Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Why the universe cannot logically be infinite in time backwards

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email
File:Wooden hourglass 3.jpg
passage of time, imaged/S. Sepp

Further to “No Big Bang: Universe Always Was” just posted by Donald McLaughlin, Ashby Camp gave Uncommon Descent permission to post these notes from a class he taught at the 2018 Harding University Bible Lectureship titled “Answering the New Atheism.” Worth pondering:


1.The second premise of the Kalam cosmological argument is: The universe began to exist. It is more reasonable to believe this is true than to deny it because, Scripture aside, there are strong philosophical and scientific reasons for believing it.

a. The philosophical argument for the universe having a beginning is that past time cannot be infinite because an infinite amount of time cannot already have been exhausted so as to arrive at the present. Infinite time is limitless, inexhaustible, and thus cannot have been exhausted.

(1) Put differently, one could never traverse an infinite sequence of time units, an infinite number of seconds, minutes, hours, etc., to arrive at now. There always would be more time units to traverse before now. If one begins counting down from minus infinity, one cannot count to the present. An infinite amount of time can never pass because it is limitless; it can only be in process, never complete. To quote the New Dictionary of Christian Apologetics, (p. 700), “One can neither count from one to infinity nor count down from infinity to one. There is always an infinite distance to travel, so one never arrives.”

(2) Sean McDowell and Jonathan Morrow make the point this way in Is God Just a Human Invention? (Grand Rapids: Kregel Publications, 2010), 75-76:

Imagine you went for a walk in the park and stumbled across someone proclaiming aloud, “… five, four, three, two, one—there, I finally finished! I just counted down from infinity!” What would be your initial thought? Would you wonder how long the person had been counting? Probably not. More likely, you would be in utter disbelief. Why? Because you know that such a task cannot be done. Just as it’s impossible to count up to infinity from the present moment, it’s equally impossible to count down from … infinity to the present moment. Counting to infinity is impossible because there is always (at least) one more number to count. In fact, every time you count a number, you still have infinite more to go, and thus get no closer to your goal. Similarly, counting down from infinity to the present moment is equally impossible. Such a task can’t even get started! Any point you pick in the past to begin, no matter how remote, would always require (at least) one more number to count before you could start there. Any beginning point would require an infinite number of previous points. Here’s the bottom line: we could never get to the present moment if we had to cross an actual infinite number of moments in the past. Yet, since the present moment is real, it must have been preceded by a finite past that includes a beginning or first event. Therefore, the universe had a beginning.

(3) The impossibility of infinite past time, of having already traversed an infinite timespan, does not mean that future time will not go on forever. Future time is potentially not actually infinite. In other words, it is infinity in progress, something that will move toward infinity but never arrive; you’ll never get to the end of it. So it poses no problem like the claim of having already traversed an infinite timespan.

(4) The impossibility of traversing an infinite timespan, an infinite sequence of time units, need not mean that God has not always existed. There are ways of dealing with God’s relationship to time so that he does not exist (or has not always existed) in a sequence of individuated moments, a sequence of time units. His eternality is not one of infinite time but one of either timelessness or a different kind of time that has no measure or metric. For example, William Lane Craig’s view is that “God is timeless without creation and temporal since creation.” Philosophers Alan Padgett and Richard Swinburne refer to time before creation as “metrically amorphous time,” meaning it differs from our “measured time” (see, e.g., Eternity in Christian Thought).

(5) This philosophical claim that the universe cannot always have existed makes sense to me and to many philosophers, but there are others who are not persuaded.

(a) Some, for example, point to the fact a finite timespan, say one minute, can be subdivided infinitely into units of decreasing length, and yet one can still traverse that timespan. The claim is that in going from 0 to 1 minute one traverses an infinite number of time units to arrive at 1 minute, so it is not true that one cannot traverse an infinite number of time units to arrive at the present. But there is a problem with that claim. The subdivisions of a finite timespan are only potentially infinite in number. It is true that one could keep subdividing forever, but each further subdivision results in a finite number of subdivisions the sum of which is the finite timespan being subdivided. The number of subdivisions can grow toward an infinite number but can never actually reach an infinite number. Whereas, when speaking of an infinite timespan one is speaking of an actually infinite set of time units, the sum of which is an infinite length of time.

(b) Though this philosophical claim that the universe necessarily began to exist continues to be debated, it dovetails nicely with the scientific acceptance of the universe having a beginning. That is the subject to which I now turn.

  

Readers?

Comments
Answer my questions and stop being such a coward, JVL. My questions have everything to do with the cardinality of infinite sets. And your responses prove that you do not understand that infinity is a journey. Cardinality has to work for ALL sets. My example pertains to two specific sets. IF the set of all positive even integers has the same cardinality as the set of all positive integers, THEN set subtraction would not be able to prove otherwise. And yet it does.ET
March 9, 2020
March
03
Mar
9
09
2020
07:08 AM
7
07
08
AM
PDT
ET, 27: I never said that it did. Answer my questions and stop being such a coward. The set of all positive even integers has the same cardinality as the set of all positive integers. You can look it up in many, many different places. It doesn't matter about your counting procedure. We're not considering a count at some time and infinity is not a "time". Your question has nothing to do with the cardinality of infinite sets.JVL
March 9, 2020
March
03
Mar
9
09
2020
06:58 AM
6
06
58
AM
PDT
JVL:
The cardinality/size of sets has nothing to do with the time it takes to count them.
I never said that it did. Answer my questions and stop being such a coward.ET
March 9, 2020
March
03
Mar
9
09
2020
05:41 AM
5
05
41
AM
PDT
PPS: We recognise that we have a quantity aleph null, as the metric of endless counting. It has different properties from finite numbers, and 0,1,2 . . . maps to 0,2,4 . . . so we see they pose the same ordinals and have the same overall quantity. We define the transfinite ordinal w as successor to the span, and go on from there, mapping to hyperreals and surreals.kairosfocus
March 9, 2020
March
03
Mar
9
09
2020
04:16 AM
4
04
16
AM
PDT
PS: Note, the timers are counting in finite stage steps. At any time t, one will be about half the other, providing t is finitely remote from the start. That is, there is a question that time is potentially infinite going forward but not exhausted. So on the dynamics, at any attained t, that will be the case. The onward succession has no finite bound as N has cardinality aleph null, however, the hyper integers in the family of H will exceed any n in N mileposting R. By finite increments from 0 we cannot span to such an H.kairosfocus
March 9, 2020
March
03
Mar
9
09
2020
04:10 AM
4
04
10
AM
PDT
JVL, nope. It is a fact that time lapses in a way that we see finite duration, causally successive, cumulative stages. One year succeeds and builds on another. Taking in a past that might extend beyond the singularity, we can simply count stages. In such a case, the count is stage-wise. Now, say let the bang be 0, we count up to now, and let us project beyond the bang. Now, a pause, we can use a more relevant span than N or Z in R, going to hyperreals R*, where some H is such that 1/H is h, smaller than any n we may successively count to. The h is of course an infinitesimal. Now, let - H be a hyperinteger in Z* so that we can address what an infinite past means and why it is infeasible; we are summarising an earlier discussion. We can see . . . -H, -H+1, -H+2 . . . -H+k, -H+k+1, . . . -p, -p+1, . . . -2, -1, 0, 1, 2 . . . n, now. Were there an actually infinite past, every finitely remote past 0, -p, etc would have a transfinite further past beyond to the left. H allows us to see implications. From such a transfinitely remote H and beyond, we see a count up to some k beyond -H. But as we go on, we see that counting beyond -H+k is no different from counting up from -H, i.e. the ellipsis to -p is not span-able in finite stage steps precisely because the mileposts of hyperintegers counted up from -H are inexhaustible. That also obtains for -H+k and so forth. We cannot traverse a transfinite span by means of a finite stage succession of causal-temporal steps in sequence. This is different from infinite, converging series where each step takes shorter times converging on 0, as solves Zeno. There is a logical, structural, quantitative reason why there cannot be a transfinite actual past. Our world and whatever causal-temporal matrix may have spawned it will be finite in the past. To get a root of reality, we need a different order of being, necessary being. KFkairosfocus
March 9, 2020
March
03
Mar
9
09
2020
04:03 AM
4
04
03
AM
PDT
ET, 22: The cardinality/size of sets has nothing to do with the time it takes to count them. The set of positive even integers has the same cardinality os the set of positive integers. This is well established and accepted mathematics. You may not know or accept that this is foundational to modern mathematics but it is.JVL
March 9, 2020
March
03
Mar
9
09
2020
12:03 AM
12
12
03
AM
PDT
Go ask. If you find something I have no doubt that you will come running back. I also find it very telling that every time that YOU try to answer the question you refer to something that has nothing to do with the question. The question has nothing to do with whether or not set theory is of any use. The question has nothing to do with whether or not the concept of infinity is of any use. Yet you always bring those up as if that is some kind of argument against what I am saying. But here are questions for you: You have two counters, both starting at zero. One, counter A, counts every second and the other, counter B, counts every other second. Is there any point in time, after one second, that the two counters will have the same count? Or will counter A always and forever, ie for/ into infinity, have a higher count than counter B?ET
March 8, 2020
March
03
Mar
8
08
2020
04:32 PM
4
04
32
PM
PDT
ET, 20: I've asked let's see if Dr Sewell respond. I'm happy to go ask some engineers and physicists and chemists and particularly mathematicians. If you specify a forum which we can both access then I'd be glad to try that. I don't think it's fair to ask them to come to an ID forum as that has nothing to do with the question.JVL
March 8, 2020
March
03
Mar
8
08
2020
03:29 PM
3
03
29
PM
PDT
I understand your reading comprehension issues. Why don't you go to some engineering group and ask them. Or chemists, physicists or mathematicians. Bring them here.ET
March 8, 2020
March
03
Mar
8
08
2020
03:15 PM
3
03
15
PM
PDT
ET, 18: I've asked, let's see if he answers.JVL
March 8, 2020
March
03
Mar
8
08
2020
02:59 PM
2
02
59
PM
PDT
Read his comment in 12, JVL.
The issue is, there are an infinite number of primes and infinite number of nonprimes, so who’s to say which countably infinite list is bigger?
And yes, I do say it doesn't have any utility at all to say that all countably infinite sets have the same cardinality. No one uses that concept for any practical application.ET
March 8, 2020
March
03
Mar
8
08
2020
02:50 PM
2
02
50
PM
PDT
ET, 16;, I'm happy to ask: Dr Sewell I'm wondering if you think there is any use for the concept that the cardinality of the positive even integers is the same as the cardinality of the positive integers? ET says it's not true (on his own blog) and that it's useless. What do you think?JVL
March 8, 2020
March
03
Mar
8
08
2020
02:44 PM
2
02
44
PM
PDT
What's the relevance to the topic? Why don't YOU ask if anyone uses the concept that the set of evens = the set of whole numbers for anything? Does saying that have any utility? And if the world accepted that the set of evens was half that of the set of whole numbers would anything beyond textbooks and teaching be affected? Go on.ET
March 8, 2020
March
03
Mar
8
08
2020
02:40 PM
2
02
40
PM
PDT
ET, 14: Oh dear. I am sure that JVL still doesn’t understand that infinity is a journey… Why don't you ask Dr Sewell? See what he says. Ask him if the infinity of the evens is half the infinity of the whole numbers. Go on.JVL
March 8, 2020
March
03
Mar
8
08
2020
02:29 PM
2
02
29
PM
PDT
Oh dear. I am sure that JVL still doesn't understand that infinity is a journey...ET
March 8, 2020
March
03
Mar
8
08
2020
02:23 PM
2
02
23
PM
PDT
ET: Oh dear, a discussion of infinity. Are you going to participate?JVL
March 8, 2020
March
03
Mar
8
08
2020
01:49 PM
1
01
49
PM
PDT
Asauber (1): I agree, infinity is a useful mathematical concept, but I don't believe there can be an infinite amount of anything: space, time, matter, energy... (Disclaimer: I could be wrong!) And I agree that an infinite past is even more problematic than an infinite future. Of course a finite past or finite future is pretty hard to fathom too! Here's an only slightly related puzzle for your entertainment. Are "most" positive integers prime? You will probably say, most are not prime (composite) because primes are more and more rare as you count upwards: 2,3,4,5,6,7,... However, what if I list the integers in the following order--first 2 primes, first composite, next 2 primes, next composite, next 2 primes...: 2,3,4, 5,7,6, 11,13,8, 17,19,9... this is a complete list of all positive integers, that is, any given integer is eventually in the list, so why is my list not as good as yours? And in my list, 2/3 of the integers are prime. The issue is, there are an infinite number of primes and and infinite number of nonprimes, so who's to say which countably infinite list is bigger? On the other hand, I think it is correct to say "most" real numbers are irrational, because there are a countably infinite (you can list them in such a way as to get to any rational number eventually) number of rational numbers, but an uncountably large number of irrationals (there is no algorithm for listing them such that you eventually include every irrational number). Moral: infinity is a strange number.Granville Sewell
March 8, 2020
March
03
Mar
8
08
2020
01:37 PM
1
01
37
PM
PDT
One way for us to more easily understand this higher dimensional framework for time that light exist in is to visualize what would happen if a hypothetical observer approached the speed of light. In the following video clip, which was made by two Australian University Physics Professors, we find that the 3-Dimensional world ‘folds and collapses’ into a tunnel shape as a ‘hypothetical’ observer approaches the ‘higher dimension’ of the speed of light.
Optical Effects of Special Relativity – video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JQnHTKZBTI4
OK now that we have outlined the basics of what we know to be true from special relativity, It is very interesting to note that many of the characteristics found in heavenly Near Death Experience testimonies are exactly what we would expect to see from what we now know to be true about Special Relativity. For instance, many times people who have had a Near Death Experience mention that their perception of time was radically altered. In the following video clip, Mickey Robinson gives his Near Death testimony of what it felt like for him to experience a ‘timeless eternity’.
‘In the ‘spirit world,,, instantly, there was no sense of time. See, everything on earth is related to time. You got up this morning, you are going to go to bed tonight. Something is new, it will get old. Something is born, it’s going to die. Everything on the physical plane is relative to time, but everything in the spiritual plane is relative to eternity. Instantly I was in total consciousness and awareness of eternity, and you and I as we live in this earth cannot even comprehend it, because everything that we have here is filled within the veil of the temporal life. In the spirit life that is more real than anything else and it is awesome. Eternity as a concept is awesome. There is no such thing as time. I knew that whatever happened was going to go on and on.’ In The Presence Of Almighty God – The NDE of Mickey Robinson – video (testimony starts at 27:45 minute mark) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=voak1RM-pXo
And here are a few more quotes from people who have experienced Near Death, that speak of how their perception of time was radically altered as they were outside of their material body during their NDEs.
‘Earthly time has no meaning in the spirit realm. There is no concept of before or after. Everything – past, present, future – exists simultaneously.’ – Kimberly Clark Sharp – Near Death Experiencer ‘There is no way to tell whether minutes, hours or years go by. Existence is the only reality and it is inseparable from the eternal now.’ – John Star – NDE Experiencer
As well, Near Death Experiencers also frequently mention going through a tunnel to a higher heavenly dimension:
Ask the Experts: What Is a Near-Death Experience (NDE)? – article with video Excerpt: “Very often as they’re moving through the tunnel, there’s a very bright mystical light … not like a light we’re used to in our earthly lives. People call this mystical light, brilliant like a million times a million suns…” – Jeffrey Long M.D. – has studied NDE’s extensively The Tunnel and the Near-Death Experience Excerpt: One of the nine elements that generally occur during NDEs is the tunnel experience. This involves being drawn into darkness through a tunnel, at an extremely high speed, until reaching a realm of radiant golden-white light.
In the following video, Barbara Springer gives her testimony as to what it felt like for her to go through the tunnel:
“I started to move toward the light. The way I moved, the physics, was completely different than it is here on Earth. It was something I had never felt before and never felt since. It was a whole different sensation of motion. I obviously wasn’t walking or skipping or crawling. I was not floating. I was flowing. I was flowing toward the light. I was accelerating and I knew I was accelerating, but then again, I didn’t really feel the acceleration. I just knew I was accelerating toward the light. Again, the physics was different – the physics of motion of time, space, travel. It was completely different in that tunnel, than it is here on Earth. I came out into the light and when I came out into the light, I realized that I was in heaven.” Barbara Springer – Near Death Experience – The Tunnel – video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gv2jLeoAcMI
And in the following audio clip, Vicki Noratuk, (who has been blind from birth, besides being able to 'miraculously" see for the first time during in her life during her Near Death Experience), Vicki also gives testimony of going through a tunnel:
“I was in a body, and the only way that I can describe it was a body of energy, or of light. And this body had a form. It had a head, it had arms and it had legs. And it was like it was made out of light. And it was everything that was me. All of my memories, my consciousness, everything.”,,, “And then this vehicle formed itself around me. Vehicle is the only thing, or tube, or something, but it was a mode of transportation that’s for sure! And it formed around me. And there was no one in it with me. I was in it alone. But I knew there were other people ahead of me and behind me. What they were doing I don’t know, but there were people ahead of me and people behind me, but I was alone in my particular conveyance. And I could see out of it. And it went at a tremendously, horrifically, rapid rate of speed. But it wasn’t unpleasant. It was beautiful in fact.,, I was reclining in this thing, I wasn’t sitting straight up, but I wasn’t lying down either. I was sitting back. And it was just so fast. I can’t even begin to tell you where it went or whatever it was just fast!” – Vicki’s NDE – Blind since birth – https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e65KhcCS5-Y
And in the following quotes, the two Near Death Experiencers both testify that they firmly believed that they were in a higher heavenly dimension that is above this three-dimensional world, and that the reason that they have a very difficult time explaining what their Near Death Experiences actually felt like is because we simply don’t currently have the words to properly describe that higher dimension:
“Regardless, it is impossible for me to adequately describe what I saw and felt. When I try to recount my experiences now, the description feels very pale. I feel as though I’m trying to describe a three-dimensional experience while living in a two-dimensional world. The appropriate words, descriptions and concepts don’t even exist in our current language. I have subsequently read the accounts of other people’s near-death experiences and their portrayals of heaven and I able to see the same limitations in their descriptions and vocabulary that I see in my own.” Mary C. Neal, MD – To Heaven And Back pg. 71 “Well, when I was taking geometry, they always told me there were only three dimensions, and I always just accepted that. But they were wrong. There are more… And that is why so hard for me to tell you this. I have to describe with words that are three-dimensional. That’s as close as I can get to it, but it’s really not adequate.” John Burke – Imagine Heaven pg. 51 – quoting a Near Death Experiencer
That what we now know to be true from special relativity, (namely that it outlines a ‘timeless’, i.e. eternal, dimesion that exists above this temporal dimension), would fit hand and glove with the personal testimonies of people who have had a deep heavenly NDE is, needless to say, powerful evidence that their testimonies are, in fact, true and that they are accurately describing the ‘reality’ of a higher heavenly dimension that exists above this temporal dimension. And while it is certainly true that one cannot place too much emphasis on just one Near Death Experience as being undeniably true, none the less, since these Near Death experiences are verified repeatedly by millions of different people who have died for a short while and have come back to tell us of their experiences, then the ‘subjective observations’ of these people, (of a timeless eternity and of ‘going through a tunnel’ to a higher dimension), are, none the less, extremely reliable in that they do indeed exactly match the characteristics of what we would expect to be true beforehand from what we now know to be true, scientifically, from special relativity. I would even go so far as to say that such corroboration from ‘non-physicists’, who know nothing about the intricacies of special relativity, is a complete scientific verification of the overall validity of their personal NDE testimonies.
Luke 23:43 Jesus answered him, “Truly I tell you, today you will be with me in paradise.” 2 Corinthians 12:2-4 I know a man in Christ who fourteen years ago was caught up to the third heaven. Whether it was in the body or out of the body I do not know—God knows. And I know that this man—whether in the body or apart from the body I do not know, but God knows— was caught up to paradise and heard inexpressible things, things that no one is permitted to tell.
Supplemental quote: ‘How You Think About Heaven Affects Everything in Life,’
Texas Pastor John Burke Says Near-Death Experiences Are ‘Amazingly Biblical’ (Video) – Oct 25, 2015 ‘How You Think About Heaven Affects Everything in Life,’ Says Gateway Church Pastor http://www.christianpost.com/news/texas-pastor-john-burke-says-near-death-experiences-are-amazingly-biblical-video-148156/
Supplemental note: The reality of a soul that is capable of living beyond the death of our material bodies is now strongly supported by advances in quantum biology:
Darwinian Materialism vs. Quantum Biology – Part II – video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oSig2CsjKbg
Verses:
Mark 8:37 Is anything worth more than your soul? Matthew 6:33 But seek first the kingdom of God and his righteousness, and all these things will be added to you.
Footnote. The bulk of refrences in this post were taken from these two videos:
How Quantum Mechanics and Consciousness Correlate - video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4f0hL3Nrdas Quantum Mechanics, Special Relativity, General Relativity and Christianity - video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h4QDy1Soolo
bornagain77
March 5, 2020
March
03
Mar
5
05
2020
04:21 AM
4
04
21
AM
PDT
Likewise, the following violation of Leggett's inequality stressed the quantum-mechanical assertion that reality does not exist when we're not observing it.
Quantum physics says goodbye to reality - Apr 20, 2007 Excerpt: They found that, just as in the realizations of Bell's thought experiment, Leggett's inequality is violated – thus stressing the quantum-mechanical assertion that reality does not exist when we're not observing it. "Our study shows that 'just' giving up the concept of locality would not be enough to obtain a more complete description of quantum mechanics," Aspelmeyer told Physics Web. "You would also have to give up certain intuitive features of realism." http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/27640
The Mind First and/or Theistic implications of quantum experiments such as the preceding are fairly obvious. As Professor Scott Aaronson of MIT once quipped, “Look, we all have fun ridiculing the creationists,,, But if we accept the usual picture of quantum mechanics, then in a certain sense the situation is far worse: the world (as you experience it) might as well not have existed 10^-43 seconds ago!”
“Look, we all have fun ridiculing the creationists who think the world sprang into existence on October 23, 4004 BC at 9AM (presumably Babylonian time), with the fossils already in the ground, light from distant stars heading toward us, etc. But if we accept the usual picture of quantum mechanics, then in a certain sense the situation is far worse: the world (as you experience it) might as well not have existed 10^-43 seconds ago!” – Scott Aaronson – MIT associate Professor quantum computation – Lecture 11: Decoherence and Hidden Variables
Besides such experiments as this from quantum mechanics demonstrating that ‘the experience of the now’ is very much a part of present day quantum physics, there is also what is known as the ‘Quantum Zeno Effect’ in quantum mechanics which also clearly demonstrates that ‘the experience of the now’ is very much a part of present day quantum physics. An old 2018 entry in wikipedia described the Quantum Zeno effect as such “an unstable particle, if observed continuously, will never decay.”
Perspectives on the quantum Zeno paradox - 2018 The quantum Zeno effect is,, an unstable particle, if observed continuously, will never decay. https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1742-6596/196/1/012018/pdf
Likewise, the present day entry on wikipedia about the Quantum Zeno effect also provocatively states that "a system can't change while you are watching it"
Quantum Zeno effect Excerpt: Sometimes this effect is interpreted as "a system can't change while you are watching it" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_Zeno_effect
Atheistic materialists have tried to get around the Quantum Zeno effect by postulating that interactions with the environment are sufficient to explain the Quantum Zeno effect.
Perspectives on the quantum Zeno paradox - 2018 Excerpt: The references to observations and to wavefunction collapse tend to raise unnecessary questions related to the interpretation of quantum mechanics. Actually, all that is required is that some interaction with an external system disturb the unitary evolution of the quantum system in a way that is effectively like a projection operator. https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1742-6596/196/1/012018/pdf
Yet, the following interaction-free measurement of the Quantum Zeno effect demonstrated that the presence of the Quantum Zeno effect can be detected without interacting with a single atom.
Interaction-free measurements by quantum Zeno stabilization of ultracold atoms – 14 April 2015 Excerpt: In our experiments, we employ an ultracold gas in an unstable spin configuration, which can undergo a rapid decay. The object—realized by a laser beam—prevents this decay because of the indirect quantum Zeno effect and thus, its presence can be detected without interacting with a single atom. http://www.nature.com/ncomms/2015/150414/ncomms7811/full/ncomms7811.html?WT.ec_id=NCOMMS-20150415
In short, the quantum zeno effect, regardless of how atheistic materialists may personally feel about it, is experimentally shown to be a real effect that is not reducible to any materialistic explanation. And thus the original wikipedia statement of, “an unstable particle, if observed continuously, will never decay”, stands as being a true statement. Moreover, on top of the quantum zeno effect, in quantum information theory we find that entropy is "a property of an observer who describes a system.” As the following 2017 article states: James Clerk Maxwell (said), “The idea of dissipation of energy depends on the extent of our knowledge.”,,, quantum information theory,,, describes the spread of information through quantum systems.,,, Fifteen years ago, “we thought of entropy as a property of a thermodynamic system,” he said. “Now in (quantum) information theory, we wouldn’t say entropy is a property of a system, but a property of an observer who describes a system.”,,,
The Quantum Thermodynamics Revolution – May 2017 Excerpt: the 19th-century physicist James Clerk Maxwell put it, “The idea of dissipation of energy depends on the extent of our knowledge.” In recent years, a revolutionary understanding of thermodynamics has emerged that explains this subjectivity using quantum information theory — “a toddler among physical theories,” as del Rio and co-authors put it, that describes the spread of information through quantum systems. Just as thermodynamics initially grew out of trying to improve steam engines, today’s thermodynamicists are mulling over the workings of quantum machines. Shrinking technology — a single-ion engine and three-atom fridge were both experimentally realized for the first time within the past year — is forcing them to extend thermodynamics to the quantum realm, where notions like temperature and work lose their usual meanings, and the classical laws don’t necessarily apply. They’ve found new, quantum versions of the laws that scale up to the originals. Rewriting the theory from the bottom up has led experts to recast its basic concepts in terms of its subjective nature, and to unravel the deep and often surprising relationship between energy and information — the abstract 1s and 0s by which physical states are distinguished and knowledge is measured.,,, Renato Renner, a professor at ETH Zurich in Switzerland, described this as a radical shift in perspective. Fifteen years ago, “we thought of entropy as a property of a thermodynamic system,” he said. “Now in (quantum) information theory, we wouldn’t say entropy is a property of a system, but a property of an observer who describes a system.”,,, https://www.quantamagazine.org/quantum-thermodynamics-revolution/
The reason why I am very impressed with the preceding experiments demonstrating that the mental attribute of ‘the experience of the now’ is very much a part of entropy, is that the second law of thermodynamics, entropy, is very foundational to any definition of time that we may have. In fact, if we saw a video of a broken tea cup putting itself together we would swear that the video was running backwards, i.e. that time was going backwards. On top of the fact that entropy is very foundational to any definition of time that we may have, entropy is also, by a very wide margin, the most finely tuned of the initial conditions of the Big Bang. Finely tuned to an almost incomprehensible degree of precision, 1 part in 10 to the 10 to the 123rd power. As Roger Penrose himself stated that, “This now tells us how precise the Creator’s aim must have been: namely to an accuracy of one part in 10^10^123.”
“This now tells us how precise the Creator’s aim must have been: namely to an accuracy of one part in 10^10^123.” Roger Penrose - How special was the big bang? – (from the Emperor’s New Mind, Penrose, pp 339-345 – 1989)
And yet to repeat, according to quantum information theory, “we wouldn’t say entropy is a property of a system, but a property of an observer who describes a system.” This statement is just fascinating! Why in blue blazes should the finely tuned entropic actions of the universe, entropic actions which also happen to explain time itself, even care if I am consciously observing them, and/or describing them, unless ‘the experience of ‘the now’ really is more foundational to reality than the finely tuned 1 in 10^10^123 entropy of the universe is? To state the obvious, this finding of entropy being “a property of an observer who describes a system.” is very friendly to a Mind First, and/or to a Theistic view of reality. For instance Romans chapter 8: verses 20 and 21 itself states, “For the creation was subjected to frustration, not by its own choice, but by the will of the one who subjected it, in hope that the creation itself will be liberated from its bondage to decay and brought into the glorious freedom of the children of God.”
Romans 8:20-21 For the creation was subjected to frustration, not by its own choice, but by the will of the one who subjected it, in hope that the creation itself will be liberated from its bondage to decay and brought into the glorious freedom of the children of God.
Thus, contrary to what Einstein himself thought was possible for experimental physics, receent advances in quantum mechanics, particularly advances in quantum information theory, have now shown, in overwhelming fashion, that ‘the experience of the now’ is very much a part of experimental physics. In fact, due to advances in quantum mechanics, it would now be much more appropriate to rephrase Einstein’s answer to the philosopher Rudolph Carnap in this way:
“It is impossible for “the experience of ‘the now’” to ever be divorced from physical measurement, it will always be a part of physics.”
To repeat what was said in the delayed choice experiment with atoms, “It proves that measurement is everything. At the quantum level, reality does not exist if you are not looking at it,”
Reality doesn’t exist until we measure it, (Delayed Choice) quantum experiment confirms – Mind = blown. – FIONA MACDONALD – 1 JUN 2015 Excerpt: “It proves that measurement is everything. At the quantum level, reality does not exist if you are not looking at it,” lead researcher and physicist Andrew Truscott said in a press release. http://www.sciencealert.com/reality-doesn-t-exist-until-we-measure-it-quantum-experiment-confirms
Moreover, although Einstein was shown to be wrong, via quantum mechanics, in his confrontation with philosophers over the proper definition of time, i.e. over 'the experience of the now', never-the-less Einstein's special theory of relativity is also very friendly to a Theistic view of reality. We now know from special relativity, time, as we understand it, comes to a complete stop for a hypothetical observer travelling at the speed of light. To grasp the whole concept of time coming to a complete stop at the speed of light a little more easily, imagine moving away from the face of a clock at the speed of light. Would not the hands on the clock stay stationary as you moved away from the face of the clock at the speed of light? Moving away from the face of a clock at the speed of light happens to be the very same ‘thought experiment’ that gave Einstein his breakthrough insight into special relativity. Here is a short clip from a video that gives us a look into Einstein’s breakthrough insight.
Einstein: Einstein’s Miracle Year (‘Insight into Eternity’ – Thought Experiment 55 second mark) – video http://www.history.com/topics/albert-einstein/videos/einstein-einsteins-miracle-year
That time, as we understand it, comes to a complete stop at the speed of light, and yet light moves from point A to point B in our universe, and thus light is obviously not ‘frozen within time, has some fairly profound implications.
“The laws of relativity have changed timeless existence from a theological claim to a physical reality. Light, you see, is outside of time, a fact of nature proven in thousands of experiments at hundreds of universities. I don’t pretend to know how tomorrow can exist simultaneously with today and yesterday. But at the speed of light they actually and rigorously do. Time does not pass.” Dr. Richard Swenson – More Than Meets The Eye, Chpt. 11
The only way it is possible for time not to pass for light, and yet for light to move from point A to point B in our universe, is if light is of a higher dimensional value of time than the temporal time we are currently living in. Otherwise light would simply be ‘frozen within time’ to our temporal frame of reference. And indeed that is exactly what we find. “Hermann Minkowski- one of the math professors of a young Einstein in Zurich—presented a geometric interpretation of special relativity that fused time and the three spatial dimensions of space into a single four-dimensional continuum now known as Minkowski space.”
Spacetime Excerpt: In 1908, Hermann Minkowski—once one of the math professors of a young Einstein in Zurich—presented a geometric interpretation of special relativity that fused time and the three spatial dimensions of space into a single four-dimensional continuum now known as Minkowski space. A key feature of this interpretation is the definition of a spacetime interval that combines distance and time. Although measurements of distance and time between events differ for measurements made in different reference frames, the spacetime interval is independent of the inertial frame of reference in which they are recorded. Minkowski’s geometric interpretation of relativity was to prove vital to Einstein’s development of his 1915 general theory of relativity, wherein he showed that spacetime becomes curved in the presence of mass or energy.,,, Einstein, for his part, was initially dismissive of Minkowski’s geometric interpretation of special relativity, regarding it as überflüssige Gelehrsamkeit (superfluous learnedness). However, in order to complete his search for general relativity that started in 1907, the geometric interpretation of relativity proved to be vital, and in 1916, Einstein fully acknowledged his indebtedness to Minkowski, whose interpretation greatly facilitated the transition to general relativity.[10]:151–152 Since there are other types of spacetime, such as the curved spacetime of general relativity, the spacetime of special relativity is today known as Minkowski spacetime. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spacetime
bornagain77
March 5, 2020
March
03
Mar
5
05
2020
04:19 AM
4
04
19
AM
PDT
As to this comment from the article,,,
Why The Universe Cannot Logically Be Infinite In Time Backwards,,, one could never traverse an infinite sequence of time units, an infinite number of seconds, minutes, hours, etc., to arrive at now.,,, (God's) eternality is not one of infinite time but one of either timelessness or a different kind of time that has no measure or metric. For example, William Lane Craig’s view is that “God is timeless without creation and temporal since creation.” Philosophers Alan Padgett and Richard Swinburne refer to time before creation as “metrically amorphous time,” meaning it differs from our “measured time” (see, e.g., Eternity in Christian Thought).,,,
Hmm, so to try "to arrive at now"? And just what is this moment called "now" that is being attived at? As Antoine Suarez put it, “it is impossible for us to be 'persons' experiencing 'now' if we are nothing but particles flowing in space time."
Nothing: God's new Name - Antoine Suarez – video Paraphrased quote: (“it is impossible for us to be 'persons' experiencing 'now' if we are nothing but particles flowing in space time. Moreover, for us to refer to ourselves as 'persons', we cannot refer to space-time as the ultimate substratum upon which everything exists, but must refer to a Person who is not bound by space time. i.e. We must refer to God!”) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SOr9QqyaLlA
There simply is no moment called 'now' for 'particles flowing in space time'. As Stanley Jaki put it, “There can be no active mind without its sensing its existence in the moment called now.,,, ,,,There is no physical parallel to the mind’s ability to extend from its position in the momentary present to its past moments, or in its ability to imagine its future. The mind remains identical with itself while it lives through its momentary nows.”
The Mind and Its Now – Stanley L. Jaki, May 2008 Excerpts: There can be no active mind without its sensing its existence in the moment called now.,,, Three quarters of a century ago Charles Sherrington, the greatest modern student of the brain, spoke memorably on the mind’s baffling independence of the brain. The mind lives in a self-continued now or rather in the now continued in the self. This life involves the entire brain, some parts of which overlap, others do not. ,,,There is no physical parallel to the mind’s ability to extend from its position in the momentary present to its past moments, or in its ability to imagine its future. The mind remains identical with itself while it lives through its momentary nows. ,,, the now is immensely richer an experience than any marvelous set of numbers, even if science could give an account of the set of numbers, in terms of energy levels. The now is not a number. It is rather a word, the most decisive of all words. It is through experiencing that word that the mind comes alive and registers all existence around and well beyond. ,,, All our moments, all our nows, flow into a personal continuum, of which the supreme form is the NOW which is uncreated, because it simply IS. http://metanexus.net/essay/mind-and-its-now
Simply put, the experience of 'the now', and/or the 'persistence of self identity through time' is one of the defining attributes of the immaterial mind that cannot be reduced to any possible materialistic explanation, i.e. reduced to 'particles flowing in space time'.
The Mind and Materialist Superstition – Michael Egnor – 2008 Six “conditions of mind” that are irreconcilable with materialism: – Excerpt: Intentionality,,, Qualia,,, Persistence of Self-Identity,,, Restricted Access,,, Incorrigibility,,, Free Will,,, http://www.evolutionnews.org/2008/11/the_mind_and_materialist_super013961.html Six reasons why you should believe in non-physical minds – 01/30/2014 1) First-person access to mental properties 2) Our experience of consciousness implies that we are not our bodies 3) Persistent self-identity through time 4) Mental properties cannot be measured like physical objects 5) Intentionality or About-ness 6) Free will and personal responsibility http://winteryknight.com/2014/01/30/six-reasons-why-you-should-believe-in-non-physical-minds/
You see, we each have a unique perspective of being outside of time. Simply put, we each seem to be standing on our own little 'island of now’ as the river of time continually flows past eack of us. ‘The experience of ‘the now” also happens to be exactly where Albert Einstein got into trouble with leading philosophers of his day and also happens to be exactly where Einstein eventually got into trouble with quantum mechanics itself. Around 1935, Einstein was asked by Rudolf Carnap (who was a philosopher):
“Can physics demonstrate the existence of ‘the now’ in order to make the notion of ‘now’ into a scientifically valid term?” Rudolf Carnap - Philosopher
Einstein’s answer was categorical, he said:
“The experience of ‘the now’ cannot be turned into an object of physical measurement, it can never be a part of physics.” - Einstein
That quote was taken from the last few minutes of this following video.
Stanley L. Jaki: “The Mind and Its Now” https://vimeo.com/10588094
And here is an article that goes into a bit more detail of that specific encounter between Einstein and Rudolf Carnap:
The Mind and Its Now – May 22, 2008 – By Stanley L. Jaki Excerpt: ,,, Rudolf Carnap, and the only one among them who was bothered with the mind’s experience of its now. His concern for this is noteworthy because he went about it in the wrong way. He thought that physics was the only sound way to know and to know anything. It was therefore only logical on his part that he should approach, we are around 1935, Albert Einstein, the greatest physicist of the day, with the question whether it was possible to turn the experience of the now into a scientific knowledge. Such knowledge must of course be verified with measurement. We do not have the exact record of Carnap’s conversation with Einstein whom he went to visit in Princeton, at eighteen hours by train at that time from Chicago. But from Einstein’s reply which Carnap jotted down later, it is safe to assume that Carnap reasoned with him as outlined above. Einstein’s answer was categorical: The experience of the now cannot be turned into an object of physical measurement. It can never be part of physics. http://metanexus.net/essay/mind-and-its-now
Prior to that encounter with Carnap, Einstein also had another disagreement with another famous philosopher, Henri Bergson, over what the proper definition of time should be (Bergson was also very well versed in the specific mental attribute of the ‘experience of the now’). In fact, that disagreement with Henri Bergson over what the proper definition of time should be was actually one of the primary reasons that Einstein failed to ever receive a Nobel prize for his work on relativity:
Einstein, Bergson, and the Experiment that Failed: Intellectual Cooperation at the League of Nations! – Jimena Canales page 1177 Excerpt: Bergson temporarily had the last word during their meeting at Société française de philosophie. His intervention negatively affected Einstein’s Nobel Prize, which was given “for his services to theoretical physics, and especially for his discovery of the law of the photoelectric effect” and not for relativity. The reasons behind this decision, as stated in the prize’s presentation speech, were related to Bergson’s intervention: “Most discussion [of Einstein’s work] centers on his Theory of Relativity. This pertains to epistemology and has therefore been the subject of lively debate in philosophical circles. It will be no secret that the famous philosopher Bergson in Paris has challenged this theory, while other philosophers have acclaimed it wholeheartedly.”51 For a moment, their debate dragged matters of time out of the solid terrain of “matters of fact” and into the shaky ground of “matters of concern.”52 https://dash.harvard.edu/bitstream/handle/1/3210598/canales-Einstein,%20Bergson%20and%20the%20Experiment%20that%20Failed%282%29.pdf?sequence=2
Here is an article that goes into a bit more detail about the particular confrontation between Einstein and Henri Bergson over the proper definition of time:
Einstein vs Bergson, science vs philosophy and the meaning of time – Wednesday 24 June 2015 Excerpt: ‘Einstein had been invited by philosophers to speak at their society, and you had this physicist say very clearly that their time did not exist.’ Bergson was outraged, but the philosopher did not take it lying down. A few months later Einstein was awarded the Nobel Prize for the discovery of the law of photoelectric effect, an area of science that Canales noted, ‘hardly jolted the public’s imagination’. In truth, Einstein coveted recognition for his work on relativity. http://www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/philosopherszone/science-vs-philosophy-and-the-meaning-of-time/6539568
The specific statement that Einstein made to Carnap on the train, “The experience of ‘the now’ cannot be turned into an object of physical measurement, it can never be a part of physics.” was a very interesting statement for Einstein to make to the philosopher since “The experience of ‘the now’ has, from many recent experiments in quantum mechanics, established itself as very much being a defining part of our physical measurements in quantum mechanics. For instance, the following delayed choice experiment with atoms demonstrated that, “It proves that measurement is everything. At the quantum level, reality does not exist if you are not looking at it,”
Reality doesn’t exist until we measure it, (Delayed Choice) quantum experiment confirms – Mind = blown. – FIONA MACDONALD – 1 JUN 2015 Excerpt: “It proves that measurement is everything. At the quantum level, reality does not exist if you are not looking at it,” lead researcher and physicist Andrew Truscott said in a press release. http://www.sciencealert.com/reality-doesn-t-exist-until-we-measure-it-quantum-experiment-confirms
bornagain77
March 5, 2020
March
03
Mar
5
05
2020
04:18 AM
4
04
18
AM
PDT
Regarding God's time, it is conceivable that God has a different timeline than we do. This can be explained by assuming that we are a simulation, and God is the simulator. The simulator has his own time line, while the simulation time line only begins when the simulator starts the simulation. Moreover, the simulator's timeline can flow at a totally different rate from ours; e.g. when humans simulate a nuclear explosion, the time steps of picoseconds may take hours to run on the computer. On the other hand, when simulating plate tectonics, thousands of years may take only seconds of computer time. Also, as in a video game, the simulator can suspend the simulation to go off and have lunch, coming back to pick up where it stopped some time later. I explore these concepts and more at: https://thopid.blogspot.com/2019/01/our-simulated-world.htmlFasteddious
March 4, 2020
March
03
Mar
4
04
2020
03:09 PM
3
03
09
PM
PDT
F/N: Isa 55: >> Seek the Lord while He may be found; Call on Him [for salvation] while He is near. 7 Let the wicked leave (behind) his way And the unrighteous man his thoughts; And let him return to the Lord, And He will have compassion (mercy) on him, And to our God, For He will abundantly pardon. 8 “For My thoughts are not your thoughts, Nor are your ways My ways,” declares the Lord. 9 “For as the heavens are higher than the earth, So are My ways higher than your ways And My thoughts higher than your thoughts. 10 “For as the rain and snow come down from heaven, And do not return there without watering the earth, Making it bear and sprout, And providing seed to the sower and bread to the eater, 11 So will My word be which goes out of My mouth; It will not return to Me void (useless, without result), Without accomplishing what I desire, And without succeeding in the matter for which I sent it.>> KFkairosfocus
March 4, 2020
March
03
Mar
4
04
2020
07:31 AM
7
07
31
AM
PDT
One of the things kf and I agree on is that, since something cannot come from nothing and there is something then there must have always been something, although not necessarily in the form of this universe. Yes, yes, thank you for that. The every day 'something' (experienced by everyone) is nature itself. The primary 'something' that is the source of nature, by any logical reasoning is superior to nature, the definition of 'supernatural'. And readily experience by those with the requisite dispostion and effort.groovamos
March 4, 2020
March
03
Mar
4
04
2020
07:08 AM
7
07
08
AM
PDT
AS, infinity --better, the transfinite -- is relevant, through the hyperreals. Take some H larger than any number we can count to, and do h = 1/H, a number smaller than any 1/n, where n is a number we can count to. This helps us establish tamed infinitesimals, thus Calculus through non-standard analysis. There is thus a cloud of infinitesimals around 0, and this can be extended by addition around any r mileposted by numbers we can count to n. This allows us to do analysis on the continuum. H also allows us to address the issue of a claimed or implicit infinite quasi-physical past joined to now by finite stage, causal temporal, thermodynamically regulated, energy flow constrained succession of stages ["years" for convenience]. Such cannot be transfinite, as no stepwise, finite stage process can bridge the transfinite. -H, -H+1, -H+2, . . . will always see some (-H+k) --> K, K+1, K+2 etc, which will always be in finite stage succession from H then K, i.e. we have no good reason to imagine we can so traverse the span to a 0-point such as the Bang, from which we can count up to now, what ~14 bn y on the usual timeline? So, an infinite quasi physical past is implausible. Similarly, we do not have circular causation where some now causes its antecedents. We see a finitely remote beginning of our observed cosmos and any substrate behind it. This is where we need causally adequate necessary being to account for our world, and given our moral government [including of our rationality] we face a need for an inherently good, utterly wise necessary being capable of being the root of worlds fine tuned for C-chem, aqueous medium, terrestrial planet, cell based life. Which should sound familiar. KFkairosfocus
March 4, 2020
March
03
Mar
4
04
2020
07:02 AM
7
07
02
AM
PDT
@3 Something cannot NATURALLY come from nothing.Belfast
March 3, 2020
March
03
Mar
3
03
2020
10:37 PM
10
10
37
PM
PDT
One of the things kf and I agree on is that, since something cannot come from nothing and there is something then there must have always been something, although not necessarily in the form of this universe.Seversky
March 3, 2020
March
03
Mar
3
03
2020
04:01 PM
4
04
01
PM
PDT
wikipedia:
The ancient philosopher Aristotle argued that the world must have existed from eternity in his Physics as follows. In Book I, he argues that everything that comes into existence does so from a substratum. Therefore, if the underlying matter of the universe came into existence, it would come into existence from a substratum. But the nature of matter is precisely to be the substratum from which other things arise. Consequently, the underlying matter of the universe could have come into existence only from an already existing matter exactly like itself; to assume that the underlying matter of the universe came into existence would require assuming that an underlying matter already existed. As this assumption is self-contradictory, Aristotle argued, matter must be eternal.
Jim Thibodeau
March 3, 2020
March
03
Mar
3
03
2020
02:50 PM
2
02
50
PM
PDT
The concept of Infinity is useful in mathematics, so a previous discussion here at UD I was involved in informs me. This version of Infinity applies to the realm of imagination. In the physical realm, Infinity is an absurdity. It doesn't apply to anything. Andrewasauber
March 3, 2020
March
03
Mar
3
03
2020
01:10 PM
1
01
10
PM
PDT
1 9 10 11

Leave a Reply