Spacetime is Eternal and Omnipresent

[M. J. Fernandes]

Has it?

You must read the posts. The context for this is based on the assumption of a deterministic universe.

Why?

Again, looking at the posts would probably help with answering this. If the story is infinitely long (and has already been written), what was the second from last word? What was the middle of the story?

 

[Yerda]

You must read the posts. The context for this is based on the assumption of a deterministic universe.

Sorry, I see that now.

Does it matter that it might not be deterministic?

Again, looking at the posts would probably help with answering this. If the story is infinitely long (and has already been written), what was the second from last word? What was the middle of the story?

That seems a wee bit circular. There wouldn't be a second from last word unless you assume it has an end, which is what you were proving, no?

To use an analogy, the set of natural numbers is infinite*. All the numbers have happened, to speak. Yet they don't end. If instants of time could be mapped one-to-one to the natural numbers they would start but not end. I'm not saying that anything so simplistic is the case, just suggesting that there are errors in the proof. I'll be fair though, you had a go. I wouldn't have known how to start giving a proof one way or the other.

*The series of natural numbers is divergent but can be summed using some trickery and comes out as -1/12. That's nothing to do with this thread; I just had to share that cause it's nuts.

 

[M. J. Fernandes]

Sorry, I see that now.

Does it matter that it might not be deterministic?

I treat two cases in the proof: the case that the universe is deterministic and the case where human beings have free-will making it deterministic in some things but not all. Assuming causality (which we all generally admit), one of the cases apply or the second case can be 'tweaked' to create a third case which still follows the same reasoning and outcome as the second case. Have I made a mistake in my reasoning?

That seems a wee bit circular. There wouldn't be a second from last word unless you assume it has an end, which is what you were proving, no?

No, there wouldn't be a second from last word if you assumed:

...the story is infinitely long (and has already been written)....

which leads inexorably to the conclusion that the story is finitely long (since that is the only alternative.) It has been a while since I studied mathematical proofs but I think this may be referred to as 'proof by contradiction.' Am I making a mistake with my reasoning?

To use an analogy, the set of natural numbers is infinite*. All the numbers have happened, to speak. Yet they don't end. If instants of time could be mapped one-to-one to the natural numbers they would start but not end. I'm not saying that anything so simplistic is the case, just suggesting that there are errors in the proof. I'll be fair though, you had a go. I wouldn't have known how to start giving a proof one way or the other.

The natural numbers do not seem to map to time in the same way. Saying that the natural numbers have already happened does not seem to be the same as saying that time has already happened. In fact, the natural numbers do not seem to have happened at all. They are invariant to time and so the concept of 'happening' does not seem to apply. Also, the natural numbers seem to be only an abstract mathematical concept whereas time has some aspect in reality.

 

[metis]

Time is just a reflection of movement. Speaking of which...

Sometimes cosmologists use terms that drive me nuts because some may take something literally that is only meant to be figurative. For example, some will say "Time began at the Big Bang". But then you read further, and they'll then discuss what maybe came before the Big Bang. What they should be saying is "Time as we now know it started at the Big Bang".

 

[Yerda]

Have I made a mistake in my reasoning?

I don't think so. The conclusions that time has a beginning, at least, follows from your premises I think. So...are the premises good? They seem sensible enough to me, but I'm not a theoretical physicist or a philosopher of spacetime.

As for time having an end:

...leads inexorably to the conclusion that the story is finitely long (since that is the only alternative.) It has been a while since I studied mathematical proofs but I think this may be referred to as 'proof by contradiction.' Am I making a mistake with my reasoning?

Well, maybe. It looks circular. There may not be a second from last word was my point. By assuming there is you seem to implicitly assumed the conclusion you wanted. If that's the case, yes, there is a mistake.

The natural numbers do not seem to map to time in the same way. Saying that the natural numbers have already happened does not seem to be the same as saying that time has already happened. In fact, the natural numbers do not seem to have happened at all. They are invariant to time and so the concept of 'happening' does not seem to apply. Also, the natural numbers seem to be only an abstract mathematical concept whereas time has some aspect in reality.

It was only intended as analogy. The natural numbers have "happened" in the sense that they are all defined whether we choose to count to any specific one i.e. numbers we haven't counted to are in the future but are "determined" by their ordered nature whether we get there or not. We could use the positive real numbers if that's better.

You reasoned:

If the future has already happened, then the future cannot be infinitely long since this is impossible, just as you cannot have an infinitely long piece of string.

But this doesn't seem to be justified. In our analogy time passing could be modeled as counting. There doesn't seem to be any inherent reason the universe cannot go on "counting" forever, there are enough numbers.

Thanks again.

 

[Yerda]

Time is just a reflection of movement. Speaking of which...

Sometimes cosmologists use terms that drive me nuts because some may take something literally that is only meant to be figurative. For example, some will say "Time began at the Big Bang". But then you read further, and they'll then discuss what maybe came before the Big Bang. What they should be saying is "Time as we now know it started at the Big Bang".

I've heard more than one physicist say that time is a mystery.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

The finite distance of two feet is very different to an infinite amount of time. Am I making a mistake?

Yes. One can use Zeno’s argument to show quite easily that every interval of time involves an infinite “amount” of time. Simply replace distance and its halving with a unit of time.

if the future has already been 'written', the story cannot be infinitely long.

Why?

It is nonsensical to think of the story being infinitely long (in reality). Am I making a mistake?

You’ve given no reason to suppose that a deterministic universe entails an endpoint in time. In fact, determinism rests almost entirely on the notion that one can (in theory) determine the outcome of some system’s state (including the universe an all in it) given initial conditions. This doesn’t mean determining the state of universe only to one year, or only for a thousand years, or only for googol years. It means arbitrarily into the future, which means that there is nothing to say that this future ends not does the ability to determine future states (no matter how distant) entail finitely “long” time.

If it has already happened, then nothing happened at t=infinity

That’s because you’re essentially saying that nothing happened at t= blah. Infinity isn’t a number. If, given any n, no matter how large, we can continue to determine all that is, then there is no reason to suppose an end. Infinity is often useful in equations, but not so much in modeling systems. There is no reason to suppose that because/if we are able to determine the conditions of the universe arbitrarily far into the universe that the universe (or time) must end.

Things like infinitely long strings are things thought about in mathematical reasoning.

True. But it is important to distinguish what we know can happen or exist vs. what has happened or does exist.

Infinity seems to be a useful concept for modelling certain things.

Electrons, photons, etc., are frequently described as infinitely long, existing in infinitely many spaces, and existing in infinitely many spaces. The basis for all of reality is an uncountably infinite number systems uncountably infinite properties.
Speaking of uncountable, you should know (and my already) that some infinities are larger than others (or bigger, longer, etc., than others).

 

[M. J. Fernandes]

Yes. One can use Zeno’s argument to show quite easily that every interval of time involves an infinite “amount” of time. Simply replace distance and its halving with a unit of time.

By infinite amount of time, I meant something like an infinite number of seconds. I think this would be the common interpretation.

Why?

If the story is infinitely long, what was the second from last word? What was the middle of the story? I have expanded on this in previous posts shown here.

You’ve given no reason to suppose that a deterministic universe entails an endpoint in time. In fact, determinism rests almost entirely on the notion that one can (in theory) determine the outcome of some system’s state (including the universe an all in it) given initial conditions. This doesn’t mean determining the state of universe only to one year, or only for a thousand years, or only for googol years. It means arbitrarily into the future, which means that there is nothing to say that this future ends not does the ability to determine future states (no matter how distant) entail finitely “long” time.

I disagree but perhaps there are flaws in my proof.

That’s because you’re essentially saying that nothing happened at t= blah. Infinity isn’t a number. If, given any n, no matter how large, we can continue to determine all that is, then there is no reason to suppose an end. Infinity is often useful in equations, but not so much in modeling systems. There is no reason to suppose that because/if we are able to determine the conditions of the universe arbitrarily far into the universe that the universe (or time) must end.

If we cannot say t = infinity, and also the future has already been 'written', then what is the last t? It cannot be infinity, and so - I believe - it must be finite.

Electrons, photons, etc., are frequently described as infinitely long, existing in infinitely many spaces, and existing in infinitely many spaces. The basis for all of reality is an uncountably infinite number systems uncountably infinite properties.

I would disagree about this statement concerning the basis of all reality. The last time I was very interested in physics was a long time ago now (although I still have an interest.) I would rather not comment on what you have written about electrons, photons, etc. for the time being. However, I strongly suspect that infinity is only a useful concept for modelling situations & has little or perhaps even no bearing on reality (the natural world.)

 

[metis]

I've heard more than one physicist say that time is a mystery.

Absolutely, since we don't know exactly what the conditions were prior to the BB. However, most that I have read and heard do believe that there were conditions prior to the BB that most likely led to the expansion.

 

[viole]

I developed the following proofs to prove a beginning & end of time, I guess more from a philosophical perspective. I think they are partly related to this thread. Are there any holes in them? Have I made a mistake somewhere?

Proof of Beginning of Time
--------------------------
In order to reach the present, the past must have happened, and
because an infinite amount of time cannot be passed through, the
universe must have begun a finite amount of time ago.

Please defne Universe. Is timespace, as we get from reltivity, part of the universe, or do you think that time flows from past into future independently from the existence of the universe?

Proof of End of Time
--------------------
In a deterministic universe, the future in a sense has already
happened, and we can ask the question when will it end. If the future
has already happened, then the future cannot be infinitely long since
this is impossible, just as you cannot have an infinitely long piece
of string. Therefore, there is an end of time in a deterministic
universe. In a universe, where individuals have free-will, a similar
conclusion can be come to. For each free-will choice, it can be
thought that a new set of deterministic universes is 'created' and the
same as before applies for each deterministic universe.

Why can't you have an infinite string?

And what do you mean with "when (time) will end"? Do you think there is a moment in time at which time ends?

You are applying tensed verbs which make sense only once a time context is available (e.g. "Will end"). To apply those to time itself is logically unwarranted. It is, basically, an instance of the fallacy of composition: extending the properties of contained things to the container. The undertaker of all cosmological and teleological arguments. It is the same fallacy that woukd make us infer that a container of red balls is a red ball.

To see that, ask yourself: where is the end of space, if any? Or where is the place where space began?

If the universe began, then space must have begun too, somewhere, in the same way time began, sometime. Where did space begin? Can you show it on a map of the Universe?

Ciao

- viole

 

[M. J. Fernandes]

Please defne Universe. Is timespace, as we get from reltivity, part of the universe, or do you think that time flows from past into future independently from the existence of the universe?

I don't think it matters. I think we still have the problem of infinity applying to time. Do you agree?

Why can't you have an infinite string?

Things like infinitely long strings are things thought about in mathematical reasoning. It seems to me that an infinitely long string just simply does not make sense in reality. Infinity seems to be a useful concept for modelling certain things.

And what do you mean with "when (time) will end"? Do you think there is a moment in time at which time ends?

You are applying tensed verbs which make sense only once a time context is available (e.g. "Will end"). To apply those to time itself is logically unwarranted. It is, basically, an instance of the fallacy of composition: extending the properties of contained things to the container. The undertaker of all cosmological and teleological arguments. It is the same fallacy that woukd make us infer that a container of red balls is a red ball.

To see that, ask yourself: where is the end of space, if any? Or where is the place where space began?

If the universe began, then space must have begun too, somewhere, in the same way time began, sometime. Where did space begin? Can you show it on a map of the Universe?

Your post has actually made me think that there might be a problem with my proof.

Anyway, here are some thoughts. If the universe were deterministic, then after every finite number of seconds, its state could be determined. Yet at the same time, its state cannot be determined after every finite number of seconds because the present cannot possibly get through all those states. So perhaps the solution is that after every finite number of seconds below a certain number, its state can be determined.

I believe the same reasoning can probably be applied to space.

Perhaps in summary, if we can measure it, it must be finite (in magnitude at least).

Does time exist or are we just in an ever-present now (description of Heaven)? Evidence would seem to point to time existing. The future becomes the present, the present becomes the past. Something happened ten years ago. Something will probably happen ten years from now (if time does not cease by then.)

Are there flaws in this thinking?

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

By infinite amount of time, I meant something like an infinite number of seconds. I think this would be the common interpretation.

The question is, though, whether there is an appreciable difference or simply that it is easier to think of an interval of time in terms of infinitely many partitions rather than infinitely many units of time. Granted the few thousand years spent grappling with infinities before we had a rigorous approach, I’d implicate the former.

If the story is infinitely long, what was the second from last word?

There is no last word, hence the question is meaningless.

What was the middle of the story?

What’s the middle digit of pi?

If we cannot say t = infinity, and also the future has already been 'written', then what is the last t?

We can’t say “t = infinity” any more than “t = apples”. It is nonsense. First, there are infinitely many different infinities. The two most important are those whose cardinality is equal to the set of rational numbers (which is equal to that of integers, whole numbers, etc.) and the reals. There are infinitely more real numbers between 0 and 1 than there are rational numbers. Thus it is very important not to be cavalier with infinities.
Additionally, granted an infinite future there is no “last t” so again the question is meaningless.

It cannot be infinity, and so - I believe - it must be finite.

It cannot be infinity, but not for any reason you suggest.
Imagine that t = infinity. What is t +1? What is 2t+3? What is t added to itself a trillion times? Infinity. In essence, your equation “t= infinity” says that there are infinitely many infinite values t represents, because infinity isn’t a number (and infinite cardinals doesn’t simplify this).

I would disagree about this statement concerning the basis of all reality. The last time I was very interested in physics was a long time ago now (although I still have an interest.) I would rather not comment on what you have written about electrons, photons, etc. for the time being. However, I strongly suspect that infinity is only a useful concept for modelling situations & has little or perhaps even no bearing on reality (the natural world.)

So you disagree with me but won’t say why or relate your reasoning to what I posted?

 

[M. J. Fernandes]

There is no last word, hence the question is meaningless.
...
What’s the middle digit of pi?

I think we agree on these points.

See the following from a previous post I made:

Anyway, here are some thoughts. If the universe were deterministic, then after every finite number of seconds, its state could be determined. Yet at the same time, its state cannot be determined after every finite number of seconds because the present cannot possibly get through all those states. So perhaps the solution is that after every finite number of seconds below a certain number, its state can be determined.
...
Perhaps in summary, if we can measure it, it must be finite (in magnitude at least).

Electrons, photons, etc., are frequently described as infinitely long, existing in infinitely many spaces, and existing in infinitely many spaces. The basis for all of reality is an uncountably infinite number systems uncountably infinite properties.

So you disagree with me but won’t say why or relate your reasoning to what I posted?

The main reason is because of my religious faith.

I think you may have implicitly made the reason for your belief concerning reality to be theories or descriptions made by physicists. So it appears you are relying on their descriptions of reality. As I wrote before:

The last time I was very interested in physics was a long time ago now (although I still have an interest.) I would rather not comment on what you have written about electrons, photons, etc. for the time being.

However, can you explain why the following statement does not apply to your comments concerning electrons, photons, etc. ?

We can’t say “t = infinity” any more than “t = apples”.

 

[The Sum of Awe]

I believe, IMO, that spacetime is eternal and omnipresent due to what special relativity has shown us. It allows the substance that we call energy and matter to be timeless and everywhere at the micro level, but only at the highest energy levels. Matter is something that has slowed down and is no longer at that high energy level except for the basic building blocks. Essentially, in theory we can tap into godlike potential. The underlying reality is eternal and omnipresent therefore god is within all. I think science has already shown this and just tapping into an atom has shown so much power that we wish humans were more wise before given such power.

Quantum internet here we come.
First teleportation between macroscopic objects leads the way to a quantum internet | ExtremeTech

I don't think it is entirely true to say that spacetime allows matter/energy to be anything. Spacetime is a property of matter/energy.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

I think we agree on these points.
See the following from a previous post I made:

Anyway, here are some thoughts. If the universe were deterministic, then after every finite number of seconds, its state could be determined. Yet at the same time, its state cannot be determined after every finite number of seconds because the present cannot possibly get through all those possibilities. So perhaps the solution is that after every finite number of seconds below a certain number, its state can be determined.

I am not sure what to make of this. First, I don’t believe the universe is deterministic and think all those who do are holding on to a mostly 19th century view of causation that wasn’t really ever knowingly incorporated into some mainstream epistemological model but rather was reinforced by the successes of deterministic physics until said reinforcement led from an implicit assumption that the universe is deterministic to an explicit expression that it was so, all without cause. As it turned, out, the assumption-turned-epistemic claim failed: modern physics isn’t deterministic.

On the other hand, I have no idea what to make of the phrase “all those possibilities”. Flip a fair coin a billion times, and the chances that the sequence you will wind up with is astronomically small. However, you will get some such sequence. The normal distribution defines vast numbers of various kinds of phenomena, system dynamics, properties of some populations, etc., yet the probability of obtaining any single value is 0 for all values. This is because probability distributions are defined over a real interval (usually 0,1), and any point in that interval is 0. It is for this reason we cannot use additive methods or summations for continuous probability functions but rather we require calculus. Somehow, though, all of the sciences regularly deal with infinite possibilities and are able to distinguish which ones. I started a brief thread on this here: What's a number?

The main reason is because of my religious faith.
I think you may have implicitly made the reason for your belief concerning reality to be theories or descriptions made by physicists.

1) It seems as if you think the two are equivalent. Is this so?
2) I don’t, actually, not the least reason being that this would be impossible. There is no single theory of physics and no set of theories within physics has come close to encapsulating the whole entirety of reality. That said, I do place more faith in those things which do not require that I ignore reason, logic, and empiricism in place of a faith that I cannot defend other than by assertion. Granted, ultimately everything we all believe comes down to faith. But belief in physics tells me that if I walk out into oncoming traffic an am hit by a truck, I will likely die. As you are still alive, you also subscribe to physical theories or you would have no reason to eat, think that there are things to eat, move, or believe in any experience as true such that you should act.

Your faith, then, depends upon everything my own does (or much of it and perhaps not formulated quite so precisely), but you add a great deal more that doesn’t seem to me actually add information that can be equated with that we both use.

However, can you explain why the following statement does not apply to your comments concerning electrons, photons, etc. ?

There is a difference between infinitely many states, infinite possibilities, and similar expressions and the equation x= infinity. Probability distributions involve infinities, recent experiments yielding below 0 on the Kelvin scale involve the traversal of infinitely many positive temperatures, and state-vectors in QM involve infinitely many states. However, infinity in these cases describes the nature of the distribution or types of possible values, not a specific value. Perhaps if you think in set-theoretic terms. The sets {a, e, I, o, u} and {1, 2, 3, 4, 5} are “equal” in the same way (or a very similar way that) infinities are. The number 1 doesn’t equal a nor 2 e, but the cardinality is the same. Infinite sets are similar, but much more nuanced and much more technical.[/QUOTE]

 

[M. J. Fernandes]

I am not sure what to make of this. First, I don’t believe the universe is deterministic and think all those who do are holding on to a mostly 19th century view of causation that wasn’t really ever knowingly incorporated into some mainstream epistemological model but rather was reinforced by the successes of deterministic physics until said reinforcement led from an implicit assumption that the universe is deterministic to an explicit expression that it was so, all without cause. As it turned, out, the assumption-turned-epistemic claim failed: modern physics isn’t deterministic.

The below quote is from the proof of the end of time. Does it help?:

In a universe, where individuals have free-will, a similar conclusion can be come to. For each free-will choice, it can be
thought that a new set of deterministic universes is 'created' and the
same as before applies for each deterministic universe.

On the other hand, I have no idea what to make of the phrase “all those possibilities”. ...

I have edited the post to change the word 'possibilities' to 'states'.

There is a difference between infinitely many states, infinite possibilities, and similar expressions and the equation x= infinity. Probability distributions involve infinities, recent experiments yielding below 0 on the Kelvin scale involve the traversal of infinitely many positive temperatures, and state-vectors in QM involve infinitely many states. However, infinity in these cases describes the nature of the distribution or types of possible values, not a specific value. .....

Perhaps this last sentence explains things. Reality deals with specific values. Anyway, perhaps I do not understand in enough detail what you have written.

I have posted argumentation for my faith - you can find the posts here and here. I wish you the best of intentions.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

The below quote is from the proof of the end of time. Does it help?

Those aren’t proofs. Proofs (even if given in natural language) consist of independent propositions that, for each one, there exists a formal justification (such as an inference rule). You simply make a claim in the first “proof”, and in the second you do too only now you’ve embedded additional assertions such as that in “a deterministic universe” there is any sense in which “the future has already happened.”

I have edited the post to change the word 'possibilities' to 'states'.

Ok, but I’m not sure how that matters. First, in a deterministic universe a dynamical system is specified at all times as existing in one and only one state. Second, there are no other possible states, so there are no states to “get through.” Basically, in a deterministic universe the state of any and all systems is always and everywhere determined, regardless of whether we can determine this state. It’s state is never “determined after” any number of any units of time, but is determined for every and all units of time (including seconds).

Perhaps this last sentence explains things. Reality deals with specific values.

On a very fundamental this is not true. The most complete physical description of reality we have deals only with probabilities, not specific values (quantum physics). Also, statistical mechanics absolutely deals with “reality” and it is (as the name suggests) concerned with probabilities not specific values.

I have posted argumentation for my faith - you can find the posts here and here. I wish you the best of intentions.

Thank you, but I have read and will continue to read such proofs, and out of context isn’t the best way. I’m more concerned with the topic at hand, not challenging your faith (except insofar as you have presented components of it here; namely, the assertions about determinism and your arguments that spacetime must have a beginning and end)

 

[M. J. Fernandes]

Those aren’t proofs. Proofs (even if given in natural language) consist of independent propositions that, for each one, there exists a formal justification (such as an inference rule). You simply make a claim in the first “proof”, and in the second you do too only now you’ve embedded additional assertions such as that in “a deterministic universe” there is any sense in which “the future has already happened.”

The claim in the first proof is that there is a beginning of time. The justification for the claim is in the text. A similar thing is the case for the second proof.

I could write it in a more formal way (consistent with mathematical proofs) but I think it is not necessary.

Ok, but I’m not sure how that matters. First, in a deterministic universe a dynamical system is specified at all times as existing in one and only one state. Second, there are no other possible states, so there are no states to “get through.” Basically, in a deterministic universe the state of any and all systems is always and everywhere determined, regardless of whether we can determine this state. It’s state is never “determined after” any number of any units of time, but is determined for every and all units of time (including seconds).

Okay, then the word 'state' can be changed to something more suitable to how you model the universe. By state, I meant, more or less, the universe at a slice of time. I think this can probably be applied to space-time.

On a very fundamental this is not true. The most complete physical description of reality we have deals only with probabilities, not specific values (quantum physics). Also, statistical mechanics absolutely deals with “reality” and it is (as the name suggests) concerned with probabilities not specific values.

I view probability as something of a model we use to predict things. A description of reality is not the same as reality. Again, I think the same may apply to statistical mechanics - is it not just a model?

In regard to quantum physics, I have thought that such probabilities may arise from the free-will of spiritual entities & the like. In this case, would we not still be dealing with specific values arising from free-will? There may be Christians who have dealt with this issue in more detail.

I find trying to bridge the gap between science and theology interesting but I may not be enough acquainted with the matter to give it the treatment it deserves.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

The claim in the first proof is that there is a beginning of time. The justification for the claim is in the text. A similar thing is the case for the second proof.


I could write it in a more formal way (consistent with mathematical proofs) but I think it is not necessary.

I agree it isn't necessary to write out mathematically. However, it is often good to write out semi-formal or informal proofs using "natural language" (i.e., not a bunch of symbols) but "mathematical" structure, etc.

For example:

“In order to reach the present, the past must have happened, and because an infinite amount of time cannot be passed through, the universe must have begun a finite amount of time ago.”

It is unclear what you are assuming and why. Clearly, you assume that the present exists (and aside from some radical interpretations of relativity most would agree at least implicitly/tacitly). However, you do not address the equivalent of one of Zeno’s paradoxes. For any time t, I can define a time t/2, t/4, etc., such that I have infinitely many intervals of time given any interval of time. Put differently, take any unit of time (an hour, a year, a second, etc.) and you can continue to “halve” these units infinitely many times and still reach a finite point. But you do not address this or any other argument, you simply assert that what you claim is true. Essentially everything in your argument is an assumed premise except for the part “the universe must have begun…” which doesn’t follow from your premises. Nor do you give any indication why anybody should accept your claims, namely these claims:

1) There is a “present” time that we have reached.

2) In order to reach that present time, there must be a past.

3) An infinite amount of time can’t be passed through


Having accepted these claims, it doesn’t necessarily follow that the universe must have begun a finite amount of time ago because you have not shown e.g., that every interval of time is an infinite “amount” of time, still less why an infinite amount of time can’t be “passed through.”

Okay, then the word 'state' can be changed to something more suitable to how you model the universe.

Perhaps I’m not being clear. First, you have assumed that determinism entails something it doesn’t. Determinism does not say either that ‘in some sense the future has already happened”, nor can one conclude given determinism that there is an end to the universe even if determinism meant the future has happened. Special relativity is deterministic. However, under a popular interpretation it means there exist no present. An even more radical but still supportable model is a universe in which everything has already happened and nothing will ever happen because we have a “block universe” in which time only seems to “unfold” but in reality every position in spacetime is relative to our future or are past depending upon its coordinates. As any coordinate system can extend infinitely along all axes, this allows for a universe in which everything that will ever happen has happened from some reference frame, yet there is no end to the universe.

I view probability as something of a model we use to predict things.

That’s one interpretation sure. However, it isn’t the only one and when we are talking about interpretations that have to do with ontology (“reality” or that which is) rather than mathematical interpretations, things get even trickier. For example, a common model of causation is counterfactual. Imagine a glass full of milk on a table. I accidently knock the glass over and it falls. Now the floor is covered in spilt milk. Counterfactual causation asserts that I caused this state because had I not knocked the glass over, the milk would not have spilt. In short, something can’t be said to cause something else unless we can say that, had the cause not happened, the effect would not (I’m simplifying here). In probability theory such counterfactual reasoning/notions are captured by conditional probabilities and Bayesian reasoning. Both such notions, as used often in philosophy, are a way of describing the world in terms of why the present was caused/determined by the past. Conditional probabilities are of the form (or are often of the form) “granted that X happened, Y” where Y is some claim about the probability of an outcome that has already occurred.


Additionally, once again quantum physics is entirely and irreducibly statistical/probabilistic.

A description of reality is not the same as reality.

Very true. But as your proof and any other like it and indeed any attempt to refer to or in any way characterize, describe, relate, etc., to “reality” we require descriptions or referents. This is true even of ergo cogito sum/”I thing therefore I am”, that one thing whence Descartes begins his arguments about reality because it cannot be false (i.e., the impossibility for one’s mind not to exist, because in order to question the existence of one’s mind requires that mind to question it).

Again, I think the same may apply to statistical mechanics - is it not just a model?

Sure. More importantly, it consists of models we know are wrong. This is not true, though, of all statistical/probability models, especially the one that describes all reality.

There may be Christians who have dealt with this issue in more detail.

There are:

Polkinghorne, J. C. (2007). Quantum physics and theology: An unexpected kinship. Yale University Press.

Coyne, G. V., & Heller, M. (2008). A Comprehensible Universe: The Interplay of Science and Theology. Springer.

Amoroso, R., & Rauscher, E. (2009). The Holographic Anthropic Multiverse: Formalizing the Complex Geometry of Reality (Series on Knots and Everything). World Scientific.

Clayton, P., & Davies, P. (Eds.) (2006). The Re-Emergence of Emergence: The Emergentist Hypothesis from Science to Religion. Oxford University Press.

Saunders, N. (2002). Divine action and modern science. Cambridge University Press.


Among others.

I find trying to bridge the gap between science and theology interesting but I may not be enough acquainted with the matter to give it the treatment it deserves.

Nobody is.

 

[Twilight Hue]

Yes I think thats what it comes down to, it is all one and the same. Relativity spells that out, that it is a perceptional issue.

It certainly seems to be the case, and by the limits of our perception.