| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Mewtwo_X
Forum Leader
Joined: 23 Nov 2005
Posts: 537
Local time: 3:21 AM
Location: Ontario, Canada
|
 Posted: Tue May 15, 2007 11:27 am Post subject: Re: Infinite regression of causes/time and Kalam |
  |
|
| excidius wrote: | OK, as most of you are probably aware, proponents of the Kalam cosmological argument state that there could not have been an infinite chain of causes leading to the present, because it is impossible for an infinite chain of causes to elapse. Similarly along these lines, time must have had a beginning because otherwise an infinite amount of time must elapse to get to the present, which is an impossibility.
I once read an atheist's objection to this long ago in which it was stated that to say an infinite amount of time has elapsed to get to the present, you must measure between two points of time. But to measure between two points of time is to imply that the earlier point would represent a "beginning" of sorts, and thus defeat the assumption that time had no beginning.
So anyway, on to my question. When I read that atheist's counter-objection, it didn't really make sense to me, and it still doesn't. Does anyone out there think that makes sense, and if so, why? Why does an infinite amount of time need to be measured between two points in order for us to say it is infinite? More generally, anytime we talk of infinites, we are talking about an unmeasurable thing, yes no?
(If you're curious, I was reminded of this when I recently watched a really bad YouTube apologetics video.) |
This sounds like one of my counterarguments. I used this occasionally when someone would try to make the following argument:
Suppose time is infinite. Given that we start at the beginning of time and move towards our current point of time, would we ever reach the current time? If not then an infinite period of time cannot be true. We live through these times and this means time must be finite. An infinite time would be unable to make sense of any points of time within it.
My standard counterargument against this is to note that they're using time as if it is an objective definition with a set reference point being the start of time. By doing so they presuppose that time itself has a start in order to use the "infinity" to reduce time to absurdity. Time is relative to the points we make. Indeed, I try to use the cartesian lines to show this. Infinite lines can be plotted with meaningful points, as the lines are used within relative terms, rather than objective ones.
The key again is that people are trying to apply a "start of time" when they set one endpoint for measuring time at infinity and the other at any relative point on the scale. Any points taken to suggest that people will never reach today with an infinite time will either:
A). Fail and give a long, yet defined time scale between 2 relative points.
OR
B). Try to make a point at infinity or "the beginning of time", posit an objective scale onto relative time and contradict the timescale proposed in order to refute it.
_________________
"There is but one cause of human failure and that is man's lack of faith in his true self."
Las Lindas: My current favourite comic!
 |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
|
|
|
Philosophos
Do it
Joined: 01 Mar 2004
Posts: 9289
Local time: 4:21 AM
Location: Where Scum Are
|
| Posted: Tue May 15, 2007 11:38 am Post subject: |
|
|
I agree with Mewtwo_X, and yes, excidius, I think the counterargument you described makes sense. To state it simply: this subpart of the Kalam is using infinity as if it were a number. It's not.
In other words, you can't start at "infinity" and count forward to the present to get infinite time. Why? Because you can't start at "infinity" at all because it's not a number!
If one states that "the past is infinite," what one is saying is that for any time t in the past, there exists another time t' where t' is before t. That's what "infinity" means in this context.
Infinity is not so much a number as it is a statement about numbers.
_________________
The whores and politicians will shout 'save us'...
...and I'll whisper 'no'. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
tonyman1989
Forum Master
Joined: 07 Mar 2007
Posts: 2461
Local time: 4:21 AM
Location: I was hoping you could tell me.
|
| Posted: Fri May 18, 2007 1:45 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Philosophos wrote: | I agree with Mewtwo_X, and yes, excidius, I think the counterargument you described makes sense. To state it simply: this subpart of the Kalam is using infinity as if it were a number. It's not.
In other words, you can't start at "infinity" and count forward to the present to get infinite time. Why? Because you can't start at "infinity" at all because it's not a number!
If one states that "the past is infinite," what one is saying is that for any time t in the past, there exists another time t' where t' is before t. That's what "infinity" means in this context.
Infinity is not so much a number as it is a statement about numbers. |
I don't agree that you can't start at infinity. if time is infinte in past and in furture (Which I believe it is in the megaverse) you can still go forwad in time.
_________________
"If people are good only because they fear punishment, and hope for a reward, then we are a sorry lot indeed." Albert Einstein
"For then we will know the mind of God." Stephen Hawking
"We admit that we are like apes, but we seldom realise that we are apes." Richard Dawkins
http://www.atheistforums.com/weblog.php?w=22 Tonyman1989 blog's - updated on 8/28/07 - An interview of steven weinberg on religion |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Sal1981
Do you hear me now?
Joined: 23 Mar 2006
Posts: 2799
Local time: 8:21 AM
Location: Behind the computer
|
| Posted: Fri May 18, 2007 3:19 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Infinity is just a concept in mathematics, it's very different from the nature of time that we experience.
On a surface of a sphere, you could travel in direct line for an infinity, although you would also visit the same points on the sphere an infinite amount of times.
Time in our universe is similar in this respect, where Big Bang is the "South Pole" of this time sphere and the "North Pole" is the Big Crunch. There's no north of the north pole.
The above analogy, AFAIK, assumes a block universe however.
IMO, I don't think time is anything more than our detection of change. No change = no time.
_________________
"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool" --- Richard P. Feynman
"Why not just make your null hypothesis be that..." - Philosophos |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Knight_of_BAAWA
Jedi Slackmaster
Joined: 08 Mar 2003
Posts: 10021
Local time: 2:21 AM
Location: USA
|
| Posted: Fri May 18, 2007 3:23 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Actually, Sal, the surface of a sphere is finite-but-non-bounded. There's a difference.
_________________
aa #51, DNRC o-, Member of the [H]orde
Atheist Minister for St. Dogbert.
"No being is so important that he can usurp the rights of another"
Picard to Data/Graves "The Schizoid Man" |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Philosophos
Do it
Joined: 01 Mar 2004
Posts: 9289
Local time: 4:21 AM
Location: Where Scum Are
|
| Posted: Fri May 18, 2007 3:27 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| tonyman1989 wrote: | | I don't agree that you can't start at infinity. if time is infinte in past and in furture (Which I believe it is in the megaverse) you can still go forwad in time. |
From where? Can you point to a point on a number line that's "infinity?"
_________________
The whores and politicians will shout 'save us'...
...and I'll whisper 'no'. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Sal1981
Do you hear me now?
Joined: 23 Mar 2006
Posts: 2799
Local time: 8:21 AM
Location: Behind the computer
|
| Posted: Fri May 18, 2007 3:47 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Knight_of_BAAWA wrote: | | Actually, Sal, the surface of a sphere is finite-but-non-bounded. There's a difference. |
And?
_________________
"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool" --- Richard P. Feynman
"Why not just make your null hypothesis be that..." - Philosophos |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Moloth
Coin Operated Boy
Joined: 27 Aug 2003
Posts: 23062
Local time: 3:21 AM
Location: Warner Robins, GA
|
| Posted: Fri May 18, 2007 3:48 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Sal1981 wrote: | | Knight_of_BAAWA wrote: | | Actually, Sal, the surface of a sphere is finite-but-non-bounded. There's a difference. |
And? |
well.. its just not technically "infinite"... just unbounded. it IS finite, just boundless. It one theory on the shape of space-time, for instance.
_________________
-=The Believer is Happy; the Skeptic is Wise=-
www.Moloth.com
Last edited by Moloth on Tue Feb 30, 2026 13:61 am; edited 426 times in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
tonyman1989
Forum Master
Joined: 07 Mar 2007
Posts: 2461
Local time: 4:21 AM
Location: I was hoping you could tell me.
|
| Posted: Fri May 18, 2007 6:06 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Philosophos wrote: | | tonyman1989 wrote: | | I don't agree that you can't start at infinity. if time is infinte in past and in furture (Which I believe it is in the megaverse) you can still go forwad in time. |
From where? Can you point to a point on a number line that's "infinity?" |
No but thats the point matter would have no begining or end just passed thought the megaverse into the universes.
_________________
"If people are good only because they fear punishment, and hope for a reward, then we are a sorry lot indeed." Albert Einstein
"For then we will know the mind of God." Stephen Hawking
"We admit that we are like apes, but we seldom realise that we are apes." Richard Dawkins
http://www.atheistforums.com/weblog.php?w=22 Tonyman1989 blog's - updated on 8/28/07 - An interview of steven weinberg on religion |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
Live Video and Chat Room
Freethought Videos
FAQ
Search
Usergroups
Register
