Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
10 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Can anything exist for an infinite time or outside of time?
Jumped Up Chimpanzee
Member (Idle past 4942 days)
Posts: 572
From: UK
Joined: 10-22-2009


(1)
Message 1 of 158 (555792)
04-15-2010 11:48 AM


If God wasn’t created by anything else and has always existed, as is often suggested, how long did he wait before creating the Universe/Earth/Humans?
Surely if time goes infinitely back, and something had always existed, it would never get to any point in the future. It couldn’t, because it would have to wait for an infinite amount of time to get to any point in the future.
So it seems impossible to me that anything could have always existed. It seems that everything, including time, must have a beginning.
I am aware of the scientific view that it doesn’t even make sense to consider time before the Big Bang, because time started with the Big Bang. And I am aware of the religious counterpoint, that God existed outside of time and created time along with the Universe.
But can anything exist before time? Does existence not require time?
Thoughts?

Replies to this message:
 Message 2 by AdminSlev, posted 04-15-2010 3:45 PM Jumped Up Chimpanzee has replied
 Message 5 by nwr, posted 04-16-2010 3:50 PM Jumped Up Chimpanzee has not replied
 Message 6 by Son Goku, posted 04-16-2010 4:11 PM Jumped Up Chimpanzee has not replied
 Message 10 by onifre, posted 04-16-2010 8:49 PM Jumped Up Chimpanzee has replied
 Message 13 by cavediver, posted 04-17-2010 7:52 AM Jumped Up Chimpanzee has not replied
 Message 16 by Buzsaw, posted 04-17-2010 3:14 PM Jumped Up Chimpanzee has not replied
 Message 28 by Phage0070, posted 04-19-2010 5:41 PM Jumped Up Chimpanzee has replied
 Message 61 by DPowell, posted 04-27-2010 9:10 PM Jumped Up Chimpanzee has not replied
 Message 122 by Carel, posted 07-02-2010 5:01 AM Jumped Up Chimpanzee has replied
 Message 158 by pfrankinstein, posted 03-19-2011 8:59 PM Jumped Up Chimpanzee has not replied

  
Jumped Up Chimpanzee
Member (Idle past 4942 days)
Posts: 572
From: UK
Joined: 10-22-2009


Message 3 of 158 (555895)
04-16-2010 4:24 AM
Reply to: Message 2 by AdminSlev
04-15-2010 3:45 PM


Good question. I think Big Bang & Cosmology is the most appropriate forum because, although there's a religious aspect to this, I'm really looking for a scientific explanation.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2 by AdminSlev, posted 04-15-2010 3:45 PM AdminSlev has not replied

  
Jumped Up Chimpanzee
Member (Idle past 4942 days)
Posts: 572
From: UK
Joined: 10-22-2009


Message 15 of 158 (556103)
04-17-2010 9:37 AM
Reply to: Message 10 by onifre
04-16-2010 8:49 PM


Time is used to measure the interval between two events. The problem IMHO with your question is, the alternative to "exist" is a meaningless concept. There is only existence, nothingness is not definable.
I see what you mean, and so in my opinion no intelligent entitiy (aka God) could exist before time - and therefore could not create time.
However, are you or anyone else aware if there is anything (even if only in theory) that can "exist" that is truly inert (i.e. it has no energy, no radiation, etc). If there were such a thing, presumably it would "exist" without time, as there would be no events occuring that could be measured.
Edited by Jumped Up Chimpanzee, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by onifre, posted 04-16-2010 8:49 PM onifre has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 19 by onifre, posted 04-17-2010 6:20 PM Jumped Up Chimpanzee has not replied

  
Jumped Up Chimpanzee
Member (Idle past 4942 days)
Posts: 572
From: UK
Joined: 10-22-2009


Message 34 of 158 (556499)
04-20-2010 4:34 AM
Reply to: Message 28 by Phage0070
04-19-2010 5:41 PM


Jumped Up Chimpanzee writes:
Surely if time goes infinitely back, and something had always existed, it would never get to any point in the future. It couldn’t, because it would have to wait for an infinite amount of time to get to any point in the future.
Phage0070 writes:
Then it should also seem impossible for you that time itself could continue forever. After all, an existing object need only exist for an hour while time continues forward for that hour; if the object will never make it to infinity then neither will time itself.
I don't see why time can't theoretically continue forward infinitely, provided things continue to exist that can be measured by time. But surely nothing will ever "make it to infinity". Perhaps it is better to say things could continue to exist for an indefinite time, rather than an infinite time. We can never get from this point to infinity in the future, because surely infinity is not a defined point at the end of a line, which means that nothing could have made it from infinity in the past to this point either. If the past is infinite, how long would something wait to get to this point? It would be an infinite amount of time, which is impossible.
Phage0070 writes:
What this comes down to is a fundamental lack of understanding infinity, it is an argument from incredulity and thus largely worthless. In order to substantiate such a claim you would need to give a compelling reason why an object must cease existing after a finite period of time.
I'm not claiming any expert knowledge or making a strong claim. I'm expressing my layman's understanding of time and existence and asking for opinions around that. I appreciate the input from you and everyone else.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 28 by Phage0070, posted 04-19-2010 5:41 PM Phage0070 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 35 by Phage0070, posted 04-20-2010 5:33 AM Jumped Up Chimpanzee has replied

  
Jumped Up Chimpanzee
Member (Idle past 4942 days)
Posts: 572
From: UK
Joined: 10-22-2009


Message 36 of 158 (556530)
04-20-2010 9:32 AM
Reply to: Message 35 by Phage0070
04-20-2010 5:33 AM


Hi Phage0070
Jumped Up Chimpanzee writes:
It would be an infinite amount of time, which is impossible.
Phage0070 says:
You throw "impossible" out there like you know something. Apparently you don't think time continuing on infinitely is impossible, so why not objects? You still have not explained why exactly you think things *need* to stop existing at some point in time.
I'm not trying to claim some special knowledge, just making what I consider to be a logical point.
I've no problem with time or objects continuing indefinitely. By that I mean you cannot say how long they may exist into the future. I'm not saying anything "needs" to stop existing at some point. They may exist for as long as you could observe them. But you cannot say anything will continue to exist until infinity because that doesn't even make sense. You can never reach infinity. Infinity is not a point. My understanding of infinity is that it means something that is not finite. Therefore, it is not even a measurement. That's why you cannot say anthing can exist for infinity.
To try to explain again what I mean about something not being able to have existed from an infinite past: how long would it have existed up to this point? A hundred billion years? A hundred trillion years? A trillion trillion years? A trillion trillion trillion years? No. If you say 1 year you are as close as if you say a trillion trillion trillion years. It doesn't even make sense to quantify how long something could have existed up to this point from an infinite past, because however long you could imagine it might have to wait to get to this point, it would never get here. It would be as far to get to this point from an infinite past, as it would be to get from this point to an infinite future. You'd never get there.
If you or anyone else has a different view on the meaning of infinity in that regard, by all means please go ahead. I don't claim to be an expert, I'm just expressing my understanding. Maybe it's a naive understanding, I don't know.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 35 by Phage0070, posted 04-20-2010 5:33 AM Phage0070 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 37 by Phage0070, posted 04-20-2010 1:17 PM Jumped Up Chimpanzee has replied

  
Jumped Up Chimpanzee
Member (Idle past 4942 days)
Posts: 572
From: UK
Joined: 10-22-2009


Message 45 of 158 (556783)
04-21-2010 4:26 AM
Reply to: Message 37 by Phage0070
04-20-2010 1:17 PM


Even without objects existing at all you would never reach "infinity" with the passage of time.
I'm not certain what you mean here. Are you saying that time is a thing in itself that can exist without objects/events?
And it still comes down to an argument from ignorance. Just because you cannot quantify the duration does not mean that it must be finite. FYI, your ability to assign numbers and understand natural phenomenon has no bearing on their existence. (Don't worry, that seems to be a common problem around here.)
Maybe you could expand a bit more on what you mean by that. Does that mean that you disagree with my argument that as we could never reach infinity from this point (in time or space), that logically means that in reverse you could never reach this point - or any other point - from an infinite distance (in time or space)?
Edited by Jumped Up Chimpanzee, : Didn't do a preview - what a twat!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 37 by Phage0070, posted 04-20-2010 1:17 PM Phage0070 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 46 by Phage0070, posted 04-21-2010 9:12 AM Jumped Up Chimpanzee has replied

  
Jumped Up Chimpanzee
Member (Idle past 4942 days)
Posts: 572
From: UK
Joined: 10-22-2009


Message 47 of 158 (556863)
04-21-2010 12:46 PM
Reply to: Message 46 by Phage0070
04-21-2010 9:12 AM


You seem to be all over the map with this...
I’m not sure that’s quite fair. As I said I'm a layman thinking out loud and trying to make sense of this. I don't claim to be an expert making a dogmatic argument. I may possibly have made some contradictory points in thinking this through, but I think I’ve been generally consistent.
If objects themselves took their time with them, then wouldn't it be possible to put objects next to each other that have time passing at different rates?
But isn’t that exactly what relativity theory claims? Or at least if the 2 objects are moving relative to each other.
Let me put it this way: Start counting up starting at one. Will you ever have to stop? No, you can continue for infinity. But you obviously will never reach infinity, so... does this mean that there are a finite amount of numbers? Does this mean that numbers cannot continue on forever?...No. And it isn't that tough of a concept.
The concept I have is that there is a subtle but important difference between something that is infinite and something that is indefinite. My concept of your counting numbers is that it is indefinite not infinite. You can continue counting indefinitely (i.e. we cannot say if or when you will stop counting) but you cannot continue for infinity. As you say, you will never reach infinity, so how can you continue for infinity? An infinite amount of time is something that, by definition, can never be covered or reached. You can never count up to an infinite number. In fact, you can’t even begin to do so. It doesn’t even make sense to try. So if you look backwards on the same scale, for the same reason it doesn’t make logical sense to say that something could have existed from an infinite past to this moment. From an indefinite past, yes, that is theoretically possible. But nothing can have existed forever unless ever is finite.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 46 by Phage0070, posted 04-21-2010 9:12 AM Phage0070 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 48 by Phage0070, posted 04-21-2010 2:59 PM Jumped Up Chimpanzee has replied

  
Jumped Up Chimpanzee
Member (Idle past 4942 days)
Posts: 572
From: UK
Joined: 10-22-2009


Message 49 of 158 (557006)
04-22-2010 5:01 AM
Reply to: Message 48 by Phage0070
04-21-2010 2:59 PM


Hi Phage0070 (can I just call you Phage?)
Lets say time goes on infinitely, which you don't seem to have a problem with. Now lets say we want to count the number of years in "forever"; this would take an infinite amount of time, right? Well it is a good thing that we have an infinite amount of time!
You can never count the number of years in forever because inherent in the definition of an infinite series is that it never ends. If you *could* ever reach then end then it wouldn't be infinite. So basically you have a problem with the concept of infinity. Or more precisely *counting* infinity, and for some reason if you cannot count it you think it cannot exist.
Having thought about this further, if I did previously say that time might be infinite, or that something might continue to exist for an infinite time, that was a mistake in respect to my concept of infinity. I still prefer the definition "indefinite". As we both seem to agree, you can never reach infinity, so I don't see why the same rule shouldn't apply to time (i.e. time cannot be infinite).
If something has always existed, that would mean that it has spanned infinity. But if it is here now, it means that if time is reversed it would be possible to re-trace it's existence and reach infinity from this point. But I think we both agree that by definition it is not possible to reach infinity! We could never go to infinity in the future or the past, so it must be impossible for anything "from" infinity to get here. However long or far it travelled, it could never get here. If it ever did arrive, it will must have covered a finite distance and not an infinite distance.
It makes me think that infinity is just a concept that can't exist in reality.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 48 by Phage0070, posted 04-21-2010 2:59 PM Phage0070 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 50 by Phage0070, posted 04-22-2010 5:20 AM Jumped Up Chimpanzee has replied

  
Jumped Up Chimpanzee
Member (Idle past 4942 days)
Posts: 572
From: UK
Joined: 10-22-2009


Message 51 of 158 (557015)
04-22-2010 6:58 AM
Reply to: Message 50 by Phage0070
04-22-2010 5:20 AM


Jumped Up Chimpanzee writes:
However long or far it travelled, it could never get here.
Phage says:
Get here from where exactly?
Well, that's kind of my point. From an infinite past there is no starting point. That's why under my concept of infinity it doesn't even make sense to say that something could have arrived at this point from infinity. How could it travel to any point if it doesn't even start to move towards that point?
If you set a point then you have just definite a finite period which would be possible to traverse. You can step that point back as many times as you like and every time have a traversable and finite period; indeed, in theory every possible point would be valid. There just would be an infinite number of them.
It seems like we're going to have to agree to disagree on this point to the end of infinity . There couldn't "be an infinite number of them" because you can't have an infinite number of anything. There may be an indefinite number of them.
You keep mixing up assumptions of finite frames of reference and concepts because you are still struggling to understand the concept of infinity. This is not surprising as humans are intimately familiar with finite concepts and nature provides little hands-on experience with infinity.
I am no mathematician or physicist, and I don't know if you have any such qualifications, but with all due respect I still think it is you who is struggling with concept of infinity, and the subtle but important difference between infinite and indefinite.
Think very carefully about this one question: Does your lack of understanding, in and of itself, have any bearing on if the phenomenon exists or not?
In my opinion, no. Is that right or wrong?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 50 by Phage0070, posted 04-22-2010 5:20 AM Phage0070 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 52 by Phage0070, posted 04-22-2010 7:12 AM Jumped Up Chimpanzee has replied
 Message 53 by Huntard, posted 04-22-2010 7:23 AM Jumped Up Chimpanzee has replied

  
Jumped Up Chimpanzee
Member (Idle past 4942 days)
Posts: 572
From: UK
Joined: 10-22-2009


Message 54 of 158 (557029)
04-22-2010 9:12 AM
Reply to: Message 52 by Phage0070
04-22-2010 7:12 AM


You are confusing yourself with semantics of your own devising. Indefinite means that there is no defined limit; infinity therefore would be indefinite, so your distinction of the two is rather difficult to understand. It is like saying "It does not go on forever, it just has no end."
That is what I'm saying. Or probably it would be more exact to say:
"It does not go on forever, it just has no known end."
Nothing can "go on forever" because "go on" implies it doesn't ever reach an end, whereas "forever" literally means "all of time" and is therefore finite. If something has spanned all of time, it is no longer going on. Where does it go after "all"? If it continues to "go on" it hasn't yet spanned "forever/infinity".

This message is a reply to:
 Message 52 by Phage0070, posted 04-22-2010 7:12 AM Phage0070 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 57 by Phage0070, posted 04-22-2010 10:58 AM Jumped Up Chimpanzee has replied

  
Jumped Up Chimpanzee
Member (Idle past 4942 days)
Posts: 572
From: UK
Joined: 10-22-2009


Message 55 of 158 (557031)
04-22-2010 9:14 AM
Reply to: Message 53 by Huntard
04-22-2010 7:23 AM


Thanks for the link. I'll try and check it out if I get time. I've been exceptionally busy this week due to the flight ban. There was a Horizon documentary on the BBC only a few weeks ago about infinity. I don't know if this is the same program. Unfortunately I only caught a bit of it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 53 by Huntard, posted 04-22-2010 7:23 AM Huntard has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 59 by Huntard, posted 04-22-2010 1:09 PM Jumped Up Chimpanzee has not replied

  
Jumped Up Chimpanzee
Member (Idle past 4942 days)
Posts: 572
From: UK
Joined: 10-22-2009


Message 58 of 158 (557052)
04-22-2010 11:39 AM
Reply to: Message 57 by Phage0070
04-22-2010 10:58 AM


Jeez, it is like debating a theist...
A bit harsh
arguing that time must be finite "because it is" is similarly unacceptable.
I'm not sure if that's what I said, but anyway I think it will be a good idea at this point to take a break to consider everything you and everyone else has said. I'll get back to you in the near future.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 57 by Phage0070, posted 04-22-2010 10:58 AM Phage0070 has not replied

  
Jumped Up Chimpanzee
Member (Idle past 4942 days)
Posts: 572
From: UK
Joined: 10-22-2009


Message 76 of 158 (558251)
04-30-2010 12:44 PM
Reply to: Message 73 by Natural_Design
04-29-2010 6:34 PM


but surely, if Allah created this vast Universe with us in Mind, he has the power to show us things.
...if...if...if...
...if my auntie had bollocks she'd be my uncle...
Please may I suggest you start a new topic if you want to discuss your visions of allah (whatever that is).

This message is a reply to:
 Message 73 by Natural_Design, posted 04-29-2010 6:34 PM Natural_Design has not replied

  
Jumped Up Chimpanzee
Member (Idle past 4942 days)
Posts: 572
From: UK
Joined: 10-22-2009


Message 90 of 158 (559008)
05-06-2010 4:54 AM
Reply to: Message 87 by DPowell
05-06-2010 1:28 AM


Re: First Cause
The explanation of "how" God "could" have done Creation really doesn't seem that difficult to me. What is difficult to do is to trace the steps of the invisible God into a time before the world in which we live, before people, before written history.
Somebody obviously did manage to do that. Haven't you read Genesis? For all our modern science and technology, we would have done well to retain those old skills.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 87 by DPowell, posted 05-06-2010 1:28 AM DPowell has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 99 by DPowell, posted 05-06-2010 2:13 PM Jumped Up Chimpanzee has replied

  
Jumped Up Chimpanzee
Member (Idle past 4942 days)
Posts: 572
From: UK
Joined: 10-22-2009


Message 121 of 158 (561882)
05-24-2010 6:04 AM
Reply to: Message 99 by DPowell
05-06-2010 2:13 PM


Re: First Cause
Sorry for my late reply. I've been in the back-of-beyond for a couple of weeks. No internet access. Pure bliss.
DPowell writes:
The explanation of "how" God "could" have done Creation really doesn't seem that difficult to me. What is difficult to do is to trace the steps of the invisible God into a time before the world in which we live, before people, before written history.
JUC writes:
Somebody obviously did manage to do that. Haven't you read Genesis? For all our modern science and technology, we would have done well to retain those old skills.
DPowell writes:
I'm not really following your angle, Chimp. Are you a Biblical theist or just trying to provoke a response? Yes, I have read and subscribe to Genesis.
Sorry if I wasn't being clear. I was being sarcastic. Just re-hashing the old point about how were we able to observe and record the early stages of God's creation, as portrayed in Genesis, before we were...well...created? It implies that in the past it somehow wasn't quite as difficult as you imagine to "trace the steps of the invisible God into a time before the world in which we live, before people, before written history."
So, to be clear, even if you ignore the scientific evidence that explains how the world and life came to be, I think the story of Genesis can logically only be fictional.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 99 by DPowell, posted 05-06-2010 2:13 PM DPowell has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 128 by DPowell, posted 10-04-2010 11:56 PM Jumped Up Chimpanzee has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024