The Problem with an Eternally Pre-Existing universe

[Nous]

Another thought that if it did go back infinitely the laws of thermodynamics would say we would have reached some steady-state condition.

Yes, that's the knock-down argument against an eternally existing universe. The universe would have reached maximum entropy long ago--in fact, infinitely long ago.

 

[Nous]

Another thought that if it did go back infinitely the laws of thermodynamics would say we would have reached some steady-state condition.

In a closed universe.

Is there any other kind of universe?

I suppose that if there is an energy-creating machine (or entropy-reducing machine) outside of our universe, it would be safe to refer to that as God.

 

[Willamena]

Is there any other kind of universe?

Yes. (At least) One other.

 

[viole]

Time moves forward, not backward. Causality dictates that cause comes before effect, beginning before end. So, to have an eternity of past makes no sense. You would have an infinite number of causes, which were in turn effects of previous causes. This leaves you with a causeless reality, a series of effects without cause. Dominoes falling with no first domino.

The illusion of it making sense derives from looking at time backwards.

You are here at P. Looking ahead, it makes sense that time continues forever, no ending point, just effects causing more effects, and more, and more, continuous. No problem here, causality has nothing against effects becoming causes for more effects endlessly.

Here's where the illusion starts: looking backwards it may seem to make sense that time had always existed forever before hand. You can think back 3 billion years and just keep subtracting millions and millions, and even billions endlessly, because you are looking outward at it.

It's mathematically possible to keep subtracting centuries and centuries, but realistically impossible due to causality.

Because time moves forward, you must apply that to your vision of the timeline of existence if you want to test the accuracy of this notion that time had no beginning. But you can't. There is no starting point, you have nowhere to beginning the forward view of time. Jumping to some random point of time doesn't count because it just takes you to looking at the infinite history backwards again, drawing the same illusion.



A great noteworthy example: Imagine a boy who had never been born, who had always existed. Because you live from birth to death, and not the other way around, he'd have to have experienced an eternity of life already, but that doesn't make sense. How did he get to this point of his life if he had to live an endless amount of time to get there, considering eternity has no end? How could he have an end with no beginning? How could he exist if he never entered existence?

All of this makes slight sense only if you assume a certain interpretation of time. An interpretation which is, honestly, quite discredited today in scientific circles.

Just to name one (of the many) problems with this view of time: time has no preferred direction. There is nothing in the laws of physics that expects a directional asymmetry. Or even a flow of time (which is also meaningless: at what speed is it flowing?).

The origins of the so called "arrow of time", that is, our illusion that times goes from past to future, are macroscopic. At microscopical level there is not such a thing as causes and effects. Even if there was, you could not possibly say what is the cause and what the effect for the simple reason that there is no time directionality. We can define one only by borrowing from our macroscopic context, a context which is in thermodynamic disequilibrium. So, as long as the Universe has not reached equilibrium, you can have an arrow time. Once that is reached, you lose that directionality too.

Now, since our Universe does not appear to be embedded into another Universe in thermodynamical disequilibrium, it does not make sense to say that its alleged "birth" was a begging in time. And if the regime ruling physics at the Big Bang was microscopic, then it does not make sense either to talk about a cause of the Universe. For time directionality, and therefore causality, can be defined only once the Universe, as a macroscopic thing in strong thermodynamical disequilibrium, was already there.

Ciao

- viole

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

The origins of the so called "arrow of time", that is, our illusion that times goes from past to future, are macroscopic. At microscopical level there is not such a thing as causes and effects.

The asymmetry of time in quantum mechanics is, unlike in classical physics, intrinsic. It is built in to the formal theory itself via the projection postulate (or decoherence, collapse of the state-vector/wave-function, etc.). Symmetries exist (and abound) in classical physics precisely because it is deterministic. ODEs, PDEs, and systems of either (or both) may be analytically intractable and mind-bogglingly complex, but they are well-defined s.t. the output for any time t is at least theoretically defined and uniquely determined. Dynamical laws required symmetry or a-directionality. This isn't true of quantum physics, in which the deterministic evolution of systems given e.g., by the Schrödinger equation doesn't actually describe the evolution (even in principle) of any actual systems. And as systems admit different states with varying degrees of (intrinsic) probability, irreversibility ad directionality is at the foundation of quantum theory.

Even if there was, you could not possibly say what is the cause and what the effect for the simple reason that there is no time directionality.

There is a foundational dynamical directionality in the microscopic realm (or at least our physical theories of it).

We can define one only by borrowing from our macroscopic context, a context which is in thermodynamic disequilibrium.

Entropy is one physical basis for time's arrow, but not the only one. See attached for one interesting discussion (taken from The Physical Basis for the Direction of Time by H. D. Zeh).

 

[fantome profane]

One of the things that gives time it's apparently forward flow is entropy. But the interesting thing is that according to all the math and theories entropy increases not only forward in time, but also backwards.

 

[viole]

The asymmetry of time in quantum mechanics is, unlike in classical physics, intrinsic. It is built in to the formal theory itself via the projection postulate (or decoherence, collapse of the state-vector/wave-function, etc.). Symmetries exist (and abound) in classical physics precisely because it is deterministic. ODEs, PDEs, and systems of either (or both) may be analytically intractable and mind-bogglingly complex, but they are well-defined s.t. the output for any time t is at least theoretically defined and uniquely determined. Dynamical laws required symmetry or a-directionality. This isn't true of quantum physics, in which the deterministic evolution of systems given e.g., by the Schrödinger equation doesn't actually describe the evolution (even in principle) of any actual systems. And as systems admit different states with varying degrees of (intrinsic) probability, irreversibility ad directionality is at the foundation of quantum theory.


There is a foundational dynamical directionality in the microscopic realm (or at least our physical theories of it).

Entropy is one physical basis for time's arrow, but not the only one. See attached for one interesting discussion (taken from The Physical Basis for the Direction of Time by H. D. Zeh).

Cool. I should have studied to become a (theoretical) physicist.

Ciao

- viole

 

[Twilight Hue]

Time moves forward, not backward. Causality dictates that cause comes before effect, beginning before end. So, to have an eternity of past makes no sense. You would have an infinite number of causes, which were in turn effects of previous causes. This leaves you with a causeless reality, a series of effects without cause. Dominoes falling with no first domino.

The illusion of it making sense derives from looking at time backwards.

You are here at P. Looking ahead, it makes sense that time continues forever, no ending point, just effects causing more effects, and more, and more, continuous. No problem here, causality has nothing against effects becoming causes for more effects endlessly.

Here's where the illusion starts: looking backwards it may seem to make sense that time had always existed forever before hand. You can think back 3 billion years and just keep subtracting millions and millions, and even billions endlessly, because you are looking outward at it.

It's mathematically possible to keep subtracting centuries and centuries, but realistically impossible due to causality.

Because time moves forward, you must apply that to your vision of the timeline of existence if you want to test the accuracy of this notion that time had no beginning. But you can't. There is no starting point, you have nowhere to beginning the forward view of time. Jumping to some random point of time doesn't count because it just takes you to looking at the infinite history backwards again, drawing the same illusion.



A great noteworthy example: Imagine a boy who had never been born, who had always existed. Because you live from birth to death, and not the other way around, he'd have to have experienced an eternity of life already, but that doesn't make sense. How did he get to this point of his life if he had to live an endless amount of time to get there, considering eternity has no end? How could he have an end with no beginning? How could he exist if he never entered existence?

I see time as a standard. There's really no moving backward and foreward as I see this as it applies to time itself.

It's like asking if a road travels in mulitiple directions, when it really dosent travel on its own accord.

 

[buddhist]

Another thought that if it did go back infinitely the laws of thermodynamics would say we would have reached some steady-state condition.

According to Lord Buddha, the conscious will, attached to its own existence, continually generates & inputs (kammic cause), or absorbs & removes (kammic effect), positive and/or negative energies into the universe.

 

[Deidre]

The only problem, is the one we create in our minds.