Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 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?
slevesque
Member (Idle past 4640 days)
Posts: 1456
Joined: 05-14-2009


Message 7 of 158 (555995)
04-16-2010 4:28 PM
Reply to: Message 6 by Son Goku
04-16-2010 4:11 PM


Re: Infinite time.
I would add however that anything that has an end must have a beginning, because if it is to end, then if it had an infinite past then it would have ended an infinite time ago.
Therefore, if General relativity or Quantum Field Theory tells us that our universe has an end, then it becoems a logical consequence of those theories that it had a finite past.
I also noticed you say ''arbitrarily long past'' instead of infinite, any reason why ?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by Son Goku, posted 04-16-2010 4:11 PM Son Goku has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 8 by Son Goku, posted 04-16-2010 4:56 PM slevesque has not replied
 Message 12 by cavediver, posted 04-17-2010 7:50 AM slevesque has replied

  
slevesque
Member (Idle past 4640 days)
Posts: 1456
Joined: 05-14-2009


Message 18 of 158 (556137)
04-17-2010 3:22 PM
Reply to: Message 12 by cavediver
04-17-2010 7:50 AM


Re: Infinite time.
Hi,
Ok. I'll take another approach. Our sun is burning down it's fuel, and we know that one day, it will 'die'. Therefore, we know that the sun cannot have an infinite past, or it would already had burned all up.
In the same way the universe is somewhat kind of doomed when it's entropy will be at it's maximum. Does this not also tell us that it must have had a beginning ?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by cavediver, posted 04-17-2010 7:50 AM cavediver has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 23 by DevilsAdvocate, posted 04-17-2010 11:13 PM slevesque has not replied
 Message 24 by cavediver, posted 04-18-2010 3:02 AM slevesque has replied

  
slevesque
Member (Idle past 4640 days)
Posts: 1456
Joined: 05-14-2009


Message 29 of 158 (556419)
04-19-2010 6:42 PM
Reply to: Message 24 by cavediver
04-18-2010 3:02 AM


Re: Infinite time.
Hi CD,
I'll put my argument in a more elegant fashion, it'll be easierthat way.
Everything that has an end has a beginning
The sun has an end
therefore the sun has a beginning.
Classic Modus Ponens. Now, you reply to me by equivocating the word 'sun', so that it now does not mean 'the star of the solar system that includes planet earth' but rather ''the matter that make the star of the solar system that includes planet earth''.
I'm having a hard tme putting this into words, but I hope you see the equivocation. Our word 'sun' refers to the assembly of all that matter, but would not refer to it if it weren't arranged that way, we wouldn't still call it 'sun'.
This equivocation permitted you to say that we cannot determine a beginning only because it let it slip out of premise no1, that is that since we don't know if it has an end, therefore we cannot know if it had a beginning.
Of course, I can go around this equivocation simply by precising my premise no2.
Everything that has an end has a beginning
The current form of the sun has an end
therefore the current form of the sun has a beginning.
g2g, but I'll continue this later on (The Canadiens are playing tonight)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 24 by cavediver, posted 04-18-2010 3:02 AM cavediver has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 30 by onifre, posted 04-19-2010 7:24 PM slevesque has replied
 Message 32 by cavediver, posted 04-19-2010 11:10 PM slevesque has replied

  
slevesque
Member (Idle past 4640 days)
Posts: 1456
Joined: 05-14-2009


Message 31 of 158 (556444)
04-19-2010 10:56 PM
Reply to: Message 30 by onifre
04-19-2010 7:24 PM


Re: Infinite time.
Doesn't a molecular cloud become when thermonuclear fusion starts (which happens pretty fast) ? That seems to be a pretty specific time in the past.
But I understand what you mean, ''sun'' is just a term we attributed. We said ''when this type of matter is arranged in this type of way, then we'll call it this''. But this is precisely why it is important to not equivocate the sun to simply the matter it is composed with.
But this is in any case a bit irrelevant. We know that at one point in time the matter had form X, and that later it had form Y. This form Y lasts for a finite amount of time until it goes to form Z, or even back to X. How smooth and imperceptible the transition was done is irrelevant. If we know that at one point it won't be form Y anymore (better yet if we know in how much time this will be, as is the case with the sun) then we can reasonably infer that form Y doesn't extend infinitely in the past either, or else it would have ended an infinite time ago.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 30 by onifre, posted 04-19-2010 7:24 PM onifre has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 33 by cavediver, posted 04-19-2010 11:13 PM slevesque has not replied

  
slevesque
Member (Idle past 4640 days)
Posts: 1456
Joined: 05-14-2009


Message 38 of 158 (556637)
04-20-2010 3:45 PM
Reply to: Message 32 by cavediver
04-19-2010 11:10 PM


Re: Infinite time.
Perhaps you can begin by defending this extremely unobvious proposition.
Ok, I've put as much thought into this as I could during the day, and this is where I'm at.
'Everything that has an end has a beginning' is pretty difficult to prove, but a sub-category of this large claim I think I can prove.
''Everything that has to end in a finite amount of time must have a beginning''
Proof:
A has an end in X amount of time, where X is any finite number.
At T=0, X=x
Therefore, at T=-100, X=x+100.
T= -1000, X=x+1000
Let us suppose that A had no beginning, so
T= -∞. X= x+∞ = ∞
Which contradicts that X must be finite, therefore A must have a beginning.
As I said this is a sub-claim of the original claim, and the proof of the more general one is probably much more complicated (if it even exists). I initially had this proof in mind for the original claim, but after our exchange of yesterday realized that it only proved the sub-claim.
Of course, there's always the possibility that there is a loophole in my proof. It isn't my forte since I wasn't introduced to this procedure until last year at university. For some reason it is almost completly absent from our educational system at lower levels.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 32 by cavediver, posted 04-19-2010 11:10 PM cavediver has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 39 by Iblis, posted 04-20-2010 4:22 PM slevesque has replied

  
slevesque
Member (Idle past 4640 days)
Posts: 1456
Joined: 05-14-2009


Message 40 of 158 (556663)
04-20-2010 5:08 PM
Reply to: Message 39 by Iblis
04-20-2010 4:22 PM


Re: split infinities
I never get these. You seem to be claiming that where n is infinite and x is finite, that n/x, for example one half of infinity, would somehow be finite. This isn't right, it's roughly equivalent to claiming that where o is nil and x is finite, that xo, for example twice zero, is somehow nonzero. It isn't, it won't be.
Ok, I hope I didn't get anything wron in what you said.
There are some things you can do with infinity. You can divide it by a finite (∞/2=∞) but not an infinite (∞/∞ = undetermined). You can add a finite to it (∞+2=∞; ∞-2=∞) or even an infinite of the same sign (∞+∞=∞) but not of opposite sign (∞-∞ =/= 0)
In any case I'm probably not saying anything new to you, just want to make sure though.
In short, in order for something that began an infinite amount of time ago, to have to have also ended an infinite amount of time ago, it would have to be finite. As long as it's infinite, it may begin an infinite amount of time ago, and end now, and it will be a distinct fraction of an infinity, which is itself by nature also infinite.
Yeah inuitively that's what I come down to also. The proof I posted was just if we know something must have a finite future, then it must also have a finite past.
If it has absolutely no possibility to continue on infinitely in the future, and cannot have an infinite past.
Therefore, my proof does not cover the example Son-Goku gave. A particle that had it's 'life' end by falling in a black hole could have continued on infinitely in the future. It was just a matter of (bad) luck that it fell down there. Therefore it could also have an infinite past.
Infinity isn't a single number, it's a very large class of numbers, a much larger class than for example the set of real numbers, which is itself infinite.
I'm not sure to classify infinity as a 'very large class of numbers' is mathematically accurate. Are you referring to cardinality ? ? Because I have only skimmed that subject.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 39 by Iblis, posted 04-20-2010 4:22 PM Iblis has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 41 by cavediver, posted 04-21-2010 12:20 AM slevesque has replied

  
slevesque
Member (Idle past 4640 days)
Posts: 1456
Joined: 05-14-2009


Message 42 of 158 (556765)
04-21-2010 12:45 AM
Reply to: Message 41 by cavediver
04-21-2010 12:20 AM


Re: split infinities
Ok. Then where is the error in my attempted proof ?
Edited by slevesque, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 41 by cavediver, posted 04-21-2010 12:20 AM cavediver has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 43 by cavediver, posted 04-21-2010 2:17 AM slevesque has replied

  
slevesque
Member (Idle past 4640 days)
Posts: 1456
Joined: 05-14-2009


Message 44 of 158 (556782)
04-21-2010 3:34 AM
Reply to: Message 43 by cavediver
04-21-2010 2:17 AM


Re: split infinities
Yeah I just realized I could do use the very same ''logic'' to prove that everything that has a beginning has an end (Matrix anyone ? ). Which is easily recognizable as false.
For some reason I can easily visualize an infinite future, but thinking about an infinite past I don't seem to arrive at the same mental images and conclusions.
you're right, I should get into politics. Or maybe it's too late and I should go to sleep.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 43 by cavediver, posted 04-21-2010 2:17 AM cavediver has not replied

  
slevesque
Member (Idle past 4640 days)
Posts: 1456
Joined: 05-14-2009


Message 79 of 158 (558935)
05-05-2010 3:34 PM
Reply to: Message 77 by DPowell
05-05-2010 1:54 PM


Re: First Cause
Hi DPowell,
I understand what you are trying to do, but you are in fact asking a compelx question (which is a fallacy).
Forr example, the question: What caused the universe ? should really be divided into two question:
Was the universe caused ?
If so, what caused it ?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 77 by DPowell, posted 05-05-2010 1:54 PM DPowell has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 81 by DPowell, posted 05-05-2010 4:09 PM slevesque 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