Has time always existed?

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

James R.:

A quantum field fluctuation would presumably not even exist, when it is theorized that nothing existed whatsoever before the Big Bang. Moreover, there can be no flux where there is no time. Time is the dimension whereby flux - or any change - can occur.

But yes, I agree: There is no need for a God-like figure. But going from nothing to something is essentially the same thing as GOd. It is litterally creation ex nihilio.

Consistant? Hardly. They are claiming things happen without time. This is an absurdity plain and simple. Either they are implying that time exists outside the universe but time only started -for us- at the Big Bang (which would be coherent as we would not exist until then) or they are implying an absurdity that branes do not act in time. If branes do not act in time, there cannot be the change which allows for collisions. It would also require a big, fat, footnote when they say "time did not exist until the big bang", explaining they mean "purely in this universe" if it is the first option.

They aren't, no. But I think it is manifest they are doing one of the two things above.

Well evidently they do not, if we assume causality exists, which is at least the major assumption of all scientific inquiry. If we really allowed for Hume's Fork in philosophy of science, there'd be no science. The uncovering of the the cause for the effect is essentially what science does.

Because "nothing came before it" becomes a God-like figure that is allowed to act acausally to produce something. As this very concept is absurd and science might be "blocked by the impossibility of further inquiry", it'd essentially rest on an axiom with no firmness. This would make any claims of what came before the Big Bang impossible to prove and even such things as "space and time were created at the Big Bang" impossible, as this is not necessarily so.

The Big Bang would act as the curtain hiding the wizard, save that we'd never be able to coax him out.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I have absolutly no idea, but this is a great question to ponder.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Thanks. My baby is all grown up.

Besides, you say it without all of my rambling about god drinking coffee, which is nice.



Edit: For those interested in these concepts, the hubbaloo gets a kick-start with post #154: http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=60302&page=8

 

Unfortunately I am still not sure I necessarily agree with it all.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

I just felt that summarising your thoughts and ideas would help me, at least, clarify the points in my head and try and glean a new insight into the matter. I'm still in that "sitting back and wondering" phase whenever one comes across something new, trying to ensure I understand all the nuances before making a move.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

I would like to point out how similar this is to Zeno's Paradox. In that case, they are doing with distance what this thread does with time.

Zeno's paradox: http://www.redpython.co.uk/Printable/zeno_achilles_paradox.htm

Here's my take on Zeno's paradox: There are never infinite bits of a finite thing. Never. Our mathematical understanding of points is what gets in the way here. Some people say that a string has an infinite number of bits, because you can keep dividing the bits in half, for ETERNITY.

They are confusing doing something for an infinite length of Time or Steps, with a thing having infinite constituent parts. The problem for them is, they will never reach 0. And you have to find a part of the string of length=0 before you are correct about it having infinite bits. Since you will never get there, you will be wrong for an ETERNITY. The string is made up of a finite number of bits-O-string. You tell me how long you want that bit to be, and I will calculate how many of them there are.

The same goes for time. I don't care how you want to divide up bits of time, they are still bits of finite length. That is why I usually use something complex to denote a length of time, like god brewing a cup of Joe, just to smack the concept in the face with its obviousness. So the question then becomes, "Could god brew an infinite number of cups of coffee before he created the universe?" And, since obviously not, could ANY creation even occur after an infinite length of time. And, since obviously not, Time does not stretch backwards into a negative infinity.

And here we are, delving into that deeper. And I already see people making the mistake of equating the positive infinity with the negative one. If you count BACK from the present, it will seem as if any part of the negative infinity is reachable, so there is no paradox regarding how we got HERE. But that is because we are taking our existence as a given, and counting as we would to positive infinity, assuming that we will reach any of those points.

But time doesn't flow backwards. We don't get to take our existence as the starting point and count BOTH directions for an infinite number of states. Neither one is possible, so surely not BOTH!

Time is finite in both directions. There must have been a period of stasis "before" our time began, and there is no way to keep the clock wound-up. We will either get a heat-death of the universe, with all energy running down to another type of void-less stasis, or we will get another singularity, which will have a different sort of stasis. One by vacuum, one by overwhelming density.

And while this would seem to make the universe impossible, it obviously doesn't. Here we are. And that premise is getting us into trouble, isn't it? I would wager that the solution is going to be something laughably simple. It could be that the pure stasis of a vacuum has an inherent impossibility about it that creates a universe exploding out of it. This would mean that the universe came from a timeless state, so asking what was before it would be meaningless. There was a vacuum, and the potential power of the vacuum was so great that it was instantly filled by an exploding, blossoming growth of all things, including time.

I guess the reason I conceptualize it this way is because it represents what we know of the early universe: Nothing. The vacuum represents my knowledge. I will gladly fill it when we have more data, but I sleep well at night despite not knowing.

 

"The vacuum represents my knowledge." I like that one.

 

Swivel:

You seem to agree that nothingness alone cannot remain nothing alone forever. Yes?

 

funny things about time is, if it stops then nothing happens. so if there ever was no time, then it would have had no duration either. and nothing would have changed in the period of no time. you could describe that period of no time as a single frame of unchanging existence. but then it would be like the smallest quantifiable moment--in fact a period of no time could be said to occur between every moment of change in our everyday lives.

it is illogical to say that time just began at some point. time is merely our awareness of change, or how change directly affects us as human beings. if there were a point of no change, and then change just begins, then there must have been change before the point of no change in which to cause change afterwards.

no time/change means absolutely no movement, 0 degrees K. no energy, no matter, nothing. energy cannot come from nothing, as far as our definitions allow us to understand it.

 

If there is no matter, then there is nothing to observe to change.

 

if there is no change, there is no observer

 

Yes, this is it. Again, thank you swivel, you are bringing me the answers I need. A finite thing cannot have infinite parts. However, neither can an infinite thing. A 'part' is a division of a thing. Yet, an infinite thing must be indivisible, for division implies finiteness. An infinite thing is indivisible. This is important. Thanks. It's always nice to have others' thoughts to help clarify your own.

 

Beyondtimeandspace:

How about divisible infinitely? An infinite set of finite parts does produce an infinite whole taken together.

 

Prince James,

Divisible infinitely is fine.

Division is an operation. To show that a thing has parts, division must take place. If division is never done, a thing can only be understood as one, and undivided (except, I suppose, in instances whereby the division of a thing can be inferred through the things likeness to something else). Operations cannot be performed on the truly infinite. It cannot be added to, subtracted from, multiplied or divided. It might be theorized that this is possible, but the infinite thing itself would essentially remain unchanged. Since operations imply change, then strictly speaking operations don't apply to the infinite. For example, you might add to the quantitatively infinite, but its quantitative value would remain unchanged (ie, it's still infinite, and no larger than it was prior to the addition... though, this doesn't really make sense... it seems more intelligible to say that the addition simply couldn't take place).

Of itself, an infinite thing is without reference points. If such a thing is said to be composed, then its components are identical to the whole. Each component (let's talk about quantitative infinity for the sake of argument) has a value of one, and the thing as a whole has the same value: one. It is only when point of reference is introduced that the components take on different values. However, a point of reference creates limit.

Reference points are 0-values. It is to the left and right (and if we're talking about a plane, rather than a number line, then y and z axes) of these 0-values that each component takes on differing values. From the reference point the component values either successively increase or decrease, and necessarily do so infinitely.

However, with the introduction of a reference point, you're no longer talking about an actual infinite. You're now talking about two or more potential infinites. If you introduce a second reference point, then you're talking about the introduction of an outer limit. The initial reference point, the 0-point, is an inner limit, the second is an outer limit, and may itself be a 0-point if considered in a different context.

It is by reference points that we can speak of 'parts' or components which can be influenced by operations, such as division. It must be understood, however, that if a thing really is infinite, then reference points, and therefore components, are false by default. Reference points are limits. If they are applied by an external mind, then they are subjective and relative to arbitrary placement. Such reference points are not objectively true of the infinite thing. Truly finite things are objectively limited, and their reference points mark the inner and outer edges of their being. With the truly infinite, there are no inner or outer edges, and all reference points are arbitrary and meaningless.

Truly, the infinite is indivisible. It is not composed of finite parts, for each component is identical to the whole: 1. Moreover, finite parts are themselves defined components, distinguishable from one another, and therefore objectively true reference points. Since reference points only truly exist for those things which are finite, and are actually the defining limits of a thing, the infinite cannot be composed of finite parts.

 

James R.:

Yes, I have. I find this theory far more satisfying from both a reasonable and scientific viewpoint, owing to my objections to "the universe arising from nothing". A multiverse containing many bubble universes seems much more reasonable, specifically as this would allow for the necessary causal connections.

True. However, it is telling that if we were to speak about a brane in graphical form, we'd have to include any and all fluctations in terms of a dimension of time.

Space-time itself has a zero-point/vacuum energy and the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle. In essence, it obeys the Hellenic "nature abhors a vacuum". There is no true empty space at any point. On the other hand, to assume that the Big Bang had a true nothingness - a void, in other words - would imply a lack of even this. Assuming the non-multiverse argument, we'd be essentially asking God to step in.

I fully imagine some of my complaints have to do with, at best, the ambigious language of scientists when not using mathematical formulae. However, I think at the very least it is worth mentioning that if they -are- claiming time EVERYWHERE began purely at the Big Bang, as opposed to time only in our universe, then it is obviously fallacious if they then speak of brane-collision big-bang triggering.

This is to say, if string theory is, as we both seem to be hoping, not contradicting itself, then it is probably a matter of ambigious language. But just to make certain, one must make sure to stress then inherent absurdity of a timeless and true-vacuum creation.

Actually, I am pretty well exposed to modern scientific theories. I am not, however, a scientist (nor claim to be). At best, I lay claim to reasonable familiarity with the material owing to extensive reading and some formal teaching in the subject. But the problem may also revolve around the fact that when discussing theoretical physics, a scientist make not be discussing such things as brane-collisions when he says "there was no time before the Big Bang".

Anyway, here's an interesting article I happened upon that addresses an interesting semi-cyclic view of the universe, which postulates a possibility of infinite time and space:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/story/0,,1768191,00.html

Quantum theories may or may not be deterministic, but they are not non-causal. Quantum mechanics may be actually probablistic, but cause precedes effects even in all schools of quantum mechanics, though they differ on most everything else. Of course, this also includes "spooky action at a distance" in causality, so local cause is possibly not needed.

An absolute void would be God-like in the following ways:

1. Causeless.

2. Immaterial.

3. Capable of producing things acausally.

4. Omnipotent (creating certainly fills this role).

Science and religion would, funny enough, have to give the same answer: God (or God-like absolute nothingness) would be uncaused!

You're misunderstanding me: I am actually critiquing God based on this premise, as well as science's absolute-void God, if they do indeed mean an absolute-void.

 

BeyondTimeAndSpace:

In as much as you affirm that any of the four basic processes of math are impossible to perform on an infinite object and get a sensible answer, you are correct. However, let us imagine for a moment that you and I are Gods. Now, suppose through our magic God powers, I am able to produce for you an infinite yard stick and because we're both Gods, we can see its ends, despite the fact that infinite implies no ends. Anyway, at any point on this infinite yardstick I point to, you will agree that it is finite, yes? Even if it is say, 992394723493274239473223, it is nonetheless non-infinite and non-zero, yes? Therefore, does not it imply that infinity is created by such an infinite series of finite parts? Even if we would never get a sensible answer and only get "infinitely small^infinity = infinitely large", we'd nonetheless be correct in saying that every point of infinity is finite and every section of infinity is finite? Only when together do the infinite parts produce an infinite distance, yes?

I would have to disagree with you here. The one of the infinity would be a whole of infinite parts, whereas a single component of this whole would be an indivisible one - a monad - an infinitely small point. The two one's would be different in a very particular way.

This is sensible enough, yes. ALthough it should be noted that in a spatial, as opposed to a mathematical, line, all points are actually simply "infinitely small". It is only when one speaks of their order do they gain numbers like "1, 2, 3" and only when you count everything less then them as part of them that you get values of "2, 3, 4, 5..."

In saying that infinite things differ from all finite numbers, you are correct. Moreover, this is why it is reasonable, although paradoxical, to conclude that both 1 and 2132234232292397 are equidistant to the "edge" of infinity, as all finite digits are an infinite distance to the end. But even if we admit of this, we must also conclude that to speak of an infinity apart from its constituent parts - an infinite number though they may be - is absurd. For an infinite thing, though together a whole, is certainly composed at any point by finite digits, no matter how large.

Accordingly, I affirm that contra-you, that we can speak of infinity being divisible, but only divisible infinitely as I first put forth.

The catch is this: As it requires an infinite series of infinite points, if one were to attempt to assemble this infinite line, at no point would be one closer to finishing than at any other, nor would one's line encapsulate more of infinity. By definition, its finiteness would not allow for such, even if its finiteness can reach enormous degrees.

See my objections above.

I must say this, though: Good conversation!

 

Perhaps, then, we may only say that the infinite can be made of finite parts in concept, but not in actuality. However, it is difficult to imagine that we can conceive a possibility which cannot be an actuality. If we can only conceive what is possibly actual, then how can we account for the numerous paradoxes which arise from this line of thought?

Maybe one answer is that the infinite thing is only infinite quantitatively, but not qualitatively, and is only potentially infinite qualitatively. That is to say, perhaps the universe extends infinitely in any direction, and that the infinite extension merely refers to an infinite number of points across which the universe spans. The infinity then refers to a quantitative measure, but not to quality, or essence. For, this should be clear. We understand that the universe is in a constant state of flux, of change. Thus, we can infer that there is an aspect of the new with each successive moment, and that while the universe might be said to be infinite in one regard, it isn't in another.

Certainly, after so much discussion of the infinite, we can say (for example) definitively that the universe is not infinitely old, unless we argue that the universe is not merely the summation of all existing things, but also of all potential things. Thusly, even if there was a time when nothing existed, but everything was potentially actual, the universe might be said to be infinitely old. Even so, the paradox of infinite oldness and the present time is very difficult to get around.

I suppose one possible solution is that at each moment not merely the reality we experience, but all possible worlds exist simultaneously (the past, the present and the future, as all was all possible pasts, all possible presents and all possible futures), so that each moment isn't actually different from the last, but precisely identical except that the observation of some infinite and eternal observer has shifted (I suppose the observer would be the ego, the self, but the question might be left open as to whether there were multiple observers).

This possibility seems possible, but intuitively wrong. Perhaps it deserves deeper consideration.

The solution of a possible bubble multiverse still does not solve the problem of an infinitely old multiverse as never being able to reach the present moment. An infinite progression of moments will never reach a moment which will always been infinitely distant (ie, the present). Positing a multiverse does not solve this problem, since even though time only began in this universe at its creation, a progression can still be linked among the multitude of other possible universes.

Even a cyclic universe falls prey to this contradiction.

The only way around this is (aside from what I suggested a little earlier... that all possibilities exist simultaneously and what shifts is merely observation...) to posit an actual infinity. Not a potential, but an actual. That is, a simultaneity which encompasses all points of that infinite past at once with the present (as well as all possible futures). Either that actual infinite is the universe itself, or something distinct from the universe. Since the universe can be definitively shown to progress momentarily, and moreover can be shown to finite in a wide spectrum of ways (but certainly not in possibility), it can be concluded that the universe, while perhaps infinite in some respects is not a truly actual infinite, but rather a very thoroughly potential infinite.

Positing that a void is responsible for the creation seems unlikely. If a void pre-existed the universe (and I'm not saying one didn't, but I wouldn't posit that the void was the totality of reality) and time, and there was no change in the void prior to the universe, and the universe was unmoving, but purely potential, then no universe could have been produced from it. Movement does not spontaneously arise from non-motion. Change does not spontaneously arise from non-change. Actuality does not spontaneously arise from potentiality. Effect does not spontaneously arise with no preceding cause. If we are to abandon the fundamental laws of the universe as we understand them, principles of order and function, then even the argument that reality arose from an inherent inconsistency in non-existence is meaningless, since we're basically positing a principle-based argument which embraces in itself the abandonment of those same principles of logic.

Actuality actualizes potential --> Cause and effect --> Motion --> Change.

If change is infinite, we couldn't get to the present change. If change once did not take place, and there was no existing actuality to produce change, then change would never take place. The only possibility in my mind is a pre-existing, eternal, actually infinite across all points, and possibilities which initiated the first change which was the catalyst for all proceeding change, motion, actualizations, effects.


EDIT** If you ever asked for reason from a theist for belief in a God, this is likely the best answer you will find. It is firmly grounded in logic. The same logic determines that such an entity would be completely undetectable by any instrument we could construct. It is as likely as a multiverse (more likely in my opinion). A multiverse can only be deduced from logic, as are all cosmological theories. A set of realities are observed, the observations are interpreted, logic is employed, and a theory is developed. My set of realities are mathematical applications, study of conceptual infinities, forward progression of temporal states, overwhelmingly apparent causal connectivity of states, physical laws and other principles of order, among others that I'm too tired right now to hash out mentally. I apply logic and the result is the outcome I consider most likely. The outcome in this instance is the existence of an eternal creator being (to say it simply). It is not poor logic, and it isn't blind belief. I believe that the concept of God takes no faith at all, but that it is something that every person has access to through reason. Moreover, if someone says that belief in a creator God rests in blind faith, I would strongly oppose that position.

 

BeyondTimeAndSpace:

Why would it not be in actuality but only conceptually? Infinity can never be reached, but it can be proven through other means. We also know that all measurable things are finite and that, if infinity exists, this subsequently demands an infinity of finite things. If so, they would be actual although immeasurable, as there would always be more to measure.

Consider this: Whereas infinity itself cannot see change on a whole - that is, it cannot be added to, substracted from, divided, or multiplied - there is nothing to say that a spatial infinity's infinite parts cannot rearrange anywhich way they want. That is to say, all change is inherently internal to all of existence. It never goes outside of existence - an absurdity, really - to change. Therefore, change is basically only a recombination, which takes nothing away from infinity whatsoever to occur. It changes how the points interact with one another, but nothing else.

Therefore, we can say that the universe is both infinitely extended, has infinite points, and is immutable in the sense that infinity does not change and does not admit of anything new, although it does allow for change internal to it.

I have two responses:

1. I agree if by universe you mean the universe stemming from current scientific conceptions of a Big Bang that occurred in a finite past. The universe is clearly not infinitely old.

2. I disagree utterly if by the universe you mean all of existence.

I shall elaborate the latter:

You have three options for existence to come into being:

1. It is necessary by itself. My metaphysics affirms this to be the case for three reasons. I. One can either have either something or nothing. If somethingness was not necessary, then nothingness could not have produced somethingness. II. If somethingness weren't to exist, then nothingness would, and as nothingness cannot exist (by definition of being nothingness) somethingness must have always existed. 3. Bothsomethingness and nothingness, by being opposites, "create" one another analogously to how short and tall automatically do so for eachother.

2. God created it - in which case he'd be necessary and we resolve to a God-like version of the first.

3. It was created by nothing.

As mentioned in my first option, the third is absurd. Nothingness precludes a causal creation. Moreover, it would be arbitrary, as an infinity of nothingness would be punctuated by an out-of-nowhere creation of existence.

How would this work? As pasts, futures, et cetera, all require multiple moments, how would this all manifest in one moment?

Multiverses surely don't solve this riddle, but here is something that came to mind but I am not going to affirm:

What if time is moving forward at infinite speed?

Very well put.

 

This is just pushing the problem back a step: does "time" exist in this multiverse?
If there is change within the multiverse - there is time.

And the multiverse merely pushes back other questions regarding our universe - i.e. what caused the multiverse?

So yes - we could theorise the origins and other details of our universe through the multiverse theory - but then every question answered raises another similar question about the multiverse.
So ultimately there is no progression - just movement of both answers and questions.