The End of WAR

Bill wrote:

I wrote, "On the other hand, if the number is finite, then the universe had to begin at some point in time, which is also not true."

Why is it not true?
Because nihilo ex nihilo -- from nothing comes nothing. If nothing exists, then there can be no creator to bring it into existence.

Nor does the fact that universe didn't begin at some point in time mean that it has existed for an infinite period of time. In fact, the universe hasn't existed for any period of time, because in order for something to exist "for a period of time," its duration must be measured by a standard of motion outside itself, and since the universe is all that exists, there is nothing outside the universe against which the duration of its existence can be measured. In that respect, the universe is "eternal" in the original sense of that term, meaning non-temporal. Things within the universe can have a duration vis-a-vis other things, but the universe itself cannot. It is literally outside of time.

For that reason, it was perhaps misleading for me to say that the universe "always" existed. By saying that it always existed, I simply meant that there is no period of time one can identify in which the universe did not exist. But strictly speaking, since the universe does not exist "in" time, it cannot have existed for any period of time.

Bill, I appreciate your explanation of what you believe, but I don't see the answer to my question of why you believe it.

Jon has implied you believe the above because you don't believe in God. That may be a reason to assume the above, but it is not a very good reason. I am not at all sure that Jon is being fair with you on this. So let me ask the question directly:

For instance, you say, "Things within the universe can have a duration vis-a-vis other things, but the universe itself cannot. It is literally outside of time," did you determine that the universe is outside of time inductively (perhaps via science), deductively or maybe transcendentally? And perhaps you could outline your argument for us.

Regards,

G. Brady Lenardos

Post 81

Monday, March 19, 2007 - 9:38am

G. Brady,

To clarify our respective positions:

Both Bill and I hold that from nothing comes nothing, so we agree (or, we have been agreeing, my last question is sincere�I wonder if he may be changing his position, ) that �existence always was.�

Our disagreement is with regard to the existence of actual infinities. He argues that actual infinities are logically impossible, and that an unlimited universe is logically impossible. I argue that an unlimited universe violates no law of logic and that at least one infinitude is real�the infinitude of past events.

I have narrowed in on the quantity of past events in order to �corner� Bill and force a contradiction. If existence always was, then an infinitude of past events have already occurred, (which conclusion he resists.) He has chosen to move away from �always was,� but I am confused about how he thinks this gets him out of the corner. In fact, his new language seems to cause him more problems, such as the position that, �In fact, the universe hasn't existed for any period of time�� His new language also suffers from being consistent with prime mover-type beginnings.

Post 82

Monday, March 19, 2007 - 10:47am

Hi Jon,

Thanks for the clarification. I think I understand you and Bill a little better now. Often these posts create more heat than light, yours did the latter.

Let me go a little further, in my last post I suggested that, "Jon has implied you [Bill] believe the above because you don't believe in God." But, it seems that you [Jon] believe in an infinite regress of past events because you reject God.

So, let me put the question to you:

Did you determine that there is an infinitude of past events inductively (perhaps via science), deductively or maybe transcendentally? And perhaps you could outline your argument for us.

I find that the three of us have different answers or ways of dealing with the issue being discussed here.

I think you will find that my answer eliminates the problems you two are debating. My answer is God exists! Have you seen my paper:

http://home.earthlink.net/~gbl111/cosmos.htm

It had been discussed back near the beginning of this thread. But perhaps a new thread is in order, after all we have gone quite astray from the point of the original post.

Regards,

G. Brady Lenardos

Post 83

Monday, March 19, 2007 - 1:29pm

Not even God can rescue Bill from this one, G. Brady, because if He exists, as you say, then he is part of existence and we still get an infinite regression, an infinitude of past events. I will read your paper.

You asked me, �Did you determine that there is an infinitude of past events inductively (perhaps via science), deductively or maybe transcendentally? And perhaps you could outline your argument for us.�

I determine that there is an infinitude of past events deductively from the premise that �Nothing comes from nothing,� which implies that existence always was, which implies an infinitude of past events. For my purpose at hand, (cornering Bill,) it doesn�t matter�I assume �nothing from nothing� for conversation because I want to show him that his denial of actual infinities conflicts with, �Nothing from nothing.�

To answer you the best I can, I just think �Nothing from nothing� is a reasonable working assumption. Science demonstrates that matter/energy cannot be destroyed. (One may be converted into the other and each may be changed to different forms of each, but no net destruction.) Also, I have never seen anything appear in this universe that wasn�t already here or that cannot be explained by preexisting phenomena. I am comfortable with an infinite regress. Existence exists and it always has. I am comfortable assuming that what I see around me was always here in one form or another. I don�t need the extra step of assuming the things I see require a start, from God, who always existed. I could just as well be uncomfortable with THAT, I mean, how could have a universe-creating-God always existed? Only a God-creating God could explain God�so I posit a God-creating God, who created the God who created the universe. Now THAT is one helluva God, a God-creating God is�certainly HE would need no explanation. For now I�ll stick with all this stuff simply always existed.

(Edited by Jon Letendre
on 3/19, 2:04pm)

Post 84

Monday, March 19, 2007 - 2:23pm

Hi Jon,

Thanks for your response. I will forward to your comments on my paper.

Regards,

Brady

Post 85

Saturday, March 24, 2007 - 2:03pm

I wrote, �In fact, the universe hasn't existed for any period of time�� and ��it cannot have existed for any period of time.� To which Jon replied,

Bullshit. You wrote that at 10:18 PM and now it is 11:27 PM.

Events within the universe can exist for certain periods of time relative to other events. So my writing that at 10:18 PM and your responding to it at 11:25 PM were events that existed relative to the earth's rotation (as calibrated in hours and minutes). But the universe itself hasn't existed for any period of time, since there is nothing outside the universe against which the duration of its existence can be measured.

(Anyway, you�ve reverted to �time.� I was discussing quantity of events.)

Fair enough, but events are relative as well, for an event is a kind of motion, and motion is relative to a stationary standard. So, the "total number of past events" would depend on what the standard is. Now if one is talking about the total number of past events in the universe, then what would be the standard for that? Whatever it is, wouldn't it have to be outside the universe? But there is no standard of motion or change outside the universe against which the total number of past events can be measured, in which case, there is no such number.

Your last paragraph --
For that reason, it was perhaps misleading for me to say that the universe "always" existed. By saying that it always existed, I simply meant that there is no period of time one can identify in which the universe did not exist. But strictly speaking, since the universe does not exist "in" time, it cannot have existed for any period of time.
-- could be interpreted to mean that you believe existence DID have a start, with time starting alongside it. This would be consistent with �there is no period of time one can identify in which the universe did not exist.�

Is this your position?

No. When I said that there is no period of time one can identify "in which" the universe did not exist, I didn't mean to say that the universe existed "in" time; I simply meant that wherever one identifies time, there must be something in existence, because time depends on existence; it depends on the motion of one body relative to that of another.

- Bill

Post 86

Saturday, March 24, 2007 - 8:51pm

Bill,

�Now if one is talking about the total number of past events in the universe, then what would be the standard for that? Whatever it is, wouldn't it have to be outside the universe?�

No, of course not. Assuming a universe of a finite number of entities, how many events occurred in the last 24 hours? Answer: some large, but finite number. Any need for a �standard� lying outside the universe to answer that question? No. How many events occurred in the last year? Answer: some even larger, but still finite number. Any need for a �standard� lying outside the universe to answer that question? No.

So the question is resolved rather simply: If existence had a start, then the question of past events is answered with some huge, finite number. If existence always was, it had no start�then the answer is not finite. This may make you feel uncomfortable because it�s not a �total,� not a finitude�so blame �nothing comes from nothing� for the infinite regress.

(Edited by Jon Letendre
on 3/24, 9:18pm)

Post 87

Saturday, March 24, 2007 - 9:34pm

Bill,

Just wanted to add that your new language is also consistent with existence having had a start.

The first wording was: ��there is no period of time one can identify in which the universe did not exist.�

The new wording is equally consistent with existence having had a start: ��wherever one identifies time, there must be something in existence, because time depends on existence��

Having disavowed the language you had used earlier, (�existence always was,�) and substituted that with the above two new versions, it is no longer clear to me that you reject existence having had a start. Certainly, these two new wordings do not preclude such.

Post 88

Saturday, March 24, 2007 - 10:40pm

Jon,

You wrote,

Just wanted to add that your new language is also consistent with existence having had a start.

The first wording was: ��there is no period of time one can identify in which the universe did not exist.�

The new wording is equally consistent with existence having had a start: ��wherever one identifies time, there must be something in existence, because time depends on existence��

It may be consistent with it. So what? That doesn't mean that I believe existence had a beginning. Why are you pressing this point when I've stated very clearly that I reject the notion that it had a beginning.

Having disavowed the language you had used earlier, (�existence always was,�) and substituted that with the above two new versions, it is no longer clear to me that you reject existence having had a start.

I didn't so much disavow it as clarify it. I explained what I mean by saying that "existence always was," (that there was never a time when existence didn't exist, because time depends on existence). I explained very clearly that I rejected existence having had a start. So, I don't understand why you are querying me on this.

Certainly, these two new wordings do not preclude such.

It doesn't make any difference that they don't by themselves preclude it. I've stated what my position is. Why won't you accept it? Obviously, a person who believed that the universe had a beginning could also believe that there was never a time when the universe didn't exist, but that doesn't mean that whoever believes that there was never a time when the universe didn't exist must, therefore, believe that the universe had a beginning. The fact that P implies Q does not mean that Q implies P.

You say that there is a large, but finite number of events that occurred in the universe last year. Relative to what frame of reference? An event involves motion or change, which exists in relation to a standard. For the sake of illustration, let's say that relative to an extraterrestrial planet, everything on earth were expanding at the same rate. Would we notice the expansion? No, because the things on earth relative to each other wouldn't be expanding at that rate. So although the expansion would be an event relative to observers on the extraterrestrial planet, it would not be an event relative to us. Whether or not something is "an event" depends on one's frame of reference.

It would also depend on how you define "an event." Is a baseball game one event, or several? Is a home run one event or several? I don't think the question, "How many past events have occurred?" has an answer, since there is no objective definition of "event." The question, "How many major-league baseball games have occurred?" does have an answer, because a major-league baseball game has an objective definition. The question, "How many planets have been born?" is clear enough, since the term "planet" has an objective definition, but there is no specific number, if there was never a time when planets didn't exist. This is different, I believe, from saying that there is a specific number of planets and that the number is infinite, which is an oxymoron.

So, if one wants to use the number of planets being born as a proxy for the number of events having occurred, then it's possible that the number isn't finite, which doesn't mean that the number is infinite if there is no specific number, which there wouldn't be, if there was never a time when planets didn't exist.

Bill

(Edited by William Dwyer
on 3/24, 11:02pm)

Post 89

Sunday, March 25, 2007 - 2:13am

OK, Bill, so you do reject existence having had a start. Forgive me, but you had substituted those two wordings in correction or clarification of, �existence always was,� so I wasn�t sure. I do understand that �the fact that P implies Q does not mean that Q implies P.�

You wrote, �You say that there is a large, but finite number of events that occurred in the universe last year. Relative to what frame of reference?�

Relative to the entities that act out the event. Contra your later assertion, events are plenty objective. They involve, as you wrote, �motion or change.� So a baseball game is an event, a molecule of air displaced by a fly ball is an event, and a pressure wave following the interaction of a bat and ball and heard as a crack, is also an event.

�For the sake of illustration, let's say that relative to an extraterrestrial planet, everything on earth were expanding at the same rate.�

If you insist.

�Would we notice the expansion? No, because the things on earth relative to each other wouldn't be expanding at that rate.�

Wrong. We would notice the other planet appearing smaller and smaller and we certainly could not fail to notice its demise as our planet eventually engulfed it, or pushed it aside, or accreted it, or whatever would eventually happen under this unfortunate �illustration.�

�So although the expansion would be an event relative to observers on the extraterrestrial planet, it would not be an event relative to us. Whether or not something is "an event" depends on one's frame of reference.�

So the extraterrestrials would notice earth getting larger, but we wouldn�t notice them getting smaller?? Well, of course, we would. Whether or not there is an event depends only on whether entities interact causing change, and not on who notices. Nor is the fact of an event (change following interaction of two or more entities) undone by observing that some other entity was unchanged throughout the event. If I misunderstand your illustration, please explain it again. It seems to follow from your line of argument that an event has occurred when a major-league baseball game plays out at Fenway, but none has occurred relative to Wrigley. What good does that point do us? The events involved interactions of entities at Fenway�the fact that an observer seated at Wrigley would have missed it all, illustrates�what?

Post 90

Sunday, March 25, 2007 - 8:57am

Bill wrote:

Events within the universe can exist for certain periods of time relative to other events. So my writing that at 10:18 PM and your responding to it at 11:25 PM were events that existed relative to the earth's rotation (as calibrated in hours and minutes). But the universe itself hasn't existed for any period of time, since there is nothing outside the universe against which the duration of its existence can be measured.

Hi Bill,

May I ask a couple of questions? I am not quite sure how you are defining "universe" in the above quote. I think this may be the problem that you and Jon are having. The universe is not a thing itself, is it? Isn't the word, "universe" just a shorthand meaning the compilation of a bunch of things? Without those things the universe wouldn't have any existence. I usually define "universe" as our dimensions of time and space, and energy and matter, and all that are inherent to them.
In your view, does the the universe have boundaries or is it infinite? I ask this because you indicate that there is an "outside" to the universe.

Physics tells us that the universe is a certain of number of years old and can even give us a distance across. How does that fit in?

You say that there is a large, but finite number of events that occurred in the universe last year. Relative to what frame of reference? An event involves motion or change, which exists in relation to a standard. For the sake of illustration, let's say that relative to an extraterrestrial planet, everything on earth were expanding at the same rate. Would we notice the expansion? No, because the things on earth relative to each other wouldn't be expanding at that rate. So although the expansion would be an event relative to observers on the extraterrestrial planet, it would not be an event relative to us. Whether or not something is "an event" depends on one's frame of reference.

Bill, this one has me stumped. I thought you were a realist. In the above, are you saying that if no sentient being existed, then no events exist? Don't you really mean, "Whether or not someone knows something is "an event" depends on one's frame of reference." The events are events regardless of our knowledge, right?

Regards,

G. Brady Lenardos

Post 91

Sunday, March 25, 2007 - 10:44pm

I wrote, "For the sake of illustration, let's say that relative to an extraterrestrial planet, everything on earth were expanding at the same rate.� Jon replied (sarcastically),

If you insist.

I continued, �Would we notice the expansion? No, because the things on earth relative to each other wouldn't be expanding at that rate.�

Wrong. We would notice the other planet appearing smaller and smaller and we certainly could not fail to notice its demise as our planet eventually engulfed it, or pushed it aside, or accreted it, or whatever would eventually happen under this unfortunate �illustration.�

Not if the expansion was very small, on the order of, say, 2%. That would not be enough for us to notice the other planet's getting smaller. But it doesn't really matter. The point of the analogy was simply to illustrate that motion and change are relative.

I wrote, �So although the expansion would be an event relative to observers on the extraterrestrial planet, it would not be an event relative to us. Whether or not something is "an event" depends on one's frame of reference.�

Whether or not there is an event depends only on whether entities interact causing change, and not on who notices.

I'm not clear on the point you're making here. Are you denying that whether something is moving or stationary depends on one's frame of reference?

Nor is the fact of an event (change following interaction of two or more entities) undone by observing that some other entity was unchanged throughout the event. If I misunderstand your illustration, please explain it again. It seems to follow from your line of argument that an event has occurred when a major-league baseball game plays out at Fenway, but none has occurred relative to Wrigley.

No, that's not what I'm saying.

What good does that point do us? The events involved interactions of entities at Fenway�the fact that an observer seated at Wrigley would have missed it all, illustrates�what?

Think of it this way. If you are on a train, the passenger seated next to you is stationary relative to you, but moving relative to the countryside. So is the passenger stationary or moving? It depends on one's frame of reference. Relative to the countryside, he is moving; relative to you, he is stationary. Does that make sense?

- Bill

Post 92

Monday, March 26, 2007 - 8:33am

Oh, a one-time, very small expansion!

�Think of it this way. If you are on a train, the passenger seated next to you is stationary relative to you, but moving relative to the countryside. So is the passenger stationary or moving? It depends on one's frame of reference. Relative to the countryside, he is moving; relative to you, he is stationary. Does that make sense?�

Sure, it makes perfect sense. What makes no sense to me is what good you think this does for your argument.

You had objected to my assertion that a large but finite number of events have occurred in the last 24 hours by offering up this relativity sidetrack. Yet, all you have shown with it is that there may be even more motions, more events, than we realize. So what? It remains true that a large but finite number of events have occurred, given a specific period of the past and a universe consisting of a finite number of entities, right?

So where are you going with this?

Post 93

Monday, March 26, 2007 - 9:07am

Jon,

My point was that you can't say how many "events" occurred in the universe in the last 24 hours, because whether or not something is an event depends on your frame of reference. Given one frame of reference, something is an event; given another, it isn't. Is the woman sitting next to you on the train traveling? Relative to the countryside, yes. Relative to you, no; she is sitting perfectly still. Since you have to specify the standard or the frame of reference, there is no objective answer to the question, "How many events occurred IN THE UNIVERSE in the past 24 hours."

- Bill
(Edited by William Dwyer
on 3/26, 10:14am)

Post 94

Monday, March 26, 2007 - 9:50am

Brady, you wrote,

May I ask a couple of questions? I am not quite sure how you are defining "universe" in the above quote. I think this may be the problem that you and Jon are having. The universe is not a thing itself, is it? Isn't the word, "universe" just a shorthand meaning the compilation of a bunch of things? Without those things the universe wouldn't have any existence.
Right.
I usually define "universe" as our dimensions of time and space, and energy and matter, and all that are inherent to them.

The "universe," as I am using the term, means everything that exists, including its fundamental constituents. I am not using it in the same sense that astronomers use it -- to mean the universe in its present form, i.e., after the Big Bang, because I hold that some form of existence preceded the Big Bang.

In your view, does the the universe have boundaries or is it infinite? I ask this because you indicate that there is an "outside" to the universe.

The universe is finite, because everything in the universe is finite. Since the universe is all that exists, there is nothing outside it. "Nothing" is not another kind of something; it is nothing; so if the universe is all that exists, then nothing exists outside it; otherwise, the universe would not comprise the totality of existence.

Physics tells us that the universe is a certain of number of years old and can even give us a distance across. How does that fit in?

You're talking about a different concept of "the universe" than I am. By "universe," I mean the totality of existence in any form that it might take, not just its present form since the Big Bang.

I wrote (to Jon), "You say that there is a large, but finite number of events that occurred in the universe last year. Relative to what frame of reference? An event involves motion or change, which exists in relation to a standard. For the sake of illustration, let's say that relative to an extraterrestrial planet, everything on earth were expanding at the same rate. Would we notice the expansion? No, because the things on earth relative to each other wouldn't be expanding at that rate. So although the expansion would be an event relative to observers on the extraterrestrial planet, it would not be an event relative to us. Whether or not something is 'an event' depends on one's frame of reference."

Bill, this one has me stumped. I thought you were a realist. In the above, are you saying that if no sentient being existed, then no events exist? Don't you really mean, "Whether or not someone knows something is "an event" depends on one's frame of reference." The events are events regardless of our knowledge, right?

Right. I meant it simply in the sense that motion is relative. For example, suppose you had a train pulling a box car that contained several barrels of cargo, but no people. The barrels would be moving relative to the countryside, but relative to each other, they would be stationary. That's the sense in which I meant that motion is relative to one's "frame of reference." I didn't mean to imply that it had to be relative to an observer.

- Bill

Post 95

Monday, March 26, 2007 - 11:15am

Hi Bill,

Thanks, your response really cleared up a lot.

I am really curious about the following:

The "universe," as I am using the term, means everything that exists, including its fundamental constituents. I am not using it in the same sense that astronomers use it -- to mean the universe in its present form, i.e., after the Big Bang, because I hold that some form of existence preceded the Big Bang.

It is fair to say that you take this position regarding the pre-existence of the universe in order to:

1) maintain that something has always existed and

2) avoid the infinite regress problem?

I have seen two attempts at this:

1) the oscillating universe, and

2) the universe existed in some form prior to the first motion event (the big bang), outside of a dimension of time, and in a completely static condition.

Do you hold to either of these or some other solution?

Regards,

G. Brady Lenardos

Post 96

Monday, March 26, 2007 - 11:42am

Brady,

I take the position that existence in some form must have preceded the Big Bang, because nihilo ex nihilo -- from nothing comes nothing.

You write,

I have seen two attempts at [explaining] this:

1) the oscillating universe, and

2) the universe existed in some form prior to the first motion event (the big bang), outside of a dimension of time, and in a completely static condition.

Do you hold to either of these or some other solution?

I don't take a position on what form existence took prior to the Big Bang, although I don't think it makes sense to say that it was static. Static relative to what? There is nothing outside the universe relative to which it could be judged as either static or in motion. Things in the universe are static or in motion relative to other things, but the universe itself (as the totality of existence) is neither. Therefore, to say that universe as whole "oscillates" wouldn't make any sense either. Oscillates relative to what?

So, while it makes sense to say that things "in" the universe can have a particular form or character, I'm not so sure it makes sense to say that universe as a whole does. I haven't thought enough about this to say one way or the other. But I'm inclined to think there may be a problem in ascribing characteristics to the universe as a totality.

- Bill

Post 97

Monday, March 26, 2007 - 1:43pm

Besides, not everyone holds to the 'big bang' theory........

http://www.bigbangneverhappened.org/

Post 98

Monday, March 26, 2007 - 7:42pm

G. Brady,

When the time is right, I recommend you introduce 2% of God. Quite a bit of creation could be attributed to a 2% God, and although extraterrestrials might notice, surely no one here on earth could. ;>

Post 99

Monday, March 26, 2007 - 9:14pm