Time is finite and uncreated. - McCulloch

[Dr.Physics]

this is an awesome explination of why time is finite and uncreated that i think everyone should read. thanks McCulloch :]...

the argument i want to make, is that:
if time is uncreated (and therefore space), god therefore COULD not create the universe.
this is not necessarily what McCulloch argued for (maybe he does?), but thats what i am... enjoy!

McCulloch's work starts here VVV
[first, lets get some definitions out of the way:]

"Let's start with an easy one. Destroyed. To have been destroyed means that at one time the entity in question existed and at a subsequent time, the entity in question did not exist. This can apply to real physical things, my car was destroyed in the collision. Not that the matter that made up the car no longer exists, but that it is now not in a form that could be called a car. It can also be applied to more abstract entities. My feeling of confidence in other drivers was destroyed by the destruction of the car.
Now the flip side: Created. To have been created means that at one time the entity in question did not exist and at a subsequent time, the entity did exist.

Now, can we ask if time could be created or destroyed. No, we cannot. It is absurd. For time itself to have been created, there would have to be a time when there was no time. This is a contradiction. Time itself is uncreated. And, according to general relativity time and space are equivalent. So if space is finite then time is finite. Space is expanding. Therefore, space is finite in that something that is infinite cannot be simultaneously be getting bigger. Therefore, time is finite.

Time is finite and uncreated.

[JehovahsWitness]

Seems like someone it twisting themselves into all kinds of loops to avoid the inevitable: there is no avoiding the existence of "first cause": Time* is a concept that only exist (or is relevant) within the confines of a physical universe, thus both time and the universe is by necessity finite (the word "finite" means 'had a beginning'). And...

1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause.
2. The Universe (and time) began to exist.
3. Therefore, the Universe (and time) had a cause.

That "cause" must by definition exist outside of time (since time is finite) thus we have a "first cause" that had no beginning (irrelevant) and no end (equally irrelevent), ie an infinite "first cause" of the universe/time.

One man's "FC" is another man's "god".

*space is not "nothing" space (and time) apparenly are affected by the bodys it contains.

[LiamOS]

1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause.

What causes virtual particles to exist?

Seems like someone it twisting themselves into all kinds of loops to avoid the inevitable: there is no avoiding the existence of "first cause"

It's easily avoided, and given our current understanding of physics it should actively be avoided until there is any basis in this idea.

[realthinker]

this is an awesome explination of why time is finite and uncreated that i think everyone should read. thanks McCulloch :]...

the argument i want to make, is that:
if time is uncreated (and therefore space), god therefore COULD not create the universe.
this is not necessarily what McCulloch argued for (maybe he does?), but thats what i am... enjoy!

McCulloch's work starts here VVV
[first, lets get some definitions out of the way:]

"Let's start with an easy one. Destroyed. To have been destroyed means that at one time the entity in question existed and at a subsequent time, the entity in question did not exist. This can apply to real physical things, my car was destroyed in the collision. Not that the matter that made up the car no longer exists, but that it is now not in a form that could be called a car. It can also be applied to more abstract entities. My feeling of confidence in other drivers was destroyed by the destruction of the car.
Now the flip side: Created. To have been created means that at one time the entity in question did not exist and at a subsequent time, the entity did exist.

Now, can we ask if time could be created or destroyed. No, we cannot. It is absurd. For time itself to have been created, there would have to be a time when there was no time. This is a contradiction. Time itself is uncreated. And, according to general relativity time and space are equivalent. So if space is finite then time is finite. Space is expanding. Therefore, space is finite in that something that is infinite cannot be simultaneously be getting bigger. Therefore, time is finite.

Time is finite and uncreated.

The fact that time and space and matter are all interrelated and because our real sampling of the universe is so small, I feel that we, as a species, have only a weak grasp on the true nature of time. I expect that as we get more than a few hundred thousand miles from the surface of Earth and start solving larger problems our perspective of time and space will change. It's nothing more than a feeling, but the problems that time causes makes me think there's an elegant answer yet to be found.

[bernee51]

Seems like someone it twisting themselves into all kinds of loops to avoid the inevitable: there is no avoiding the existence of "first cause": Time* is a concept that only exist (or is relevant) within the confines of a physical universe, thus both time and the universe is by necessity finite (the word "finite" means 'had a beginning'). And...

1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause.

Proof please.

2. The Universe (and time) began to exist.

Please demonstrate that the universe cannot have, in some shape or form, always existed and will always exist.

Please demonstrate when 'now' has never existed.

3. Therefore, the Universe (and time) had a cause.

A conclusion based on faulty or unproved propositions wil always be suspect.

[realthinker]

Seems like someone it twisting themselves into all kinds of loops to avoid the inevitable: there is no avoiding the existence of "first cause": Time* is a concept that only exist (or is relevant) within the confines of a physical universe, thus both time and the universe is by necessity finite (the word "finite" means 'had a beginning'). And...

1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause.

Proof please.

2. The Universe (and time) began to exist.

Please demonstrate that the universe cannot have, in some shape or form, always existed and will always exist.

Please demonstrate when 'now' has never existed.

With the link we've come to understand (sort of) between space and time and gravity plus the notion that the universe is ever expanding, might "now" be a factor of space as well as time?

Were space to be infinitely small and masses infinitely huge due to the resulting density, might it be that "now" has no meaning? Now is a point on the gradient of space and time. If there is no gradient, is there a "now"?

3. Therefore, the Universe (and time) had a cause.

A conclusion based on faulty or unproved propositions wil always be suspect.

[Flail]

realthinker wrote:

The fact that time and space and matter are all interrelated and because our real sampling of the universe is so small, I feel that we, as a species, have only a weak grasp on the true nature of time. I expect that as we get more than a few hundred thousand miles from the surface of Earth and start solving larger problems our perspective of time and space will change. It's nothing more than a feeling, but the problems that time causes makes me think there's an elegant answer yet to be found.

Agreed. We are barely 'off the doorstep' when it comes to exploring the depths of the universe. Given this, it seem ridiculous to proclaim that we understand what a 'God'(first cause) would be, let alone the infinite finiteness of time and space. To those who claim that before the first cause their was no time or space, we can simply ask..."when and where" was that? The very concept of first cause implies a 'before' , wherein there must have been a 'where and a when'...and thus space(where) and time(when)...

[JoeyKnothead]

From Post 5:

I like how bernee51 gets right to it...

'

1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause.

Proof please.

I think this is one of those notions that just seems logical, while there is little to no evidence in its support.

We often look at the universe in relation to the Big Bang, while we are relatively incapable of determining what form the universe may have held before, and for how long.

Please demonstrate when 'now' has never existed.

Brilliant.

3. Therefore, the Universe (and time) had a cause.

A conclusion based on faulty or unproved propositions wil always be suspect.

The faulty or unproven proposition here, for those with even less schooling than me, is that we simply do not, and likely can not know what form the universe may have taken in the past.

Instead we fill this gap with a yet another unproven, unprovable notion.

[Board]

Agreed. We are barely 'off the doorstep' when it comes to exploring the depths of the universe. Given this, it seem ridiculous to proclaim that we understand what a 'God'(first cause) would be, let alone the infinite finiteness of time and space. To those who claim that before the first cause their was no time or space, we can simply ask..."when and where" was that? The very concept of first cause implies a 'before' , wherein there must have been a 'where and a when'...and thus space(where) and time(when)...

Here is a quote from Hawking on this topic:

Hubble's observations suggested that there was a time, called the big bang, when the universe was infinitesimally small and infinitely dense. Under such conditions all the laws of science, and therefore all ability to predict the future, would break down. If there were events earlier than this time, then they could not affect what happens at the present time. Their existence can be ignored because it would have no onservational consequences. One may say that time had a beginning at the big bang, in the sense that earlier times simply would not be defined. It should be emphasized that this beginning in time is very different from those that had been considered previously. In an unchanging universe a beginning in time is something that has to be imposed by some being outside the universe; there is no physical necessity for a beginning. One can imagine that God created the universe at literally any time in the past. On the other hand, if the universe is expanding, there may be physical reasons why there had to be a beginning. One could imagine that God created the universe at the instant of the big bang, or even afterwards in just such a way as to make it look as though there had been a big bang, but it would be meaningless to suppose that it was created before the big bang. An expanding universe does not preclude a creator, but it does place limits on when he might have carried out his job! [Stephen Hawking, A Brief History of Time (New York: Bantam, 1988), pp. 8-9.]

From what I can gather he is basically saying time before the big bang (if it existed) is irrelevant. Not saying that time did not exist prior at all, just that if it did and if something existed it bears no meaning to the universe as it exists today.

I also like how in his earlier writings like this he leaves the door open for religious reasons for existence but limits the space they can play in. Of course the rings of a tree argument will continue to exist which he alludes to.

[Flail]

Agreed. We are barely 'off the doorstep' when it comes to exploring the depths of the universe. Given this, it seem ridiculous to proclaim that we understand what a 'God'(first cause) would be, let alone the infinite finiteness of time and space. To those who claim that before the first cause their was no time or space, we can simply ask..."when and where" was that? The very concept of first cause implies a 'before' , wherein there must have been a 'where and a when'...and thus space(where) and time(when)...

Here is a quote from Hawking on this topic:

Hubble's observations suggested that there was a time, called the big bang, when the universe was infinitesimally small and infinitely dense. Under such conditions all the laws of science, and therefore all ability to predict the future, would break down. If there were events earlier than this time, then they could not affect what happens at the present time. Their existence can be ignored because it would have no onservational consequences. One may say that time had a beginning at the big bang, in the sense that earlier times simply would not be defined. It should be emphasized that this beginning in time is very different from those that had been considered previously. In an unchanging universe a beginning in time is something that has to be imposed by some being outside the universe; there is no physical necessity for a beginning. One can imagine that God created the universe at literally any time in the past. On the other hand, if the universe is expanding, there may be physical reasons why there had to be a beginning. One could imagine that God created the universe at the instant of the big bang, or even afterwards in just such a way as to make it look as though there had been a big bang, but it would be meaningless to suppose that it was created before the big bang. An expanding universe does not preclude a creator, but it does place limits on when he might have carried out his job! [Stephen Hawking, A Brief History of Time (New York: Bantam, 1988), pp. 8-9.]

From what I can gather he is basically saying time before the big bang (if it existed) is irrelevant. Not saying that time did not exist prior at all, just that if it did and if something existed it bears no meaning to the universe as it exists today.

I also like how in his earlier writings like this he leaves the door open for religious reasons for existence but limits the space they can play in. Of course the rings of a tree argument will continue to exist which he alludes to.

I have this Hawking on CD and will listen again...thanks for reminding me...I suppose almost anything is possible...which is what makes science and philosophy so compelling...and monotheism so not....