The first cause argument

[muhammad_isa]

Space-time can distort..

..and that says nothing about whether "time" can have a start or finish. It describes our observations of how measured time interacts with space.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

That's all we can do, I'm afraid.

Well, no. I am not that kind of solipsist and nor do I believe in that connected version of rationalism, that you practice. I believe differently, and that is not from your thinking. It comes from not you. So there is more that your thinking.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

..and that says nothing about whether "time" can have a start or finish. It describes our observations of how measured time interacts with space.

We don't know.

 

[ratiocinator]

..and that says nothing about whether "time" can have a start or finish. It describes our observations of how measured time interacts with space.

It's the use of exactly the same theory that leads to the conclusion of a past singularity, and hence a start to time. We don't know if it's actually the case because (as has already been discussed) quantum effects will become significant and we don't have a theory that combines the two.

The main point, however, is that just thinking about what seems intuitively reasonable to you doesn't tell us anything about the reality of the situation. We already know that human intuition breaks down.

 

[muhammad_isa]

We don't know.

You might not know

..so perhaps you would like to explain to us all, how time can actually start or finish?
It is clear how actual objects can have a beginning and end. That is not difficult to understand.

However, if we say that 'time' can have a beginning and an end, it becomes meaningless. The words "beginning and end" refer to points in time, so it implies "there is no point in time before a particular point in time". How can that happen? What would be the cause?

 

[muhammad_isa]

It's the use of exactly the same theory that leads to the conclusion of a past singularity, and hence a start to time.

It doesn't represent a start to time. Why should it?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

You might not know

..so perhaps you would like to explain to us all, how time can actually start or finish?
It is clear how actual objects can have a beginning and end. That is not difficult to understand.

However, if we say that 'time' can have a beginning and an end, it becomes meaningless. The words "beginning and end" refer to points in time, so it implies "there is no point in time before a particular point in time". How can that happen? What would be the cause?

Well, I am a skeptic, so my answer is: I don't know.
Your answer as an in effect rationalist is that the world outside you must make sense in terms of how you think.
You can think like that, but it doesn't mean that the world outside you behaves like you think it should.

 

[muhammad_isa]

You can think like that, but it doesn't mean that the world outside you behaves like you think it should.

No, of course not.
..but we are able to communicate with each other and explore possibilities.
We can say that we don't know something, but it doesn't stop us forming an educated opinion about things.
When we feel that we have good reason to think something is true, from more than one source of thinking, we can express an opinion. It becomes "a fact" to us until it's proven otherwise.

Is the concept of eternity one that people have difficulty in understanding?
I would say not. It might be primarrily intuitive, but it does not conflict with scientific or philosophical truth.
Unless anybody can show me otherwise, I cannot believe that "time" as we conceive it as part of being aware, can have a start or end.

If "time" has a start or end, it merely implies that intellect can appear out of nowhere, and disappear into nowhere.
..and where is nowhere?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

No, of course not.
..but we are able to communicate with each other and explore possibilities.
We can say that we don't know something, but it doesn't stop us forming an educated opinion about things.
When we feel that we have good reason to think something is true, from more than one source of thinking, we can express an opinion. It becomes "a fact" to us until it's proven otherwise.

Is the concept of eternity one that people have difficulty in understanding?
I would say not. It might be primarrily intuitive, but it does not conflict with scientific or philosophical truth.
Unless anybody can show me otherwise, I cannot believe that "time" as we conceive it as part of being aware, can have a start or end.

If "time" has a start or end, it merely implies that intellect can appear out of nowhere, and disappear into nowhere.
..and where is nowhere?

Well, the all version of an educated opinion counts and not just yours.
As for eternity as per science I can't observe it, so it does conflict with science.

 

[muhammad_isa]

As for eternity as per science I can't observe it, so it does conflict with science.

No .. it doesn't conflict with scientific observation, it merely can't be proved by scientific observation.

That is not surprising, as science concerns itself to what is observable.

If we wish to deny our conscience, we are able to live a life as a machine, that only accepts an observed physical reality.
I for one, reject that entirely.
There is a good reason for science not being the only academic discipline. There is more to life than such a blinkered view of evaluation of existence.

 

[Polymath257]

..and that says nothing about whether "time" can have a start or finish. It describes our observations of how measured time interacts with space.

General relativity does say that time can have a start or finish. In fact. The singularity results say that it is almost required.

Now, it is possible quantum effects allow for time to be extended to before the big bang in the context of a multiverse. But you seem to dislike quantum theory.

 

[Polymath257]

You might not know

..so perhaps you would like to explain to us all, how time can actually start or finish?
It is clear how actual objects can have a beginning and end. That is not difficult to understand.

However, if we say that 'time' can have a beginning and an end, it becomes meaningless. The words "beginning and end" refer to points in time, so it implies "there is no point in time before a particular point in time". How can that happen? What would be the cause?

Well, time is affected by mass and energy through gravity. In the equations of general relativity, time literally cannot be extended to before the big bang singularity. Time begins at that point.

There is no cause because there is no 'before'.

 

[Polymath257]

Is the concept of eternity one that people have difficulty in understanding?
I would say not. It might be primarrily intuitive, but it does not conflict with scientific or philosophical truth.

Sure, it is intuitive. That doesn't make it true. Or intuitions are particularly bad when it comes to these situations, where both quantum theory and general relativity are highly relevant.

Unless anybody can show me otherwise, I cannot believe that "time" as we conceive it as part of being aware, can have a start or end.

Look at general relativity.

If "time" has a start or end, it merely implies that intellect can appear out of nowhere, and disappear into nowhere.
..and where is nowhere?

The phrase "appear out of nowhere" suggests a process that isn't the case. It implies a time before spacetime exists. Which is silly.

 

[muhammad_isa]

The phrase "appear out of nowhere" suggests a process that isn't the case. It implies a time before spacetime exists. Which is silly.

It isn't silly at all..
Equations that show how measured time interacts with the universe, are just that. It can tell us nothing about what time really is, as you suggest. Playing with equations at their limits is another case of playing with infinities .. which you seem to be very fond of doing.

 

[Polymath257]

It isn't silly at all..
Equations that show how measured time interacts with the universe, are just that. It can tell us nothing about what time really is, as you suggest. Playing with equations at their limits is another case of playing with infinities .. which you seem to be very fond of doing.

Time is part of spacetime. Just like space is.

 

[leroy]

Yes.


Yes. No contradiction yet.

I think you are making a straw man argument, nobody is claiming that the concept of infinity is contradictory, (like a married bachelor or a triangle with 4 corners) …….. the claim is that infinity while coherent its not” realistically possible” (like imaginary numbers or negative numbers)………….. sure the concept of “-5 balls” (note the negative number) is coherent and you can do logical and consistent math and even solve real life problems with the concept of negative numbers, but in reality you cant have a room with -5 balls there is no possible world where a room has -5 balls.

The reason why infinite is not “realistic” is because trh concept leads to paradoxes

1 two events occurred after the same amount of seconds and are not simultaneous

2 events with cero probability happen all the time

3 two moving objects traveled exact same distance even if the firs is 100 times faster than the second.

4 today happened after an infinite amount of “days”

Etc.

In seems to me that this paradoxes show that the concept of “infinite time” is not realistic, it seems easier to reject the idea of infinity rather than dealing with this paradoxes.

 

[leroy]

No, a sound argument is when the premises are true.

You are raising the bar unrealistically too high it´s impossible to show with 100% certainty that a premise is true, by your logic there are no good arguments ……….

But anyway my claim is that the premises in the KCA argument are likely to be true , if this is not good enough for you then we simply have different standards of accepting evidence.

Just wondering do you always have such high and unrealistic standards? Or do you have these standards only with stuff that has theological implications that you personally don’t like?

Nobody is trying to support evolution using a categorical syllogism, it's a scientific theory based on empirical evidence.

So what? It is still a fact that evolution is based on arguments that cant be proven with 100% certainty , so by your standards you should reject this theory.

. There is not enough evidence to say whether there is a cause or not, it's also a rather vague and ill-defined idea when you consider that time, hence causality, are a part of the universe. It doesn't seem to make sense as stated, you'd have to postulate some larger context in which causality was still relevant, but then you're off into an infinite regress anyway. Can you have a cause for causality?

(responding to the red letters above)

You are assuming that causality is part of time, this assumption requires evidence.

The idea of equating time and causality seems arbitrary, why are you making such an affirmation?

 

[Polymath257]

I think you are making a straw man argument, nobody is claiming that the concept of infinity is contradictory, (like a married bachelor or a triangle with 4 corners) …….. the claim is that infinity while coherent its not” realistically possible” (like imaginary numbers or negative numbers)………….. sure the concept of “-5 balls” (note the negative number) is coherent and you can do logical and consistent math and even solve real life problems with the concept of negative numbers, but in reality you cant have a room with -5 balls there is no possible world where a room has -5 balls.

The reason why infinite is not “realistic” is because trh concept leads to paradoxes

1 two events occurred after the same amount of seconds and are not simultaneous

2 events with cero probability happen all the time

3 two moving objects traveled exact same distance even if the firs is 100 times faster than the second.

4 today happened after an infinite amount of “days”

Etc.

In seems to me that this paradoxes show that the concept of “infinite time” is not realistic, it seems easier to reject the idea of infinity rather than dealing with this paradoxes.

On the contrary, none of these paradoxes is in any way contrary to being a part of reality. The first, third, and fourth, mistake what it means for an infinite interval to pass and in no way prevent non-simultaneity, moving faster, or happening at the end of an infinite time interval (there is not an infinite amount fo time between any two events, ever).

More detail: precisely what is unrealistic about these? all they say is that the infinities involved correspond. That is an incredibly weak statement and has no effect on things like simultaneity, speed of motion, etc.

As for 2, this is related to a misunderstanding of probability: that zero probability things cannot happen. That is simply not the case.

So, ALL of these are the result of bad intuition, not of any real paradox, let alone anything that would prevent them from being reality.

 

[firedragon]

Philosophically it is nonsense to think of your subjective time to not exist to a cause transcended. Science does not work with metaphysics, so this scientism itself is a strawman by default. Extremely poor arguments are seen repeatedly.

 

[muhammad_isa]

Time is part of spacetime..

..and how are you defining time?
What is a second? What is the frame of reference?
It is a model.
Without making definitions, we can't make a model.
It doesn't mean that our definitions are meaningful as to the actual nature of time through eternity.
One thing that we do know, is that measured time is relative to space in our universe.
One cannot come to meaningful conclusions about the nature of time as an absolute phenomena. It is a circular argument.
You define something, and then show it no longer exists at some point ? What doesn't exist?

Equtions aren't necessary.
It is pretty obvious if you define something as "part of the universe", then it no longer exists if there is no universe.