God and time...

[Corvus]

This topic began in the Creationism vs Evolution forum when I challenged a statement by An Observer:

Time had to begin. To say otherwise is to say that time had no beginning, and that is the same as saying that the "beginning" of time was infinitely far in the past! But that does not make sense. If the "beginning" of time was infinitely far in the past, then the time required to get from the "beginning" of time to this point in time would be infinite! And we could never have gotten to this point in time! But, we are here at this point in time! Therefore, time had to have a beginning, that was not infinitely far in the past.

I have to hand it to you, Observer, you almost convinced me there, and that is a significantly rare occurence. But I still thought the argument flawed in a way, but I did not know how. Only now, several days later, did my subconscious brain discover why.

The reason I believe your argument is flawed is because it hangs finite time on an infinite clothesline. God would have to create, at one point in time in an existence where time does not exist, a timed narrative, and how could a timed narrative exist when it is part of a larger timeless narrative? And how does a timeless narrative exist coherently at all?

The common response to the argument of first causes is; "what caused the First Cause (God)?" The common answer is; "God is infinite and he exists outside of time, thus not requiring a cause". I believe this overlooks a step, and that is, the question of what caused the First Cause to cause an effect at all . If God is infinite and time has no meaning to him, what is the cause of his intent to create earth, and how does this required cause exist at all in chronological vacuum? The cause of the act of creating would have to exist at one point in non-time and not another. Phrased in the clearest way possible, I am asking; What provoked the First Cause to be the first cause? This may deserve its own topic.

His response:

......

The reason I believe your argument is flawed is because it hangs finite time on an infinite clothesline. God would have to create, at one point in time in an existence where time does not exist, a timed narrative, and how could a timed narrative exist when it is part of a larger timeless narrative? And how does a timeless narrative exist coherently at all?

.......

Maybe this does deserve its own topic .... but ... for the time being let me say that the "infinite clothsline" you reference is not made out of time! It is made out of logic (part of the nature of God).



To assert that there was a point in time when time did not exist is to assert the contradiction that:
1) time existed
and
2) time did not exist,
both at the same time.
The contradiction proves the assertion to be false.

Now, I certainly do not have all the details of how and why God created space and time (there are many mature theological explanations developed over the ages). However, I do know that space has no meaning without time, and time has no meaning without space. Time is measured via movement and changes of physical things. Physical changes are measured via time. Space and time are, in a sense, the same thing.

I also know that logic is not dependent upon the physical universe (space and time), but the physical universe (space and time) is dependent upon logic (among other things).

There are prerequisites of the physical universe, in the same way that the concept of a side of a triangle is a prerequisite of the concept of a triangle. The concept of the side is not necessarily temporally before the concept of a triangle. It is logically before the concept of a triangle. But, the concept of a triangle is not necessary for there to be a concept of a side. Therefore the concept of a side is a foundational to the triangle, not the other way around.

In the same way, logic is a prerequisite to the physical universe. The physical universe (space and time) is not a prerequisite to logic (part of the nature of God). God created the universe out of nothing (no space, time), not the other way around.

The question; Is God as a first cause a logical answer to the creation of the universe?

[An Observer]

I don't claim to know how God existed outside of time. I only claim to know that existence outside of time must be possible in order for there to be time. The source of time must be outside of time.

Not if time is a coordinate function given meaning by observers within a particular frame of reference.

If time is as you say, aren't you saying that existence is not limited by time?

(As a related note, have you ever heard of Godel's Theorem?)

Which of Gdel's theorems is related to time?

The one that asserts that any system of ideas, that is as least as complicated as arithmetic, the very consistency of a system cannot be proven within the system. It supports the idea that one must look outside of temporal causality to find the source of temporal causality.

Everything in time must be logically coherent because time is built on logic and causality. But, logical coherence is not built on time. Logic is a prerequisite of time, not the other way around.

Logic is a tool of language used to put boundaries on statements. Are you able to demonstrate the existence of any axiomatic logical system which predates and/or is independent of language?

Regards,
mrmufin

Are you suggesting that language is a pre-requisite of logic? In other words, are you suggesting that:
if two bodies collide and exchange kinetic energy, the collision is real only if someone is there to articulate what happened? Clearly that does not make sense. Many logical realities existed before human language.

Logic clearly predates human language. Language, however, is not independent of logic. Yet, that does not mean that logic is dependent upon language.

I assure you. Logic is a pre-requisite of language, not the other way around.

[The Happy Humanist]

Everything in time must be logically coherent because time is built on logic and causality. But, logical coherence is not built on time. Logic is a prerequisite of time, not the other way around.

Logic is a tool of language used to put boundaries on statements. Are you able to demonstrate the existence of any axiomatic logical system which predates and/or is independent of language?

Regards,
mrmufin

Are you suggesting that language is a pre-requisite of logic? In other words, are you suggesting that:
if two bodies collide and exchange kinetic energy, the collision is real only if someone is there to articulate what happened? Clearly that does not make sense. Many logical realities existed before human language.

Logic clearly predates human language. Language, however, is not independent of logic. Yet, that does not mean that logic is dependent upon language.

I assure you. Logic is a pre-requisite of language, not the other way around.

I must agree with the Observer. In fact, I applaud him for recognizing not only that the rules of logic exist independent of our ability to articulate them, but that said rules must apply to any beings, natural or supernatural. Too many theists get trapped in the mire of claiming that their God is above logic, which effectively terminates any debates one might have on the subject. He astutely recognizes that the fundamental law of logic, to wit, that something cannot both exist and not exist at the same time. Not even an all-powerful deity can pull that one off.

Furthermore, I think we are getting needlessly bogged down in this endless, circular discussion of the nature of time. While I agree with the argument put forth earlier, that a willed creation requires a timeline - conceptualization, decision, execution, each of which must precede the other and hence require an envelope in which events can precede one another - none of us can make any positive statements about what a pre-Big Bang timeline would entail. And besides, it's not necessary. The Observer has given us a couple of other "outs."

First, he admits in another thread (sorry, I don't know how to incorporate quotes from other threads yet) that there are situations where a seeming contradiction can be labelled a "paradox," and set aside until such time as we refine our model. In other words, our current logic is baffled by the paradoxes we see in Quantum Mechanics, but there is nothing wrong with Logic, we are just deficient in its application. So he admits that there can be paradoxes, and he admits that future study may resolve them. (Stop me when you see where I'm going with this).

It is therefore possible, he tacitly admits, that his conclusion, i.e., that the Universe can only have been created willfully by a sentient supernatural being, may be based on flawed premises; i.e., ones that are based on our admittedly deficient human understanding of the laws of logic. "Only a Creator-God can pre-exist time itself" may be an invalid statement; indeed, I submit that it is, coming from a race of beings whose understanding of such things is meager at best. It may very well be true, but we have no right to say so at this stage.

Second, I reject the notion that the creation had to have been a "willful" act. There may be extant a "something" that has absolutely no sentience, but whose sole function is universe-creation. This something - let's call it, oh, say, an N-dimensional hypersphere - may exist in a dimension orthagonally opposed to our space-time continuum; indeed, it may exist in the "always" that is usually reserved for God. We cannot say that it can't. Let's say that if this object experiences a quantum fluctuation, a universe arises at the point of the fluctuation, which the observers inside the universe come to know as the center of a Big Bang. Just an hypothesis, mind you, but the idea is that we can conceive of such a thing, and it doesn't require sentience.

The bottom line is, we don't know what happened. "He who knows not, and knows not that he knows not, is the greatest fool."

Sorry if this post derails the discussion of time and puts us back in the old thread...

==JJS==

[An Observer]

.....

I must agree with the Observer. In fact, I applaud him for recognizing not only that the rules of logic exist independent of our ability to articulate them, but that said rules must apply to any beings, natural or supernatural. Too many theists get trapped in the mire of claiming that their God is above logic, which effectively terminates any debates one might have on the subject. He astutely recognizes that the fundamental law of logic, to wit, that something cannot both exist and not exist at the same time. Not even an all-powerful deity can pull that one off.

Furthermore, I think we are getting needlessly bogged down in this endless, circular discussion of the nature of time. While I agree with the argument put forth earlier, that a willed creation requires a timeline - conceptualization, decision, execution, each of which must precede the other and hence require an envelope in which events can precede one another - none of us can make any positive statements about what a pre-Big Bang timeline would entail. And besides, it's not necessary. The Observer has given us a couple of other "outs."

First, he admits in another thread (sorry, I don't know how to incorporate quotes from other threads yet) that there are situations where a seeming contradiction can be labelled a "paradox," and set aside until such time as we refine our model. In other words, our current logic is baffled by the paradoxes we see in Quantum Mechanics, but there is nothing wrong with Logic, we are just deficient in its application. So he admits that there can be paradoxes, and he admits that future study may resolve them. (Stop me when you see where I'm going with this).

so far, so good.

It is therefore possible, he tacitly admits, that his conclusion, i.e., that the Universe can only have been created willfully by a sentient supernatural being, may be based on flawed premises; i.e., ones that are based on our admittedly deficient human understanding of the laws of logic. "Only a Creator-God can pre-exist time itself" may be an invalid statement; indeed, I submit that it is, coming from a race of beings whose understanding of such things is meager at best. It may very well be true, but we have no right to say so at this stage.

It may be true, and it may be false. But, we not only have a right to presume it is true, we have a responsibility to presume it is true while allowing for the possibility it is false.

When we presume that non-contradictory conclusions are valid we retain the right to think.

When we presume that non-contradictory conclusions are invalid, we destroy the basis of all thought. And we assert that logically non-contradictory conclusions may be negated. In which case, we might just as well as give up on all inquisition in any and every subject. Because we have entered the world of meaninglessness, and nihilism, the negation of all logic.

When we presume that contradictory conclusions are invalid (save for a paradox), we retain the right to continue thinking. We retain trust in logic, but presume that our limited knowledge blinds us to what is really happening. This encourages us to continue inquisition into any and every subject. Because we trust that the world is meaningful and logical.

Second, I reject the notion that the creation had to have been a "willful" act. There may be extant a "something" that has absolutely no sentience, but whose sole function is universe-creation. This something - let's call it, oh, say, an N-dimensional hypersphere - may exist in a dimension orthagonally opposed to our space-time continuum; indeed, it may exist in the "always" that is usually reserved for God. We cannot say that it can't. Let's say that if this object experiences a quantum fluctuation, a universe arises at the point of the fluctuation, which the observers inside the universe come to know as the center of a Big Bang. Just an hypothesis, mind you, but the idea is that we can conceive of such a thing, and it doesn't require sentience.

The bottom line is, we don't know what happened. "He who knows not, and knows not that he knows not, is the greatest fool."

Sorry if this post derails the discussion of time and puts us back in the old thread...

==JJS==

I understand your point. I cannot prove my assertion that the creation of space-time was "willed". I admit that my assertion is a result of my inability to conceive of something greater being created out of nothing by something lesser. Assuming I am not simply acting out of mechanical causality, and I have the power to "will" certain things, it only makes sense to me that our creator has the power to "will".

[mrmufin]

I don't claim to know how God existed outside of time. I only claim to know that existence outside of time must be possible in order for there to be time. The source of time must be outside of time.

Not if time is a coordinate function given meaning by observers within a particular frame of reference.

If time is as you say, aren't you saying that existence is not limited by time?

I'm suggesting that time is not absolute. Measures of space and time are not the same in different uniform frames of reference. I'm suggesting that "existence outside of time" is, for every practical purpose, meaningless; sorta like "temperature below absolute zero."

(As a related note, have you ever heard of Godel's Theorem?)

Which of Gdel's theorems is related to time?

The one that asserts that any system of ideas, that is as least as complicated as arithmetic, the very consistency of a system cannot be proven within the system. It supports the idea that one must look outside of temporal causality to find the source of temporal causality.

I'm curious about your interpretation of Gödel's theorems if you think that they make any suggestions about "temporal causality." Gödel's theorems deal with the limitations of formal, axiomatizable systems of propositions, namely mathematics.

Everything in time must be logically coherent because time is built on logic and causality. But, logical coherence is not built on time. Logic is a prerequisite of time, not the other way around.

Logic is a tool of language used to put boundaries on statements. Are you able to demonstrate the existence of any axiomatic logical system which predates and/or is independent of language?

Are you suggesting that language is a pre-requisite of logic? In other words, are you suggesting that:
if two bodies collide and exchange kinetic energy, the collision is real only if someone is there to articulate what happened? Clearly that does not make sense. Many logical realities existed before human language.

Many realities existed before human language, indeed. Whether or not those realities are logical is inexpressable without language. There are a variety of different formal logical systems; not all will return the same output with the same input. Thus, whether or not an event or situation is "logical" is contingent upon the system of axioms through which it is viewed. In strict Euclidean terms, the interior angles of a triangle will always add up to 180 degrees. In three-dimensional realms, that's not the case. Which system of geometry is logical, and what criteria is used to make that determination?

Logic clearly predates human language. Language, however, is not independent of logic. Yet, that does not mean that logic is dependent upon language.

I assure you. Logic is a pre-requisite of language, not the other way around.

No, I'm considering axiomatic logical systems, not to be confused with a purely observational understanding of nature. Logic does not exist in any tangible, discernible, measurable form in the Universe; it has no mass, angular momentum, charge, etc. Logic exists in conceptual form --like trust, sympathy, love, etc.-- and those concepts are expressed, transfered, and given consistency within a language. Whether the language used is English, French, Perl, C++, calculus, etc. is purely academic. An axiomatic system is given its consistency under the auspices and limitations of a particular language. Language, logic, and mathematics are deeply intertwined.

Regards,
mrmufin

[An Observer]

I don't claim to know how God existed outside of time. I only claim to know that existence outside of time must be possible in order for there to be time. The source of time must be outside of time.

Not if time is a coordinate function given meaning by observers within a particular frame of reference.

If time is as you say, aren't you saying that existence is not limited by time?

I'm suggesting that time is not absolute. Measures of space and time are not the same in different uniform frames of reference. I'm suggesting that "existence outside of time" is, for every practical purpose, meaningless; sorta like "temperature below absolute zero."

Rate of passage of time is not absolute (this is also true dimensions of space in various reference frames). But time and space had an absolute beginning.

(As a related note, have you ever heard of Godel's Theorem?)

Which of Gdel's theorems is related to time?

The one that asserts that any system of ideas, that is as least as complicated as arithmetic, the very consistency of a system cannot be proven within the system. It supports the idea that one must look outside of temporal causality to find the source of temporal causality.

I'm curious about your interpretation of Gdel's theorems if you think that they make any suggestions about "temporal causality." Gdel's theorems deal with the limitations of formal, axiomatizable systems of propositions, namely mathematics.

space and time are filp sides of the same coin. Together they form a system. If it were possible to eventually model the universe with mathematics, it would be necessary to look out side the universe (space time) to discover the consistency of the system. .....

Everything in time must be logically coherent because time is built on logic and causality. But, logical coherence is not built on time. Logic is a prerequisite of time, not the other way around.

Logic is a tool of language used to put boundaries on statements. Are you able to demonstrate the existence of any axiomatic logical system which predates and/or is independent of language?

Are you suggesting that language is a pre-requisite of logic? In other words, are you suggesting that:
if two bodies collide and exchange kinetic energy, the collision is real only if someone is there to articulate what happened? Clearly that does not make sense. Many logical realities existed before human language.

Many realities existed before human language, indeed. Whether or not those realities are logical is inexpressable without language. There are a variety of different formal logical systems; not all will return the same output with the same input. Thus, whether or not an event or situation is "logical" is contingent upon the system of axioms through which it is viewed. In strict Euclidean terms, the interior angles of a triangle will always add up to 180 degrees. In three-dimensional realms, that's not the case. Which system of geometry is logical, and what criteria is used to make that determination?

The systems you are talking about are built on logic. Logic does not change based on the system that makes use of logic (geometric or otherwise). The systems you are talking about are not one and the same as logic. Logic is a prerequisite of each of the systems you reference. The systems you reference are not logic, they merely make use of logic. (I don't know how many different ways I have to say it).

Logic clearly predates human language. Language, however, is not independent of logic. Yet, that does not mean that logic is dependent upon language.

I assure you. Logic is a pre-requisite of language, not the other way around.

No, I'm considering axiomatic logical systems, not to be confused with a purely observational understanding of nature. Logic does not exist in any tangible, discernible, measurable form in the Universe; it has no mass, angular momentum, charge, etc. Logic exists in conceptual form --like trust, sympathy, love, etc.-- and those concepts are expressed, transfered, and given consistency within a language. Whether the language used is English, French, Perl, C++, calculus, etc. is purely academic. An axiomatic system is given its consistency under the auspices and limitations of a particular language. Language, logic, and mathematics are deeply intertwined.

Regards,
mrmufin

I agree with the section I highlighted above.
I disagree with what you write afterwards. I assure you, logic exists independent of your ability or anyone elses ability to conceive it or express it. Once you conceive of it, you can make use of it and build a language upon it. That language is, therefore, totaly dependent upon logic. Logic, however, is not dependent upon your ability to conceive of it, or on your ability to build a language upon it.

[Corvus]

Sorry for not getting back to you sooner, An Observer, but I took a short break for the holidays. Hopefully we can pick up where we left off.

.....

I think you missed my point. The big bang first started outside of time, when God decided to make such a thing. That would mean as soon as God first moved a finger, an event happened, narrative structure began, and so did God's Time, which is absolutely necessary, otherwise He would never get anywhere, much like your idea about time being infinitely far in the past.

I don't claim to know how God existed outside of time. I only claim to know that existence outside of time must be possible in order for there to be time. The source of time must be outside of time.

And I am challenging this because I don't see how you can make such a claim at all. Quite simply, I cannot understand "existence outside of time" It makes no sense to me at all, like "existence outside of mathematics". I am even sceptical of existence outside of matter, because is not matter (and by association, energy) the extent of an existence all humans can agree on? If things can logically exist outside of matter and energy, I have to wonder why matter and energy are used at all.

(As a related note, have you ever heard of Godel's Theorem?)

I have, but having heard of it is about the extent of my knowledge about it.

How can there be any coherence if events, even supernatural ones, happen without any narrative structure?

For "God" all time is simultaneous. We are locked in time, God is not locked in time. Coherence-of-events presumes time. Narrative-structure presumes time. We need time, for coherence of events and narrative structure. That does not mean that God needs time.

He would if his actions are to have any logical coherence. Doesn't the existence of a time that is simultaneously past, present and future invalidate the law of non-contradiction you just mentioned?

I don't think there is a violation.

Everything in time must be logically coherent because time is built on logic and causality. But, logical coherence is not built on time. Logic is a prerequisite of time, not the other way around.

I disagree. I think they are both dependent on each other. I believe without time, everything violates the law of non-contradiction. Without time, a butterfly can also be a caterpillar, a chair can be a tree, and a supreme being can be creating and destroying simultaneously.

But now we have a big problem. The creation of the earth is either an effect without a cause (as I argued when I asked what could have possibly provoked a being for whom time does not exist to create it),

I know of no effects in time without a cause. Therefore, the cause of time must be outside of or transcend time.... To get to the reasons as to why God would choose to create time, I think we need to start a new thread, since the reasons, I suspect, are beyond philosophy. I think the proper subject area would be theology.

Not at all. I believe they are a related matter, and trust me when I say that threads with specific topics have been allowed a great amount of leniency in the past, since questions that arrive in them usually they are related in such a way that to separate them would not allow any progress in the topic.

Choice is a curious word to use here, since, again, that presumes a narrative, and God requires no narrative.

But, regardless of what is God's actual intent, it is safe to say that nothing could have provoked him to create the universe. That desire would have had to come from himself. If it came from himself, then it would have had to always have existed, like him, and if it had to have always existed, that is enough to say, as you claim is an illogical impossibility, that the beginning of time is infinitely far in the past.

"Choice" necessarily implies "will" and logical coherence,..... but not necessarily time and temporal causality!

I disagree. "Choice" implies an outcome, and another name for an outcome is an effect. This is causality. And all causality is temporal or in the temporal realm, because all causality is a series of events, which is exactly what we call time.

Choice also implies a temporal location where the need to choose has been established. It needs not only a future, which is an outcome, but also a past, which are the circumstances where choosing to do something is made a choice.

OR earth is logically necessary to a being who exists without time, which is to say when the being came into existence, so too did the earth, and since the being has always existed, voila, so too does the logical necessity of the earth. Saying the infinite clothesline is logic doesn't change a thing.

If you measure the existence of God via the dimension of time, then you would think that God came into existence when time began. Your measurements began when time began, and God was there, necessarily. And, you have no means of measuring "before" time. In other words, you cannot accurately measure something infinite with something finite!

But I am not measuring the existence of God via the dimension of time. I am saying that a volition cannot exist at one point in non-time and not in another. So the volition must exist at all times. Something infinite that exists without time can only logically create something infinite. Otherwise his actions in creating time only make him subject to a narrative that most certainly cannot exist in his special case.

The above paragraph is not clear to me. It is not clear to me that something infinite can only create something infinite.

For the part about volition, I don't know how to make it any clearer. I rephrase it slightly in the post you quoted below. If it's only the part about something infinite only creating something infinite that's unclear, my reasoning is that an infinite being creating something finite, with a beginning which it itself never had, calls into question the infiniteness of the being.

I am an infinite being alone in the universe (er, or the absence of a universe). I'm hungry. But if this is the case, being infinite, wouldn't I have always been hungry? How can my hunger have beginning or end if it exists within me, who has always existed? How can any of my actions have a beginning or end if there is nothing linear about them?

Time is a necessary feature of the the physical universe. But it is not clear to me that the physical universe has to exist!!!!! The physical universe is not a necessary component of all that is.

But the universe does exist, as you claim, by the desire of a God. And since it exists, it is necessary for it to exist. It certainly could not come about by accident or in response to something else. And since it is necessary to exist, it must exist at all times.

I agree that the universe (space and matter) existed at all times. I do not agree that time encapsulates all of existence.

Neither do I - at least not in a strict understanding of the word "encapsulate". But I do believe time is a required component of the universe, and it appears you agree, as you stated in the post I originally quoted (bolded above), which is almost a contradiction of the post to which I am responding.

[The Happy Humanist]

I knew there was a thread floating around somewhere that I hadn't gotten back to!

It is therefore possible, he tacitly admits, that his conclusion, i.e., that the Universe can only have been created willfully by a sentient supernatural being, may be based on flawed premises; i.e., ones that are based on our admittedly deficient human understanding of the laws of logic. "Only a Creator-God can pre-exist time itself" may be an invalid statement; indeed, I submit that it is, coming from a race of beings whose understanding of such things is meager at best. It may very well be true, but we have no right to say so at this stage.

It may be true, and it may be false. But, we not only have a right to presume it is true, we have a responsibility to presume it is true while allowing for the possibility it is false.

Why?

When we presume that non-contradictory conclusions are valid we retain the right to think.

Presuming it to be valid and presuming it to be true are two very different things!

When we presume that non-contradictory conclusions are invalid, we destroy the basis of all thought. And we assert that logically non-contradictory conclusions may be negated. In which case, we might just as well as give up on all inquisition in any and every subject. Because we have entered the world of meaninglessness, and nihilism, the negation of all logic.

True, a little overstated, but true...but of course, I'm not claiming (for purposes of this discussion, at least) that the proposition, "Only a Creator-God can pre-exist time itself" is intinsically invalid, only that our acceptance of it as truth is invalid, for we know absolutely nothing about anything that can pre-exist time itself. It is valid as a proposition; it is not valid as a conclusion...yet.

Second, I reject the notion that the creation had to have been a "willful" act. There may be extant a "something" that has absolutely no sentience, but whose sole function is universe-creation. This something - let's call it, oh, say, an N-dimensional hypersphere - may exist in a dimension orthagonally opposed to our space-time continuum; indeed, it may exist in the "always" that is usually reserved for God. We cannot say that it can't. Let's say that if this object experiences a quantum fluctuation, a universe arises at the point of the fluctuation, which the observers inside the universe come to know as the center of a Big Bang. Just an hypothesis, mind you, but the idea is that we can conceive of such a thing, and it doesn't require sentience.

The bottom line is, we don't know what happened. "He who knows not, and knows not that he knows not, is the greatest fool."

Sorry if this post derails the discussion of time and puts us back in the old thread...

==JJS==

I understand your point. I cannot prove my assertion that the creation of space-time was "willed". I admit that my assertion is a result of my inability to conceive of something greater being created out of nothing by something lesser.

"Greater" and "lesser" sound a little subjective to me, in this context. This hypersphere may be a small part of something greater; indeed, it may be something unimaginably vast, perhaps an infinite series of such hyperspheres, creating universes willy-nilly in some kind of Extra-Cosmic Jukebox, all of it existing without beginning or end, and none of it any more sentient than a doorknob.

Again, not an argument against God, just an argument against the necessity of God. That is, after all, the crux of the matter. The typical materialist does not posit that there cannot be a God, just that there does not need to be a God. We've succeeded in winnowing down his domain, gap by gap, to the very last gap, Cosmology, and once there, a simple "we don't know" suffices to obviate the necessity of his being. At least, I think so...cuz, don't forget....I don't know!

[bernee51]

This topic began in the Creationism vs Evolution forum when I challenged a statement by An Observer:

Time had to begin. To say otherwise is to say that time had no beginning, and that is the same as saying that the "beginning" of time was infinitely far in the past! But that does not make sense. If the "beginning" of time was infinitely far in the past, then the time required to get from the "beginning" of time to this point in time would be infinite! And we could never have gotten to this point in time! But, we are here at this point in time! Therefore, time had to have a beginning, that was not infinitely far in the past.

I have to hand it to you, Observer, you almost convinced me there,

Me too..I had to think about it...then came Xmas, then a tsunami (changed travel plans, lackof acccess to a 'puter et al)

Is it possible to accept that time wil continue ad infinitum (future) but not into the past?

In one respect it correct to say that we could not arrive at this point of time. This point of time is NOW and it is always now...no arriving necessary. The point of time an instant ago no longer exists, not does the next instant yet exist. To argue that we are contantly arriving is fallacious in that one must arrive from somewhere...we do not. We are constantly existing in NOW.

NOW is infinite in size and is all that exists. It does not need to be created - it IS.

Sounds like someones defintion of god

[TQWcS]

Is God's eternity to be construed as timeless or temporal? Given that the universe began to exist, a relational view of time suggests that time also began to exist. God's existence "prior to" or sans creation would not entail the existence of time if God in such a state is changeless. But if God sustains real relations with the world, the co-existence of God and the world imply that God is temporal subsequent to the moment of creation. Given the superiority of a relational over a non-relational (Newtonian) view of time, God ought to be considered as timeless sans creation and temporal subsequent to creation.

[potwalloper.]

The law of non-contradiction is a (actually it is THE) most basic law of philosophy.

To put it simply, it states:

Something cannot be and not be at the same time without redefinition of terms.

A subatomic particle can be both a particle and a wave at the same time. A subatomic particle can pass through both a left hand hole and a right hand hole at the same time, being neither left, nor right and both at the same time.

Logic as we know it does not necessarily apply at a quantum level...

...and in any case is logic not simply conceptual and as such has no effect on the physical universe in real terms and as I said before is purely dependent upon sentience?

Logic as we know it applies ABSOLUTELY at the quantum level.

Your examples are not contradictions. The are called paradoxes. Paradoxes do not only exist at the quantum level. They even exist at the Macroscopic level. The ball in my example can be two things at the same time. It can be a ball and it can be a paperweight at the same time without redefinition of terms. Someone lacking the mental dexterity necessary to understand why someone might use a ball as a paperweight, might think it odd that the ball would be used as a paperweight. But he would certainly not be justified in claiming the use of the ball as a paperweight to be a contradiction.

There is no contradiction when photons, for example, manifest themselves as both waves and particles. It is merely a paradox.

There would be a contradiction if the photons manifest themselves to be photons and to NOT be photons at the same time in the same way.

I have never heard of an experiment that demonstrated a contradiction at the sub-atomic level.

All science (including sub-atomic particle science) is based on a presumption that the universe is logical. When scientists discover apparent contradictions (or paradoxes) they know it is time to do more research, collect more data, and create new models to explain the phenomena .

I think that you are confusing Boolean logic as a means of conceptualising packets of time and effects at a macro level with quantum logic where classical systems of logic do not appear to apply with regard to observed effects. The issue of contradictions as opposed to paradoxes is simply semantics - any contradiction can be called a paradox if the observer so wishes.

Quantum mechanics does not, to my knowledge, assume the application of Boolean logic to effects - indeed the fundamentally illogical nature of the quantum world is what caused Einstein so much grief in later life. Even he finally admitted that God does play dice...

Grib summarised it so:

Quantum logic involves conjunctions and disjunctions which do not satisfy the distributivity law, in order for our (Boolean) minds to grasp the (non-Boolean) quantum cosmos we must experience the world through temporal sequence. Each event in the sequence is a different Boolean substructure (which is accessible to us) of the overall non-Boolean universe (which is not accessible). Thus the temporality of the world arises out of our mental processes, which integrate our Boolean experiences with physical, non-Boolean, structures.

Further, your example of the subatomic particle passing through holes exposes deficiencies with the current model used to explain observed data. It does not expose a contradiction.

I see. Current models are, of course, based upon a non-deterministic (and therefore non-measurable and non-predictable) universe at a quantum level. Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle and the Copehagen Effect have been strengthened by every attempt to disprove them. The very nature of the quantum world as observed begs the whole question of Boolean logic being sufficient to explain effects that lie outside of that framework.

On the evidence available to date quantum effects are illogical in a Boolean sense...that is why they are so difficult to grasp and accept.