Naturalism and human faculties...

kelly1

oldrnwisr wrote: »

No, it's an actual infinity. For it to be a potential infinity we would need some reason to consider the possibility that time might actually stop at some point in the future. But we don't have such a reason, we have no reason to think that time will suddenly stop so it's an actual infinity.

I can't believe what I'm reading! For a smart guy, that's quite a clanger!

You wrote:

Similarly with time, while the universe may, in its current state, be finite in the past, there's no reason to suggest that time is finite in the future.

If the universe began at T0 and we are now at T1 (finite value), then T1 - T0 < infinity (and always will be).

This is a potential infinity situation, not an actual one. Clear as day.



Do you concede this point?

oldrnwisr

kelly1 wrote: »

If the universe began at T0 and we are now at T1 (finite value), then T1 - T0 < infinity (and always will be).

This is a potential infinity situation, not an actual one. Clear as day.

Do you concede this point?

No. OK, let me explain with a bit of maths. Let's take the following series:

1,2,3,4,5,6,.... ∞

Now, let's look at totalling this series. If we take the sum of the first four terms we get 10. If we take the first 10 terms we get 55. So, in your example, currently t1-t0 is 13.78x10^9 years. In another million years it will be 13.781x10^9 years old. But the integer series above is divergent it doesn't tend towards a particular value, it just keeps growing and growing forever. So no matter how big you get you can keep adding terms forever. It is an infinite series of numbers. Similarly, there is an inifinite amount of seconds from the big bang. There's no potential about it. Time will continue and continue and continue forever. It will be an infinite amount of time.

For it to be a potential infinity we would need some reason to consider the possibility that time might stop. Then an infinite time would only be one scenario out of many which would make it a potential infinity.

kelly1

oldrnwisr wrote: »

No. OK, let me explain with a bit of maths. Let's take the following series:

1,2,3,4,5,6,.... ∞

Now, let's look at totalling this series. If we take the sum of the first four terms we get 10. If we take the first 10 terms we get 55. So, in your example, currently t1-t0 is 13.78x10^9 years. In another million years it will be 13.781x10^9 years old. But the integer series above is divergent it doesn't tend towards a particular value, it just keeps growing and growing forever. So no matter how big you get you can keep adding terms forever. It is an infinite series of numbers.

Agreed up to here.

Similarly, there is a inifinite amount of seconds from the big bang. There's no potential about it.

Wrong. There is no way you can ever actually reach infinity. This should be very clear.

Time will continue and continue and continue forever.

Agreed

It will be an infinite amount of time.

Wrong, T *tends* towards infinity, it never reaches it. Remember limits and asymptotes in maths class?

T != infinity and never can be.

oldrnwisr

I've gone back through the thread to see where this confusion about actual versus potential infinities comes from. The first mention of it stems from your comment here in post 83:

"Or the mathematical argument that time can stretch infinitely into the past because actual infinities cannot exist, implying that the universe must have had a beginning."

Now despite the fact that you seem to be using actual and potential infinities in the strict philosophy of mathematics sense, your comment above belies that. An actual infinity in mathematics is something which forms a totality, like the set of all integers or the set of all natural numbers. This is then contrasted with potential infinities which are non-terminating processes. However, it wasn't clear from your comment above that your use of actual infinities was technical as opposed to vernacular. Having said that, the existence of actual infinities or not doesn't have any bearing on the universe. Actual infinities do exist, I've just given you two examples, but you seem to think that we should be able to come up with a real (i.e. physical object) which is an example of an actual infinity. But that's not what an actual infinity means or implies.
Ultimately though, this whole line of argument is redundant. So the universe had a beginning. Fine. I've already acknowledged this. But the fact that the universe had a temporal beginning (i.e. time started to run forwards) doesn't require any talk of infinities, we can establish this beginning from our observation of the expansion of the universe. But there are two really important points here.

1. Just because the universe had a temporal beginning doesn't mean that there was nothing (in the sense used by WLC) before that.

2. Because the universe had a beginning doesn't mean that it had to have a beginner. We don't need to infer a God to explain the beginning of the universe.

kelly1

oldrnwisr wrote: »

"Or the mathematical argument that time can stretch infinitely into the past because actual infinities cannot exist, implying that the universe must have had a beginning."

I fixed a typo there. Does that change anything for you or did you assume the typo?

oldrnwisr wrote: »

Now despite the fact that you seem to be using actual and potential infinities in the strict philosophy of mathematics sense, your comment above belies that.

You are correct.

An actual infinity in mathematics is something which forms a totality, like the set of all integers or the set of all natural numbers. This is then contrasted with potential infinities which are non-terminating processes.

Correct

However, it wasn't clear from your comment above that your use of actual infinities was technical as opposed to vernacular.

There's a vernacular alternative?

Having said that, the existence of actual infinities or not doesn't have any bearing on the universe. Actual infinities do exist, I've just given you two examples,

The time example is just plain wrong.

but you seem to think that we should be able to come up with a real (i.e. physical object) which is an example of an actual infinity.

That's not what I had in mind. A physical object could not be infinite, it would leave "room" for nothing else.

... So the universe had a beginning. Fine. I've already acknowledged this. But the fact that the universe had a temporal beginning (i.e. time started to run forwards) doesn't require any talk of infinities, we can establish this beginning from our observation of the expansion of the universe.

OK

1. Just because the universe had a temporal beginning doesn't mean that there was nothing (in the sense used by WLC) before that.

To say something physical caused a beginning is nonsensical, that's not a beginning. A beginning must literally start with absolutely nothing, nada, zilch, zip. No vacuum in which fluctuations might happen randomly.

2. Because the universe had a beginning doesn't mean that it had to have a beginner. We don't need to infer a God to explain the beginning of the universe.

As per above, a beginning must start with something non-physical. If you begin with something physical, that's not a beginning. There has to be a transition from non-physical to non-physical + physical.

oldrnwisr

kelly1 wrote: »

The time example is just plain wrong.

I wasn't referring to time in that context, I was referring to the set of all natural numbers or the set of all integers as I mentioned in my last post. They are examples of actual infinities (not that modern mathematics adheres to actual vs. potential infinities anymore).

kelly1 wrote: »

To say something physical caused a beginning is nonsensical, that's not a beginning. A beginning must literally start with absolutely nothing, nada, zilch, zip. No vacuum in which fluctuations might happen randomly.


As per above, a beginning must start with something non-physical. If you begin with something physical, that's not a beginning. There has to be a transition from non-physical to non-physical + physical.

On what basis do you claim this? Why must a beginning be literally nothing. Time is a facet of our current universe. It's not independent of it. So it's not correct to speak about anything before the Big Bang. Our physical universe began 13 billion years ago. Before that time the universe, such as it was, existed as a hot dense energy state. There's nothing to suggest that that state had a beginning of it's own. It may have existed infinitely far in the past, if you could call it infinite. Or it could be the heat death of a previous universe. The same energy could be cycling over and over forever condensing into matter and then evaporating like ripples on a pond.
Why must the universe have had a beginning from absolute nothingness? Why does the singularity which preceded our physical universe need a creator?

robindch

kelly1 wrote: »

Nobody has refuted my argument that God is the uncaused cause of all that exists (for example). That's not "god of the gaps". It's the *only* thing that makes any kind of sense!

Your argument isn't an argument. Even by your own - uncharacteristically accurate words - it's a definition. And it's a definition which you, or more likely others, have created in order to fulfill whatever needs you have in this area. I can't convince you that your "definition" is wrong any more than I can convince you that your favourite beer tastes like cat wee - though I'll be happy to define your favourite beer as 'cat wee'.

kelly1 wrote: »

Can't we have a decent debate here without resorting to strawman, adhominen, ridiculing etc, etc. It's tedious.

When you stop rolling out self-serving 'definitions', and start engaging with other posters, yes, we probably can.

But until that time, most of the A+A posterhood will post their understanding of this area of science. And you will dutifully ignore them and re-post your 'definitions', no doubt having a quick giggle at everybody who asks the question "well, if everything has a cause, who/what caused <insert name of deity>" :rolleyes:

kelly1

oldrnwisr wrote: »

I wasn't referring to time in that context, I was referring to the set of all natural numbers or the set of all integers as I mentioned in my last post. They are examples of actual infinities (not that modern mathematics adheres to actual vs. potential infinities anymore).

In what context were you referring to time?

And what has replaced actual vs potential infinities?

oldrnwisr wrote: »

On what basis do you claim this? Why must a beginning be literally nothing.

I claim this based on pure logic. The opposite of nothing is something. If there was always something, then you have no beginning. If you move from nothing to something, you have a beginning.

Time is a facet of our current universe. It's not independent of it. So it's not correct to speak about anything before the Big Bang. Our physical universe began 13 billion years ago.

Agreed.

Before that time the universe, such as it was, existed as a hot dense energy state. There's nothing to suggest that that state had a beginning of it's own. It may have existed infinitely far in the past, if you could call it infinite. Or it could be the heat death of a previous universe. The same energy could be cycling over and over forever condensing into matter and then evaporating like ripples on a pond.

That's not a beginning, that's a change of the state of something. "hot dense energy" is something, not nothing.

Why must the universe have had a beginning from absolute nothingness?

I've explained this a few times.

Why does the singularity which preceded our physical universe need a creator?

Did the singularity always exist or did it come from nothing?

magicbastarder

you're arguing that if the universe had a beginning, it must have had a cause, if i understand?

but if i were to ask what caused a radioactive isotope of uranium to decay into lead and a bunch of other particles, what would you describe as being the cause for this? i.e. what caused that particular atom to decay at that particular time?

kelly1

magicbastarder wrote: »

you're arguing that if the universe had a beginning, it must have had a cause, if i understand?

I am

but if i were to ask what caused a radioactive isotope of uranium to decay into lead and a bunch of other particles, what would you describe as being the cause for this? i.e. what caused that particular atom to decay at that particular time?

A very good question but it's very hard to imagine why anything would happen without a cause. Surely some state must change to allow the decay to happen, I just don't get it.

Having said that, a universe is very different to a single atom.

magicbastarder

is it? if an atom decaying can show that something can happen without a cause - which is pretty much what quantum mechanics is based on - how does this not inform our entire worldview on whether things need a cause to happen?

magicbastarder

denying the reality of quantum mechanics (which means denying the reality of how the device you're using to post to boards works) means insisting that every quantum event has a distinct cause. which begs the question - who or what is causing this? because - in the absence of a logical argument - you'd be extending the hand of god from simply tipping the ball to roll off the hill at the big bang, to suggesting god - or something else - has a hand in every single quantum event in the universe. which is a mind boggling concept. i've had a few beers now, but by gum, that's a phenomenal concept - and it has awe inspiring consequences for concepts of free will and determinism.

kelly1

magicbastarder wrote: »

is it? if an atom decaying can show that something can happen without a cause - which is pretty much what quantum mechanics is based on - how does this not inform our entire worldview on whether things need a cause to happen?

Maybe there is a cause we don't know about? Are we so certain that there is absolutely no cause?

Quantum mechanics is the only situation where cause is questionable.

If big bangs can result from quantum "processes", why haven't we seen big bangs within our own universe over the past 13.7m years. Seems like a *rather* rare event! Think of how much matter we have in the universe and how much time we've had. Makes no sense to me.

magicbastarder

kelly1 wrote: »

Maybe there is a cause we don't know about? Are we so certain that there is absolutely no cause?

let's say there is a cause. is it a deterministic mechanical process? or a supernatural, 'creator' led process. which idea do you prefer?

magicbastarder

kelly1 wrote: »

Seems like a *rather* rare event!

'rare' is an odd word to use in the context of something which happened before the concept of time existed; or which created the concept of time.

RichieO

I believe we are here to help others, what the others are here for, I have absolutely no idea, but seriously kelly, why are you here and what is your objective, what are you trying to achieve?... Why ask a group that is unified in the belief that your god does not exist, whereas all religions are split in their beliefs and so-called christians are split into more groups than all others combined and you appear to trying add one more...

I repeat.

You cannot be a “good Christian” without cherry picking the hell out of the bible, and changing most of it to fit in with current scientific facts and ever changing moral issues… When you cherry pick your religion, you are more or less forced to cherry pick science, the end result is you create your own reality in which you are happy to live…

smacl

Good is very loose adjective there, could you be a bit more specific? It could infer kindness, honesty, generosity of the person who is Christian, or it could refer to zeal in that the person is good at being a Christian, whatever that might or might not entail. I get that an excess of zeal can interfere with open mindedness needed for scientific endeavour, not the mention looking after the best interests others due to adhering rigidly to medieval moral standards. Good Christian could also be a sarcastic reference to a religious nut job.

oldrnwisr

kelly1 wrote: »

In what context were you referring to time?

In the vernacular or common usage sense of an actual infinite process which is non-terminating as opposed to a potentially finite process which may or may not have an endpoint. I understand now that you were using actual vs. potential in the strict mathematical sense.

kelly1 wrote: »

And what has replaced actual vs potential infinities?

In modern mathematics, according to Zermelo-Fraenkel set theory there is no distinction between actual and potential infinities. The theory contains an axiom of infinity which states:




"In words, there is a set I (the set which is postulated to be infinite), such that the empty set is in I and such that whenever any x is a member of I, the set formed by taking the union of x with its singleton {x} is also a member of I. Such a set is sometimes called an inductive set."


In this set theory both actual and potential infinities can be extracted from the infinite set and therefore there is no need for a distinction between them.

kelly1 wrote: »

I claim this based on pure logic. The opposite of nothing is something. If there was always something, then you have no beginning. If you move from nothing to something, you have a beginning.

But we can't say if there was a beginning according to your terms because there's no point where we can show or suggest that there was actually nothing in the sense you use it. Our spacetime began at the Big Bang but before this there was a singularity a hot, dense energy state. Not nothing.

kelly1 wrote: »

That's not a beginning, that's a change of the state of something. "hot dense energy" is something, not nothing.

Agreed. But you can't show that there must have been a beginning either physically or logically because we're talking about a phenomenon outside time so talking about before and after is meaningless.

kelly1 wrote: »

Did the singularity always exist or did it come from nothing?

As far as we can tell, the singularity always existed.


Now, while we're here:

kelly1 wrote: »

A very good question but it's very hard to imagine why anything would happen without a cause. Surely some state must change to allow the decay to happen, I just don't get it.

Having said that, a universe is very different to a single atom.

Yes, something must change but that doesn't necessarily require some deity or being to make that change happen. It may happen naturalistically like a quantum event.
Yes, it's very hard to imagine and I understand that you don't get it. But that's what other posters have been saying throughout this thread. If there's something you don't understand you should try to understand it better. If, after studying the matter, a satisfactory understanding still eludes you then the only honest position is to say I don't know what happened. You shouldn't opt for an easy answer which only plugs that gap and is not inferred by other external evidence.

kelly1 wrote: »

If big bangs can result from quantum "processes", why haven't we seen big bangs within our own universe over the past 13.7m years. Seems like a *rather* rare event! Think of how much matter we have in the universe and how much time we've had. Makes no sense to me.

Big Bangs haven't happened in our own universe because nowhere within our universe is there a place where the conditions before the big bang are present. Before the big bang was a singularity, an energy state of zero size and infinite temperature which inflated, cooled and condensed into the matter and energy we see in our universe. Matter was created in/by the Big Bang, the Big bang didn't come from pre-existing matter.

RichieO

It would appear all discussions have moved to moot point, which I cannot see resolving any of the original points, we are not in a position to gain a great deal even if we had explanations for what preceded the big bang or the infinity quandary... So far this thread has revealed more about the differences in basic thought approaches... Science may not have all the answers yet but the search is on, whereas religion claims to have all the answers but in reality, has none...

robindch

kelly1 wrote: »

Maybe there is a cause we don't know about? Are we so certain that there is absolutely no cause? Quantum mechanics is the only situation where cause is questionable.

Not the only one. You've already "defined" that your own particular deity doesn't have a cause.

kelly1 wrote: »

f big bangs can result from quantum "processes", why haven't we seen big bangs within our own universe over the past 13.7m years. [...] Makes no sense to me.

If it makes no sense to you, have you considered the possibility - however remote it might be - that you don't understand quantum mechanics well enough to be able to judge it?

magicbastarder

robindch wrote: »

have you considered the possibility - however remote it might be - that you don't understand quantum mechanics

a richard feynman quote comes whispering to mind.

MrPudding

magicbastarder wrote: »

a richard feynman quote comes whispering to mind.

We don’t need to bother Richard with this one, Dunning-Kruger will do the trick.

MrP

kelly1

Guys, haven't forgotten about ye. Will revert asap.

RichieO

Quote:
Originally Posted by kelly1 View Post
If big bangs can result from quantum "processes", why haven't we seen big bangs within our own universe over the past 13.7m years. Seems like a *rather* rare event! Think of how much matter we have in the universe and how much time we've had. Makes no sense to me.

Big Bangs haven't happened in our own universe because nowhere within our universe is there a place where the conditions before the big bang are present. Before the big bang was a singularity, an energy state of zero size and infinite temperature which inflated, cooled and condensed into the matter and energy we see in our universe. Matter was created in/by the Big Bang, the Big bang didn't come from pre-existing matter.

With my limited knowledge, I cannot imagine a big bang (creation event) being observable from any point, not even a remote possibility...

Harika

RichieO wrote: »

With my limited knowledge, I cannot imagine a big bang (creation event) being observable from any point, not even a remote possibility...

There is a hypothesis that the voids and gaps in the map of the universe are actually other universes (probably from other big bangs) footprints touching our universe. ofc that is not observable.

RichieO

Harika wrote: »

There is a hypothesis that the voids and gaps in the map of the universe are actually other universes (probably from other big bangs) footprints touching our universe. ofc that is not observable.

I feel our knowledge base and perspective are way too limited, even our best guesses may not even be in the ballpark on that one....:cool:

Nature hates voids, and so do we, we need the how, why, where and when for for everything, curious lot are we not?

recedite

kelly1 wrote: »

- How can matter produce consciousness? Is the quark self-aware?

I have been eyeing two tubs of quark in our fridge suspiciously for a while now, since the OH brought them home as some exotic new food.
Now I am even more wary of them.

kelly1

oldrnwisr wrote: »

I wasn't referring to time in that context, I was referring to the set of all natural numbers or the set of all integers as I mentioned in my last post. They are examples of actual infinities (not that modern mathematics adheres to actual vs. potential infinities anymore).

As you know, it's impossible to count to infinity so it's a purely mathematical
concept which isn't precisely defined. Just as 1/0 isn't defined.

Getting back to time, if time began (T0) and progresses at a finite pace, the number of seconds will increase without limit. There never comes a time where you actually reach infinity.

Btw, I used the wrong terminology earlier when I wrote about limits and asymptotes. I'm guessing you would have picked up on that.

oldrnwisr wrote: »

On what basis do you claim this? Why must a beginning be literally nothing. Time is a facet of ourc current universe. It's not independent of it. So it's not correct to speak about anything before the Big Bang. Our physical universe began 13 billion years ago. Before that time the universe, such as it was, existed as a hot dense energy state. There's nothing to suggest that that state had a beginning of it's own. It may have existed infinitely far in the past, if you could call it infinite. Or it could be the heat death of a previous universe. The same energy could be cycling over and over forever condensing into matter and then evaporating like ripples on a pond.
Why must the universe have had a beginning from absolute nothingness? Why does the singularity which preceded our physical universe need a creator?

ok, this is a new concept for me, I must admit. i.e. that the singularity existed, possibly eternally, "before" the big bang. My current understanding is that the singularity came out of nothingness, from the void.

But I still think you're left with the question of the possibility of actual infinities (which I don't accept) and the 2nd law of thermodynamics (assuming laws don't change between bounces).

kelly1

I just read this passage from an article by Russ Bush (no idea who he is).

"[In the naturalistic framework], reason is not really and independent evaluative process that can critique itself. Reason is only what the chemistry allows through self-arrangement and self-organization, and the shaping of logic and rationality and grammatical language is merely a chance result of an undesigned process that has no necessary relation to truth or meaning. All truth could be merely a pragmatically qualified set of ideas. No intrinsic truth would exist, and yet naturalists claim that naturalism itself is true. But how could that claim avoid the inevitable skeptical conclusion. Nothing can be known for sure to be objectively true, for there is no standard other than the chemical pattern one happens to be using at the time. Why should be reason be trusted? How could naturalism be known to be true? The answer is, it can't."

robindch

Russ Bush wrote:

Nothing can be known for sure to be objectively true, for there is no standard other than the chemical pattern one happens to be using at the time. Why should be reason be trusted? How could naturalism be known to be true? The answer is, it can't.

A position of the purest - wonky - nihilism which accurately reflects the empty philosophical confidence which one can have in a system in which one believes one can "define" whatever facts you want.

Just because the religious are inventing stuff out of whole cloth - that doesn't mean that everybody else is too.