| | Ted wrote, First, historically, we are presented with a dilemma. Either space and time are infinite, which seems problematic, or they are finite. Yet finiteness seems to imply an edge, leading to the question of what lies beyond the edge. This was the problem with a flat earth. There must be an edge, no? What would happen if you keep heading south? Will you not hit a wall, or "fall off" the face of the earth into, well, nothing? What bounds the earth in a flat earth model?
It turned out that our local perspective, in which the two dimensional surface of the earth seems flat, was deceptive. The earth, it turns out, is neither infinite, nor does it have a boundary. Rather, it is curved in a third dimension, and closes in upon itself like a flat map whose edges are glued to each other. The earth is finite, yet unbounded. I see the point you're trying to make here. However, just to interject, I wouldn't say the earth is "unbounded"; I wouldn't describe it in those terms, any more than I would say that a basketball is "unbounded." What is the boundary of basketball? Clearly, it's surface is. But, again, I do see your argument, which you continue as follows: The surface of the earth does not extend infinitely southward. There is no edge or boundary at some point where further southward travel takes you off the edge. Rather, you can travel south to the south pole, but due to the curvature of the earth, anywhere you head from there is north.
The same applies to spacetime. Think of spacetime as a map, with space as east-west and time as north south. Is spacetime infinite in every direction? Or does it have an edge, beyond which there lies the dreaded nothing? No. Spacetime is neither infinite, nor does it have an edge. It is curved and finite yet unbounded in space and in the past. (The future is an open question for now. But since the future is indeed potential, I won't go into the issue, other than to acknowledge it.) This is an interesting approach to the issue. However, there's a problem with your analogy. If you're going to stick to the analogy, you'd have to say that at a certain point you start going backwards in time (just as you start going North on the globe, once you pass the South Pole) which is theoretically impossible. Time is not curved in the way that you're suggesting. It is linear. You might be able to make a case for space being curved, depending on what you mean by the term. However, as I understand "space," its referent is relational. Space refers to an interval between two or more objects; as, the space between two stars or two hills. If we accept this definition, then without the objects, there would be no space. The term "outer space" refers to any location outside the earth's atmosphere. But when one talks about a "space-time continuum," what exactly is the referent, if not existence as such? Time involves the measurement of motion, so time occupies existence; existence doesn't occupy time (which you acknowledge below).
This brings us back to the question with which we started. Is existence finite or infinite in time? I think I may have jumped the gun by saying that it is potentially infinite (rather than actually infinite). On second thought, I don't think that existence, as such, has a duration. We can say that certain things within existence have a duration, but only in relation to other thing against which we're measuring them. But what can existence as such be measured against, either spatially or temporally? "How much time does existence occupy?" is as meaningless a question as, "how much space does it occupy?". What we call the Big Bang is a place in spacetime analogous to the South Pole on the surface of the earth. To ask what happened "before" the Big Bang (or whatever the evidence leads to) is like asking what lies south of the South Pole. The question shows a failure to understand that south is a relative concept, just as time and space are relative concepts. Right, but I'm not sure that you and I would agree on what they're relative to? There is no absolute south or absolute time such that one could ask what lies south of the South Pole or what happened before the earliest moment of time. Time is within, not prior to existence. I agree with you here. Obviously, nothing could "happen" before the earliest moment of time, because there is no earliest moment of time. Finally, as an aside, the potentially infinte past of which you speak is problematic. It amounts to either meaninglessness, or the priority of consciousness. The actuallity of reality cannot depend upon its being measured. Correct. I think I was assuming in my previous post that it could be, which was a mistake. (Nor, for that matter, can time be infinite in the past, because entropy increases. Heat death will be reached in a finite time, and it is not here yet.) Here, it appears you're assuming that within a certain period of time, reality would cease to exist, but you've already acknowledged that reality doesn't exist for a certain period of time -- that time does not apply to existence as such. So I don't think this latter argument is a good one. What would it mean to say that time exists in infinite potential if measured? How can time be measured, except in relation to material events? I agree. Point well taken.
- Bill
|
|
