he has no time.

Time is required to act (create) - Without it, God cannot do any action at all until he created time.

One of the things I love about being Agnostic is I can just dismiss such things with "I dunno" rather than chasing my tail in endless circles trying to figure out things I'll never know. Probably one of the few times when intellectual honestly can lead to such intellectual laziness.

 

[lovemuffin]

Sorry, but I'm not inclined to wade through it all to find your point. Please copy and paste or give us your short version.

Without endorsing anything else in James' post, I was responding to this exchange:

One of the biggest difficulties is the idea of "eternity". That word does not mean an endless succession of time.

Sure it does.

The definition you quoted notwithstanding, James is correct that the most popular classical definition of eternity used by theologians is closer to James' position than yours. For example, from the article:

"The richest and longest discussions of eternity have been in connection with the manner of God's life. The loci classici of this discussion, which makes the contrast between everlastingness and eternity clearer, and at the same time establishes what came to be the dominant account of eternity in western philosophy and theology, are to be found in Book XI of the Confessions of Augustine (354–430) and Book V of Boethius's (480–c.525) The Consolation of Philosophy...

In Boethius the contrast (which Boethius believes to be a ‘common judgement’) is drawn between timeless eternity [read: outside of time, not an infinite duration --wn] which only God enjoys, and the sempiternity [duration of time --wn] which (according to Plato) the world itself possesses...

In Augustine the connection is made between divine eternity and divine fullness, and of God, existing timelessly, being the cause of all times: "It is not in time that you precede times. Otherwise you would not precede all times. In the sublimity of an eternity which is always in the present, you are before all things past and transcend all things future"
​

There may be other objections to those definitions, but the point was only that the definition you quoted is not generally the one that Christian theologians have relied on.