What or how did everything start?

[Brian2]

So what leads you to that opinion? How much have you studied about the properties of infinite sets? How much physics have you studied?

Not much.

 

[Brian2]

Yes, but that is normal. As Einstein said, that is a very stubborn view of time. Which is normal, since our brains evolved for survival, and not ultimate truths. And once you have brains that have a very strong, even almost irreversible, intuition for X, it is very painstaking to tell them they might be actually wrong. Another strong case for a naturalistic explanation of our mind, I am afraid.

I don't see it as a strong case. It is a speculation at best.

And again, if the B theory of time is correct, then nothing begins to exist. Not the Universe, not me, nor you. Nothing. For the very concept of "ontological beginning" would be absurd. Kalam, for instance, would be dead immediately. Together with most equally naive cosmological arguments.

Ciao

- viole

The whole idea of everything, including all of time, having existed always seems absurd. That would imply no cause and effect in time, everything would just be.
Sounds like a state that God might be in but that we cannot be in because of our nature as temporal beings.
I wonder how things managed to just be. The implication for me is that there would have to have been a beginning to that state of affairs.

 

[Brian2]

Is there any reason to not assume that in that first moment the universe started to expand?

That sounds like an acceptable assumption. But of course it assumes that space/absolute nothing, did not always exist on an infinite scale.

 

[ChristineM]

I don't think you can say that I have a misunderstanding of time.

I can only go by your posts and that gives me the though that your understanding of time is rudimentary.

 

[Heyo]

That sounds like an acceptable assumption. But of course it assumes that space/absolute nothing, did not always exist on an infinite scale.

So, if spacetime began with the expansion of the universe, then there was no moment before the beginning of the universe. But that means there was no time for anything causing it, i.e. the universe has no cause.
Otoh, if the universe didn't have a beginning, then it always existed and can't have a cause.
Ergo, the universe doesn't have a cause.

 

[Polymath257]

In a mathematical sense if there was an infinite regress of causes then there was always an infinite regress of causes.
In a real sense there cannot have been an infinite regress of causes because that would mean that we are adding to infinite with every cause.

And what is the problem with that?

So imo mathematics is being used to obfuscate the truth/reality by going into fantasy scenarios which are logically impossible.

But the point is that it isn't logically impossible. The math shows it is *logically possible*.

But of cause when speaking to a mathematician the answer I get is that I do not understand.

I'm willing to teach.

 

[Polymath257]

The notion of spacetime geometry is not necessarily synonymous with or dependent on the B theory of time though, is it?

The notion of spacetime geometry is that ALL of space and ALL of time exist together in a single geometric construct. because of that, there is no single 'now' or 'past' of 'future'. Those notions are all relative to some event: 'now here', 'past from here', 'future from here'.

As I understand it, that makes it a B theory of time.

But I have to admit that the philosophical distinction between A theory and B theory of time seems to be confused and rather beside the point.

 

[Polymath257]

I don't think you can say that I have a misunderstanding of time.

I think that you do given what is known about time.

 

[Polymath257]

So, if spacetime began with the expansion of the universe, then there was no moment before the beginning of the universe. But that means there was no time for anything causing it, i.e. the universe has no cause.
Otoh, if the universe didn't have a beginning, then it always existed and can't have a cause.
Ergo, the universe doesn't have a cause.

This seems clear to me.

There are two possibilities: time has a start or it doesn't. In the first place, it can have no cause since there is no 'before time' and in the second is can't have a cause since it is an infinite regress. Both are logical possibilities. We just don't know which is actually the case.

 

[Brian2]

I can only go by your posts and that gives me the though that your understanding of time is rudimentary.

Rudimentary is not necessarily wrong however.

 

[Polymath257]

Not much.

OK, so why do you think you are an expert when it comes to time or the infinite?

 

[Polymath257]

I don't see it as a strong case. It is a speculation at best.

Well, the actual evidence supports the conclusion.

The whole idea of everything, including all of time, having existed always seems absurd. That would imply no cause and effect in time, everything would just be.

Yes, precisely.

And why is that problematic?

Sounds like a state that God might be in but that we cannot be in because of our nature as temporal beings.

Sounds like a philosophical pre-conception to me.

I wonder how things managed to just be. The implication for me is that there would have to have been a beginning to that state of affairs.

Wrong. To 'just be' means precisely that there was no beginning to the state of affairs. ALL of time is within spacetime.

 

[Polymath257]

Rudimentary is not necessarily wrong however.

In this case, though, it is.

Rudimentary is usually full of pre-conceptions that are very likely to be wrong. Until there is testing and attempts to learn where the initial ideas are wrong, there can be no confidence.

 

[ChristineM]

Rudimentary is not necessarily wrong however.

Did i say wrong or did i say misunderstanding?

 

[RestlessSoul]

The notion of spacetime geometry is that ALL of space and ALL of time exist together in a single geometric construct. because of that, there is no single 'now' or 'past' of 'future'. Those notions are all relative to some event: 'now here', 'past from here', 'future from here'.

As I understand it, that makes it a B theory of time.

But I have to admit that the philosophical distinction between A theory and B theory of time seems to be confused and rather beside the point.

Well, four dimensional spacetime manifolds notwithstanding, and regardless of whether or not the present should be afforded any privileged ontological status, I am undoubtedly a day older today than I was yesterday. Meanwhile, scientists tell us that the universe continues to expand, and the amount of entropy within it continues to increase.

However, if both physicists and philosophers are asking us to consider the possibility that the flow of time is an illusion of human consciousness, dictated by perspective, I am receptive to that idea. As I understand it, no intuitively coherent ontology is yet forthcoming from either quarter, but perhaps I'm wrong about that.

 

[Polymath257]

Well, four dimensional spacetime manifolds notwithstanding, and regardless of whether or not the present should be afforded any privileged ontological status, I am undoubtedly a day older today than I was yesterday. Meanwhile, scientists tell us that the universe continues to expand, and the amount of entropy within it continues to increase.

And the latitude line at 30 degrees north is larger than the latitude line at 40 degrees north. The amount of land mass at the different latitudes is different as well.

Different times are simple different cross sections of the four dimensional geometry.

The you 'now' is different than the you 'yesterday'. it is at a different location in spacetime. Alternatively, you can consider yourself to be the four dimensional figure that has all the different time slices of you throughout your life.

However, if both physicists and philosophers are asking us to consider the possibility that the flow of time is an illusion of human consciousness, dictated by perspective, I am receptive to that idea. As I understand it, no intuitively coherent ontology is yet forthcoming from either quarter, but perhaps I'm wrong about that.

I would say that the flow of consciousness is due to those entropy effects you mentioned: we remember the past light cone and not the future light cone because of those effects.

Entropy gives an 'arrow of time'.

 

[viole]

don't see it as a strong case. It is a speculation at best.

Well, then you have to find something better, since Newtonian time (the one most believe in) is dead. And the ontology I presented is accepted by most physicists and, I believe, philosophers, too.

The whole idea of everything, including all of time, having existed always seems absurd. That would imply no cause and effect in time, everything would just be.
Sounds like a state that God might be in but that we cannot be in because of our nature as temporal beings.
I wonder how things managed to just be. The implication for me is that there would have to have been a beginning to that state of affairs.

Many things we know to be true seem absurd. And relativity is peanuts, compared with QM. But they are not absurd, since they break no laws of logic and are perfectly in agreement with observation (much more than the things they appear normal). The problem is our brain, which evolved for survival, not for ultimate truth, and therefore not to have a natural intuitions of these things that have no relevance in the daily struggle to survive. So, it is not the case that nature is absurd, but it is the case that brains evolved intuitions that simply do not correspond to fundamental truths, but are good enough to make it til evening. Which, needless to say, is additional evidence of the naturalistic origins of our mind.

And if you can imagine a God to just be, then you have the intellectual potential to imagine how things can just be. Unless, you like special pleading, of course.

Ciao

- viole

 

[viole]

Maybe I don't understand B Theory time. There still seems to be the need for a beginning even in B theory time. Surely the whole of the history of this universe (or many universes) cannot have existed always.

Since B theory entails no time flow, there cannot possibly be a beginning of anything.

And if we take the Universe as relativity sees it, with spacetime being its fabric, then it follows logically that the Universe simply is. Eternally, so to speak. And unchanging. The fact the things appear to change all the time around us, is still compatible with the whole Universe being eternal and constant.

A bit like a movie. When you play the film, you see something happening, but the film itself, seen as a long sequence of pictures, does not change. You can put it in a roll, and expect to remain as it is as you carry it around. The Universe is similar. What we see changing are events, which are, nevertheless, pinned eternally on that 4 dimensional surface. For instance, the event of your birth is still there, somewhere, at a certain well defined spacetime location.

If we think about it for a second, all science fictions movies involving time travel must assume a variant of this ontology of time.

Ciao

- viole

 

[Brian2]

So, if spacetime began with the expansion of the universe, then there was no moment before the beginning of the universe. But that means there was no time for anything causing it, i.e. the universe has no cause.
Otoh, if the universe didn't have a beginning, then it always existed and can't have a cause.
Ergo, the universe doesn't have a cause.

If there was no time before the BB then that could mean there was no change. Change started the instant the universe started. The cause was instantaneous. It did not happen over a period of time. Time, expansion etc etc began at one point.
God knew what He would do and when He started that is what the Bible calls the beginning imo.

 

[syo]

Pagan gods.