Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

The dissolution of today

Share
Flipboard
Print
Email

Evolutionist atheist physicist Sean Carroll suggests that infinite past time exists. Basically it is a move to deny God: if time has no beginning, the cosmos has no beginning, then there is no need of a Creator. Moreover infinite time gives more probabilistic resources to evolutionism.

Unfortunately an infinite past time is nonsense. See the following figure:

Scenario A shows the actual situation of the arrow of time, running from left to right, from today to the future. If this arrow is infinite then we would have no last day.

To scenario A we apply a shift according to a leftward vector of infinite length to get scenario B suggested by Carroll. Of course the arrow of time continues to run from left to right, but the shift produces a “little” problem: the “no last day” becomes “no today!”. Simply in Carroll’s wonderland the present disappears, and with the present ourselves disappear. 🙁 Please give us back the Creator!

kairosfocus Thanks for your reference, here and elsewhere, to the "maximally great being, root cause of reality". This being is not simply "great" but really the unique Unlimited Principle of all. He is our origin, our end, our whole existence. The certainty of this Eternal Principle should sound a good news to every man! You and I (and others here...) maybe appear pedantic and boring to atheists, in our insistence about this certain Reality, in our continue pointing to it, from different points of view. But I am sure that you agree with me that we do so only because it seems egoistic to us not to share with our atheist brothers such really good news.niwrad
May 23, 2014
May
05
May
23
23
2014
10:42 AM
10
10
42
AM
PDT
Niw: A way to address the shift issue. Take a zero point at Big Bang, then count up steps to present, years or whatever, something causally connected. Then project on to countable infinity, you cannot "arrive at" aleph null less one, then aleph null. Now, exert the properties of integers. We have 1 -- -1, 2 --> -2, etc, so we can have 0, -1, -2 . . . and see that we could not COUNT backwards to an infinitely remote causal root beyond Big Bang or whatever. But the action we have is, sequence with causal connexion. If we cannot reach - aleph null from 0 by counting back in steps correlated to causal sequences, then that is a sign that it could not be traversed going forward either. To assert an infinite actual causal sequenced past is an absurdity. One is warranted therefore to infer that the actual past of causal sequences arriving at the present is finite. Which is also to say we have a contingent cosmos, with a beginning somewhere, thus also a root cause that is necessary and beginningless. That points to an eternal, non-temporal order in which our temporal order finds its root. (Things in that order include numbers, truths such as 2 + 3 = 5 etc. Indeed, we start with the empty set, {}, collect it as 0, then collect {0} --> 1, {0,1} --> 2, etc and see that numbers are necessary beings and the infinite set of natural numbers cannot not exist. And from that, much else follows, by pure force of logic, atemporal force.} which in turn lends force to the concept that we are dealing here with a necessary, maximally great being as root cause of reality. One that contemplates eternal truths eternally, contemplates, as opposed to computes. Eternal, necessary mind, at the root of being, and as reflective of a maximally great being. Should sound familiar. KFkairosfocus
May 23, 2014
May
05
May
23
23
2014
09:20 AM
9
09
20
AM
PDT
DiEb #4
A shift by infinity? Well, no wonder that this leads to counter-intuitive problems… Hasn’t theology dealt with the problem of an infinite past and an infinite future? Has the Christian God a beginning or an end?
In fact the time shift to -infinity is implicit in Carroll's model. To God pertains eternity, which has nothing to do with beginnings, ends and time.niwrad
May 23, 2014
May
05
May
23
23
2014
08:52 AM
8
08
52
AM
PDT
Sorry wrong link. The actual debate transcript is here: Reasonable FaithsteveO
May 23, 2014
May
05
May
23
23
2014
01:52 AM
1
01
52
AM
PDT
It's funny in a tragical-comical sense to see WLC point Sean Carroll to the utter lunacy in his reasoning belief system. Podcast and transcript at Reasonable FaithsteveO
May 23, 2014
May
05
May
23
23
2014
01:45 AM
1
01
45
AM
PDT
aqeels #12
You are discounting of course the possibility that in some other universe time runs in reverse and therefore it is not immutable law. Do not underestimate their crackpottery!
Good suggestion, thanks. However, a universe where time runs in reverse cannot exist. Besides, to claim that is to claim that the 2nd law of thermodynamics doesn't hold. They know the 2nd law is the more fundamental law of physics. For example, here is what Sir Arthur Eddington wrote about:
If some note that your theory of the universe is against Maxwell's equations, then you can discard them. If one discovers that your theory disagrees with the experimental data, no problem, often the data are wrong. But if your theory is against the 2nd law of thermodynamics you are hopeless. [cited by Roger Penrose, The road to reality, 2004, pag.756].
Anyway if some evolutionist atheist physicist arrived to the absurdity level of denying the "arrow of time" I have just prepared a reply where I explain to him why he is wrong, no problem :) .niwrad
May 22, 2014
May
05
May
22
22
2014
11:07 PM
11
11
07
PM
PDT
Think in terms of a successive causal chain and the reason why a countable infinity cannot be traversed will be clear. Whether to count up from now to the transfinite, or to count from the alleged infinite past to the big band then forward to today. And that is before we run into heat death issues etc, for simple terms. KFkairosfocus
May 22, 2014
May
05
May
22
22
2014
11:19 AM
11
11
19
AM
PDT
The fact is that time (differently from space) is not reversible (time always goes from left to right, from past to future).
You are discounting of course the possibility that in some other universe it runs in reverse and therefore it is not immutable law. Do not underestimate their crackpottery!aqeels
May 22, 2014
May
05
May
22
22
2014
08:01 AM
8
08
01
AM
PDT
Some could ask why in scenario B I put the dotted line (symbolically representing an endless path) at the right, not at the left, near the -infinity symbol. The fact is that time (differently from space) is not reversible (time always goes from left to right, from past to future). So, also after the shift changing scenario A to scenario B, the infinite time arrow continues to point rightward. This implies that the "endless symbol" cannot be at the left. This means that in scenario B we have that the -infinity at the left becomes sort of "virtual start point" of the infinite time arrow (as the "today" point is in scenario A). It is this situation that makes clear as the B "no today!" is the exact equivalent of the A "no last day" (and both are drawn below the "endless symbol"). As no "last day" can exist in A, so no "today" can exist in B. Today never arrives.niwrad
May 22, 2014
May
05
May
22
22
2014
07:03 AM
7
07
03
AM
PDT
A few notes of related interest: Dr. William Dembski gives insight into 'traversing the infinite':
The End Of Christianity – Finding a Good God in an Evil World – Pg.31 – William Dembski PhD. in Mathematics and Theology Excerpt: ‘In mathematics there are two ways to go to infinity. One is to grow large without measure. The other is to form a fraction in which the denominator goes to zero. The Cross is a path of humility in which the infinite God becomes finite and then contracts to zero, only to resurrect and thereby unite a finite humanity within a newfound infinity.’ http://www.designinference.com/documents/2009.05.end_of_xty.pdf
It is also interesting to see that Godel was able to bring the incompleteness theorem to fruition by studying the 'logic of infinity'. The following video gives us a glimpse into the work in infinity that led Godel to formulating the incompleteness theorem:
BBC-Dangerous Knowledge - Part 1 https://vimeo.com/30482156 Part 2 https://vimeo.com/30641992
As you can see, somewhat from the preceding 'Dangerous Knowledge' video, mathematics cannot be held to be 'true' unless an assumption for a highest transcendent infinity is held to be true. A highest infinity which Cantor, and even Godel, held to be God.
Georg Cantor - The Mathematics Of Infinity - video http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4572335 Kurt Gödel - Incompleteness Theorem - video http://www.metacafe.com/w/8462821 Taking God Out of the Equation - Biblical Worldview - by Ron Tagliapietra - January 1, 2012 Excerpt: The details filled a book, but the basic concept was simple and elegant. He (Godel) summed it up this way: “Anything you can draw a circle around cannot explain itself without referring to something outside the circle—something you have to assume but cannot prove.” For this reason, his proof is also called the Incompleteness Theorem. Kurt Gödel had dropped a bomb on the foundations of mathematics. Math could not play the role of God as infinite and autonomous. http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/am/v7/n1/equation#
Also of note: The main problem of reconciling General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics is the ‘Infinity Problem’ https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/faraday-man-of-faith-man-of-science/#comment-501232bornagain77
May 22, 2014
May
05
May
22
22
2014
06:03 AM
6
06
03
AM
PDT
I just do not get it. Why in the 21st century are we still debating this when the founders of modern logic (the Greeks) demonstrated with pure reasoning that an infinite past cannot exist more than a millennium ago? By having an infinite series of past events you effectively make it impossible to have the here and now. In fact the fact that I am writing this post proves without any shadow of doubt that there was a beginning to time, period. I was able to explain this to my six year old daughter and she immediately understood it! Sean Carroll is an intelligent person, so is it possible he is unable to understand the same logic that my six year old daughter understood? I doubt it has anything to do with understanding but more to do with a commitment to a world view that precludes the possibility of a beginning of time and the obvious ramifications that follow. It’s sad to see intellectuals of his caliber continuing their campaign of obfuscation so that they can make the lay person actually believe that an timeless universe is possible. It is a battle of attrition, a cultural war being waged in the name of science whose prize is to win the minds of the public and to bring them on side of the atheist elite.aqeels
May 22, 2014
May
05
May
22
22
2014
04:05 AM
4
04
05
AM
PDT
No it's not a proof for nihilism. It's irrational. It's silliness. It's not possible. It's nonsense, just like the OP claims. None of those constitute a proof for anything. From the present it is not possible to get to a point in time an infinite distance in the future. It follows that it is not possible to reach the present from a point in time an infinite distance into the past.Mung
May 21, 2014
May
05
May
21
21
2014
07:17 PM
7
07
17
PM
PDT
Questions Concerning the BVG Theorem - http://vimeo.com/95220171 In this videocast, Karlo Broussard, staff apologist and speaker for The Magis Center, answers two common questions that arise when talking about the BVG Theorem. The first question concerns whether or not the value of the upper limit velocity of physical energy affects the conclusions of the BVG Theorem. The second concerns why it is necessary that there be an upper limit velocity to physical energy.buffalo
May 21, 2014
May
05
May
21
21
2014
06:12 PM
6
06
12
PM
PDT
If past time is infinite, "6 days" = 6 billion years. Both infinitesimal to a few thousand decimal places. Divine rounding.ppolish
May 21, 2014
May
05
May
21
21
2014
11:07 AM
11
11
07
AM
PDT
"Who designed the Designer? Bizinga!" Dude, what part of "Eternal" don't you understand? Designer has been around forever. Before that too. And before. Bizinga bounces off me and sticks to you.ppolish
May 21, 2014
May
05
May
21
21
2014
10:57 AM
10
10
57
AM
PDT
Eternal God has no issue with an infinite past. Heavens and Earth were still created. No denying that. Lots & lots of Creation. Why is "Heavens" plural anyway? Mosaic Multiverse prophesy:)ppolish
May 21, 2014
May
05
May
21
21
2014
10:50 AM
10
10
50
AM
PDT
A shift by infinity? Well, no wonder that this leads to counter-intuitive problems... Hasn't theology dealt with the problem of an infinite past and an infinite future? Has the Christian God a beginning or an end?DiEb
May 21, 2014
May
05
May
21
21
2014
10:33 AM
10
10
33
AM
PDT
Carroll's model, if it related to reality at all, would be proof for nihilism. As it stands, though, it doesn't prove anything.Barb
May 21, 2014
May
05
May
21
21
2014
07:46 AM
7
07
46
AM
PDT
So, in other words, Carrol's model is a proof for Nihilism?VunderGuy
May 21, 2014
May
05
May
21
21
2014
07:35 AM
7
07
35
AM
PDT
You just wait till his grannie in Tipperary hears about it! There'll be skin and hair flying, as well as arrows.Axel
May 21, 2014
May
05
May
21
21
2014
06:34 AM
6
06
34
AM
PDT