0

I think that in an infinite timeline without a start, if such a timeline could exist, the only way things could work is like this: The only things that can happen are those that already happened an infinite amount of time. Otherwise we would then only answer to the question "How much time have spent before this happened for the first/second/etc... time?" with the answer "an infinite amount of time" leading to the conclusion that it happened after an infinite amount of time, meaning never. In such a timeline, again if it exists, nothing new can happen.

Gab Daud
  • 17
  • 3
  • Infinity leads to a bunch of very counter intuitive conclusions (see the story of the infinite hotel for an example). Consider an infinite straight line: each point has infinitely many points on each side, and each point has just has much space on both side than any other, whatever their placement on the line. yet, all points are on the line. The same goes for instants on a timeline: whatever happens at this instant, an infinity of time passed before it. Yet it happens. – armand Nov 11 '22 at 08:16
  • You're using math (abstract concept) to state things about infinity that doesn't work in the real world. The infinite hotel would stop for me from the start as such a thing can't happen, and I'm also convinced that we should not do operations/comparisons between infinities if you don't want to find aberrations. I don't understand your example with the infinite straight line and your points, but it also seems related to infinite and geometry and those are concepts that we can't find in the real world either. – Gab Daud Nov 11 '22 at 09:07
  • Note that an infinite amount of time is also a concept (I think time is more of a concept IMO) but in this context it would be directly confronted to the reality so it's different. – Gab Daud Nov 11 '22 at 09:08
  • You're using math too in your argument, so to be honest I don't really understand your objection. The infinity hotel is just an example of how infinity can be counter intuitive. By using your direct intuition on a problem related to infinity you are just asking for migraines. – armand Nov 11 '22 at 10:20
  • Ok, I will clarify my position because I must say that I've expressed it quite badly. There are two kind of math, those that can be applied in the real world (additions, comparisons), and those that can't (infinite hotel, 4th geometrical dimension). What I'm deeply against is the idea that our world can authorize such irrational things. The infinity in our world cannot exist unless in some concept (like time for example). The infinite hotel bring some counter intuitive results because we play with some things we shouldn't. – Gab Daud Nov 11 '22 at 16:48
  • What I'm saying is I think math should stop after you find the result "infinite" as any other further attempts could only bring aberrations. Sometime it's good to stop. Like the 4th geometrical dimension... please... a 4th axis perpendicular to all the other doesn't make any sense. – Gab Daud Nov 11 '22 at 16:48
  • This is way too vague and should be closed. – Boba Fit Nov 11 '22 at 17:51
  • A 4th spatial dimension doesn't make sense? How does it not make sense??? – Kristian Berry Nov 11 '22 at 18:04
  • Might it be a little hypocritical or arrogant to use a computer, which is a device grounded in modern physics, to argue against modern physics? I mean ethical questions should be understandable by everyone, sure, but isn't it possible that some metaphysical questions are harder to understand for some of us? – Kristian Berry Nov 11 '22 at 18:15
  • "A 4th spatial dimension doesn't make sense? How does it not make sense???" Because it's not possible to have a 4th axis perpendicular to all the others! The hypercube is nice in paper and all but it's still irrational. – Gab Daud Nov 11 '22 at 19:26
  • @GabDaud, reasoning about what is possible already goes beyond experience, or beyond a limited notion of experience anyway. You seem to be conflating your own inability or unwillingness to think abstractly, with a necessary aspect of the human condition. But your limitations are not necessarily the limitations of everyone. – Kristian Berry Nov 11 '22 at 21:35
  • If we were trying to force an ethical theory on you, on such an abstract basis, that would be unfair. But otherwise plenty of us know very well how to think on such a level and how to apply this thinking nontrivially to boot. – Kristian Berry Nov 11 '22 at 21:36
  • Well, I actually have no issue that you want to push the limit of comprehension on abstract basis, what I'm against is when it serves at any point to theorize our reality. Again we should clearly separate irrational from rational thinking. – Gab Daud Nov 12 '22 at 03:49
  • Well good luck with that, cheerio for being confident that you know what clear rationality is. I don't, I am modest enough to admit that reality is more complicated than my wishes. – Kristian Berry Nov 13 '22 at 00:03
  • Maybe the good way to go should be what you can't do on a computer => irrational. For example you can't do the infinite hostel in a computer. Also you can't tell all the digits of Pi on a computer, we still use it to calculate but we know that our result will never be ultimately precise. What is rational is 1/3, what is not is 0.33333333333333 to the infinite...... we can store and use only one of those in a computer. – Gab Daud Nov 17 '22 at 17:37

3 Answers3

1

Your question itself is somewhat unclear, but to judge by your subsequent comments it seems to me that you assume that during an infinite interval anything that is possible must happen repeatedly. Why do you suppose that? Consider the set of real numbers- they range from minus infinity to plus infinity but each number occurs only once in the series. Likewise consider an interval of a second- assuming time is continuous, there is an infinite number of points of time in that interval, so by your logic we might associate every one of the infinite instants of time with a possible state of the universe, and we would find that events must repeat themselves because there is an infinite number of states of the in that interval, which is clearly not true.

Now take a simple universe which consists of only two particles coasting inertially a long distance apart- why will they not just coast inertially forever?

Now consider the more general import of the specific counter-examples I have given. What they suggest is that your argument overlooks the possibility that change in the Universe happens continuously and gradually, so that even over an infinite amount of time there is no reason to suppose that any individual event must be repeated.

Marco Ocram
  • 20,914
  • 1
  • 12
  • 64
  • You should take the number PI as an exemple. If you take a "screenshot" of the universe and convert it to decimal, this huge combination of decimal number will not only be present once in PI but an infinite amount of time. This is how infinity actually works. https://medium.com/@bodilyrobert/the-universe-is-in-pi-87ff19f20708 – Gab Daud Mar 27 '23 at 18:55
  • Why is that relevant? – Marco Ocram Mar 27 '23 at 20:08
  • Ok let's say this question is really serious. I'm not saying that we are in a bouncing universe even if I really think it is. Anyway if the universe is not bouncing, the universe might indeed works as your set of real numbers, but there would be a lot of problem to solve and one of them I expressed with "How much time have spent before this happened for the first/second/etc... time?" (always in the case of an infinite timeline without a start), problem that I solve with a bouncing universe. If it's bouncing then my analogy with Pi is better than your analogy with real numbers. – Gab Daud Mar 28 '23 at 21:15
  • Also this: "there is an infinite number of points of time in that interval" Plank would disagree – Gab Daud Mar 28 '23 at 21:25
  • What I'm poorly saying with my bad english is if we are in an infinite timeline without a start then our universe has to be bouncing in order to remain possible. So it's either only one go and time and dimensions came from absolutely nothing (which I cannot conceive at all) or a bouncing cosmology with an infinite timeline and everything always existed somehow. There is no grey zone. – Gab Daud Mar 28 '23 at 21:49
  • The point I was trying to make with my counter-examples is that the Universe might have an infinity of configuration states, and that infinity might be of a higher order than the infinity of points of time, so we could have a Universe existing forever without ever finding itself in exactly the same state more than once. – Marco Ocram Mar 29 '23 at 06:55
  • Well, your point seems wrong for me for many reasons. First, there are not infinite configuration states if there is a finite amount of matter so there must be at least one combination in a infinite timeline that will eventually repeat. Second, as I tried to say with my joke about Plank, there are no infinite points of time either into a finite interval of time. Finally if we are in an infinite timeline without a start and as you stated a configuration won't repeat then you can only answer to the question after how much time did it happen with the answer after an infinite amount of time. – Gab Daud Mar 29 '23 at 10:36
  • Imagine an infinite line where you have to put any event that doesn't repeat. you would obtain something like this : ...___________|__________... the problem is you can't measure the interval of time before it happened, making it impossible to happen. If everything repeats then it's ....___|___|___|___.... and the problem is gone. – Gab Daud Mar 29 '23 at 10:57
  • I can also put it like this: what is the perfect way to visualize an infinite line? A circle! – Gab Daud Mar 29 '23 at 15:06
  • @GabDaud but perhaps there are infinite configuration states. Every particle in the Universe is moving. If we assume spacetime is continuous, then there is an infinite number of points at which a single particle can be at any instant. So even for a single particle there is an infinite number of possible positions. – Marco Ocram Mar 29 '23 at 16:58
  • If we assume spacetime is continuous, it might indeed have infinite possible positions, but if space and time are depending of matter in order to exist like it is somehow presented with the Big Bang theory then it's not continuous but bounded by matter in a way. In this way of thinking if there was only a single particle, it could be in only one position since space out of it literraly wouldn't exist. – Gab Daud Mar 29 '23 at 17:08
0

Consider a world which consist of one perfectly random die, eternally being thrown again and again.

Your question is, does a timeline exist, in the set of possible timelines, where a 6 has appeared at most a finite amount of time.

If you randomly select a timeline out of this set, the probability density of hitting one where a 6 appeared at most a finite amount of time will be Zero. But that does not mean the timeline doesn't exist. All timelines with every possible sequence of events exists. If we are talking about infinities, any sufficiently specific set of events we want to "find" in the timelimes will have probability density zero.

=> There are timelines where the die has never faced up with a specific side, but since the die is perfect might come face up in the next throw.

kutschkem
  • 2,290
  • 11
  • 17
0

Reasoning about infinities is unreliable. We can do this sometimes, but we also know that sometimes our classical logic fails. An argument based on infinities, such as yours is, should therefore be highly suspect.

As I noted for a previous question, you are referencing one leg of the Munchausen Trilemma, and declaring that it cannot be a solution to ultimate cause. But ALL THREE legs violate our fallacy criteria, you cannot reject one postulation based on its failing Munchausen. What Munchausen shows, is that our fallacy criteria is what we need to reject, at least in some rare instances. Is the Münchhausen trilemma really a trilemma?

It is not just religions that postulate God existing infinitely, then causing our universe. The widely popular secular cosmology theory of an infinite multiverse also does this. So does the speculation that our universe emerged spontaneously from a time-space probability field. The now discarded Steady State theory did not have an origin, but our present was arrived at thru infinite time.

Self referencing (circularity) is also a secular claim. I have read secular apologists asserting that the universe can be as reasonably assumed to be as self-caused as God is.

Abandoning causation is another secular solution. I have read secular apologists who assert our universe is just a Brute Fact and needs no explanation (IE cause).

All three legs of Munchausen are in play, among both the secular and the religious. And none of the three can be rejected out of hand by your infinity based argument.

Dcleve
  • 13,610
  • 1
  • 14
  • 54
  • Ok so this time I have searched a bit more about your Munchausen trilemna, didn't got it all but it seems to glorify a bit too much the skepticism... Not my cup of tea. I've been talking to some people that for example might think that something can have something else than no origin or an origin, because there might be an alternative and we should be skeptic about it. The problem is when we put too much uncertainty at the expanse of basic common sense in the equation. This is not leading us in a good direction if some scientists claim irrational things could happen because we don't know.... – Gab Daud Nov 11 '22 at 17:13
  • Also reasoning about infinities is unreliable because as I said in the comments of my question, we shouldn't reason about infinities when it's not rational. For example, trying to compare the sum of two infinities groups like {n, n+1, n+2, n+3...) and {n, n+2, n+4, n+6...} makes no sense, trying to build an infinite hotel makes no sense, talking about an infinite timeline in the other end makes totally sense. – Gab Daud Nov 11 '22 at 17:21
  • 1
    @GabDaud -- your repeated rejection of demonstrated fact (Munchausen Trilemma, infinitude of math, infinitude of logic) because you do not like the consequences for your worldview is a rejection of reason. – Dcleve Nov 11 '22 at 18:16
  • That's not because I don't like the consequences, the real reject of reason is over skepticism from my point of view. The infinitude of logic, you didn't show me anything but a cover of some book, I need more evidence. I won't change my mind just because you asked so. The infinitude of math, I'm not sure what you want to say, that there are an infinite amount of way to do addition laws? – Gab Daud Nov 11 '22 at 19:22
  • "your repeated rejection of demonstrated fact " coming from someone who speak about Munchausen Trilemna, that says nothing can be a demonstrated fact... Isn't it a bit ironic? – Gab Daud Nov 11 '22 at 19:30
  • @GabDaud -- Your last two posts are falsehoods. I linked you to a paper on the refutation of One True Logic, and I already pointed out pragmatism as an alternative to your false dichotomy. Your citing falsehoods to dismiss of refuting evidence rather than diligent investigation of it, is the mindset of those who seek not truth, but comfortable rationalizations. Nobody else can force you to think, investigate, and consider refuting evidence. As I noted, QUESTIONING ones assumptions is the essence of a philosophic mindset, and you are rejecting it. – Dcleve Nov 11 '22 at 19:39
  • How can i reject questioning when I'm doing just that. You linked me no paper but a cover of a book (as in something to sell?) Why should I be the one wrong and you right, saying that I reject reason because I disagree with you? Saying that I should remove my "wall" that prevents me to think like you when maybe it's your wall the problem? Did you consider that? You are rejecting my questioning, not the other way around. – Gab Daud Nov 11 '22 at 19:44
  • Also twice you pointed me to my so called flaws with the Munchaunsen Trilemna without even trying to explain me in comprehensible words. I have absolutely no clue of what you are talking about when you say I'm referencing one leg. All this mixture of pretty words and nonsense talks like infinity of logic, over praising skepticism, do you know what it reminds me? Obscurantism. – Gab Daud Nov 11 '22 at 19:49
  • @GabDaud -- the link to the article worked last week, it is now behind a paywall. Your disinterest in searching for an alternative reference is a demonstration of your lack of pursuit of self-questioning. I will offer you spoon feeding here: https://logika.flu.cas.cz/images/lide/arazim/PheH_2017_2_0007.pdf but I will not chew either logical pluralism or the Munchausen trilemma for you. – Dcleve Nov 11 '22 at 21:12
  • After some research, it clearly appears to me that as I initially thought (and by maybe luck) logical pluralism is not as commonly accepted or demonstrated as you stated before. So please don't bring it back as a valid proof against my argument, as an alternative if you want, but not a "fact". – Gab Daud Nov 12 '22 at 03:54
  • Logical pluralism has only 5 lines in Wikipedia and in only 2 languages. That means something in my opinion. – Gab Daud Nov 12 '22 at 04:02
  • " I have read secular apologists asserting that the universe can be as reasonably assumed to be as self-caused as God is." I assert that the "universe" isn't something that can happen only once... In infinity, what can happen, happens again. Then it was not created, it was somehow "always here". I like to consider it like this: Consider Pi, an universe number, which means every combination of numbers even as large as you can imagine as long as it it finished, not only exist once but an infinite amount of time in it. So if you take a "screenshot" of our universe and convert it to decimals... – Gab Daud Nov 18 '22 at 09:38
  • The meaning of this? We and all version of life had all probably existed an infinite number of times.... The universe is most probably some sort of cycling model that have a finite amount of times between each loops and every loops are the same and what will remain unknown for ever is how much time for the loop to loop or how many variations of our universe. – Gab Daud Nov 18 '22 at 09:46