The Logical Requirement of an Eternal Force

[JimBowie1958]

This is simple and old stuff that has been around for thousands of years and yet we are so sophisticated today that we have lost sight of this and other similar simple things.

We all know that one cannot count in finite, non-zero increments and reach an infinite value. There is no last last value to the count, and so it is endless and the 'infinite' amount never acheived.

Simple stuff, and yet people today seem to not realize that the inverse is also true. One cannot start at an infinite value and count down to a finite value, as there is no starting point to the sequence. Again, simple stuff.

It is also true that one cannot progress from an infinite negative value and count forward to 0 or any other finite value, as again there is no starting point.

So, by this we know that the flow of time and space cannot have been eternal and there must be a starting point at some distance back in time or else we could not have arrived at the present moment in time.

To hypothesize that there is just a bigger increment of endless cycles of time repeating itself, or an infinite series of Big Bangs each spawning another does no more than kick the eternal quandry down the road a bit and fails to explain how we are here in the present from an infinitely distant past.

Thus there must be some kind of force that exists outside time and space from which time and space have orignated at some point in the past.

This eternal force has no predecessor because it is the origin of time and so there is no 'before' this eternal force, as 'before' requires time in order to precede the eternal force.

Thus there must be something eternal outside time and space that has the energy to spawn all of this universe and probably many more universes that we have no knowledge of.

 

[Mr. H.]

Maybe this is why I so enjoyed math, geometry, algebra, calculus, functional analysis, and physics in school. Arriving at answeres to problems posed, creating imagery with numbers, manipulating the finite and the infinite... but there was never any end to the questions of how to represent a beginning and a finality to that which only existed in theory.

Infinite quantity may very well be a looped finite quantity. Warped or bent by the physical properties of their very existence.

As for the concept of "time". It's merely a measure of the passage of the movement of a physical quantity from one point to another.

Yeah- heady stuff.

I need another drink.

 

[JimBowie1958]

Maybe this is why I so enjoyed math, geometry, algebra, calculus, functional analysis, and physics in school. Arriving at answeres to problems posed, creating imagery with numbers, manipulating the finite and the infinite... but there was never any end to the questions of how to represent a beginning and a finality to that which only existed in theory.

Well, many of the concepts of mathematics only exist in theory as they are abstract concepts like sine, cosine, etc. This does not make them any less real as reality reflects their existance in the relationships that real objects have to each other.

Infinite quantity may very well be a looped finite quantity. Warped or bent by the physical properties of their very existence.

I dont think so, but Cantor wrote quite a bit about transfinite numbers and set theory, and I think he would say that you cannot draw a one to one correspondence between an infinite set and any finite set no matter how large the latter was or how many times you folded, wrapped, cycled or spindled it.

As for the concept of "time". It's merely a measure of the passage of the movement of a physical quantity from one point to another.

I used to think so, and I think that is the Kantian view, time merely being a ratio of change between objects, one object being a standard rate of change, like a clock or the moons of Jupiter.

But it seems that Einsteins theory of general relativity established time as a part of the physical universe and it can be sped up, slowed down or leaped across.

Yeah- heady stuff.

I need another drink.

Yeah, you and me both. But I cannot imbibe untill I shed this flu, lol.

 

[Mr. H.]

Geez, I haven't had the flu in 10 years. But it's the closest thing to being drunk and stoned without being drunk and stoned.

As for your reply post- I'm a little too rusty to expound much further.

So I think I'll just drink further.

To infinity and beyond!

 

[Dragon]

So, by this we know that the flow of time and space cannot have been eternal and there must be a starting point at some distance back in time or else we could not have arrived at the present moment in time. . . .

Thus there must be some kind of force that exists outside time and space from which time and space have orignated at some point in the past.

This does not follow from the first paragraph quoted above (which is true). In fact, not only does there not need to be any outside source for time, logically there cannot be.

What is implied by a statement of causation such as "A causes B"? There are several requirements for this statement being true, but one of them for certain is that A occurs before B. (That isn't a sufficient condition -- post hoc ergo propter hoc is a fallacy -- but it is a necessary condition; every cause must precede the alleged effect.)

But the only way that A can pre-exist B is if both are positioned in a temporal framework. Otherwise, the statement becomes meaningless. Time, however, is inherently NOT positioned in a temporal framework; it is, or includes, the entire framework of time.

Therefore, it is impossible for time to be the creation of something outside itself. Time merely is, and is without cause.

 

[JimBowie1958]

So, by this we know that the flow of time and space cannot have been eternal and there must be a starting point at some distance back in time or else we could not have arrived at the present moment in time. . . .

Thus there must be some kind of force that exists outside time and space from which time and space have orignated at some point in the past.

This does not follow from the first paragraph quoted above (which is true). In fact, not only does there not need to be any outside source for time, logically there cannot be.

What is implied by a statement of causation such as "A causes B"? There are several requirements for this statement being true, but one of them for certain is that A occurs before B. (That isn't a sufficient condition -- post hoc ergo propter hoc is a fallacy -- but it is a necessary condition; every cause must precede the alleged effect.)

But the only way that A can pre-exist B is if both are positioned in a temporal framework. Otherwise, the statement becomes meaningless. Time, however, is inherently NOT positioned in a temporal framework; it is, or includes, the entire framework of time.

Therefore, it is impossible for time to be the creation of something outside itself. Time merely is, and is without cause.

For A to cause B does not require time to exist prior to A. A could in theory exist outside of time and so it would see all things as simultaneous in the past present and future. In fact those last three words would be meaningless in reference to A.

And again, it is impossible for us to arrive at the present from an infinitely distant past just as it is impossible for a person to progress from the present to an infinitely distant future time. So time MUST have a beginning point and cannot be itself eternal as the defeinition of eternal is something that is not affected by time and exists outside of time. In fact, time as we know it did not exist prior to the Big Bang which initiated our time and space.

This isnt rocket science and has been considered to be a basic realization about the universe around us since ancient times (except the part about the Big Bang, of course).

It has only been since the abolition of teaching about theology in our public school systems that generations of Americans and other Westerners have become blythely ignorant about such a basic truth.

 

[amrchaos]

Maybe this is why I so enjoyed math, geometry, algebra, calculus, functional analysis, and physics in school. Arriving at answeres to problems posed, creating imagery with numbers, manipulating the finite and the infinite... but there was never any end to the questions of how to represent a beginning and a finality to that which only existed in theory.

Well, many of the concepts of mathematics only exist in theory as they are abstract concepts like sine, cosine, etc. This does not make them any less real as reality reflects their existance in the relationships that real objects have to each other.

Infinite quantity may very well be a looped finite quantity. Warped or bent by the physical properties of their very existence.

I dont think so, but Cantor wrote quite a bit about transfinite numbers and set theory, and I think he would say that you cannot draw a one to one correspondence between an infinite set and any finite set no matter how large the latter was or how many times you folded, wrapped, cycled or spindled it.

As for the concept of "time". It's merely a measure of the passage of the movement of a physical quantity from one point to another.

I used to think so, and I think that is the Kantian view, time merely being a ratio of change between objects, one object being a standard rate of change, like a clock or the moons of Jupiter.

But it seems that Einsteins theory of general relativity established time as a part of the physical universe and it can be sped up, slowed down or leaped across.

Yeah- heady stuff.

I need another drink.

Yeah, you and me both. But I cannot imbibe untill I shed this flu, lol.

Let me try to "correct" (if this is possible) Mr. H point:

Infinite quantity may very well be a looped finite quantity. Warped or bent by the physical properties of their very existence.

It is possible that the finite quality that Mr. H is referring to is in terms of a measure. For instance, a line segment can be considered (uncontably) infinite if we refer to each point on the line. But we could define the measure of that same segment as a finite number.

By forming a circle with the line segment, we could create an infinite path that never ceases to end but repeat, and if we travel that loop at a certain speed, we would continue to repeat it ad infinitum.

You could then construct a one to correspondance between an infinite line and the loop (minus one point), (Or, if you must insist on having a pure 1-1 correspondence, The loop and a ray originating at a finite point) thus leaving the argument concerning the orders of sets to the side.

Even so, this only leaves open a question of exactly what we are talking about. Are we referring to the measure of time as in its entirety, or are we talking about the measure of time and space as it is believed to have started with The Big Bang.

I tend to think that time,itself, existed long before the Big Bang. Time defined as a loop of finite measure is also a possibility.

 

[Dr.Drock]

Jim isn't it your argument that God has existed for an infinite period of time and he has infinite powers and infinite wisdome?

 

[JimBowie1958]

Jim isn't it your argument that God has existed for an infinite period of time and he has infinite powers and infinite wisdome?

Not God at this point in my thinking, but merely an eternal force.
No, it is that the EF invented time, and so It is in a constant state of existance in the present for all points in time. Time is something It spawned.

 

[JimBowie1958]

Maybe this is why I so enjoyed math, geometry, algebra, calculus, functional analysis, and physics in school. Arriving at answeres to problems posed, creating imagery with numbers, manipulating the finite and the infinite... but there was never any end to the questions of how to represent a beginning and a finality to that which only existed in theory.

Well, many of the concepts of mathematics only exist in theory as they are abstract concepts like sine, cosine, etc. This does not make them any less real as reality reflects their existance in the relationships that real objects have to each other.



I dont think so, but Cantor wrote quite a bit about transfinite numbers and set theory, and I think he would say that you cannot draw a one to one correspondence between an infinite set and any finite set no matter how large the latter was or how many times you folded, wrapped, cycled or spindled it.



I used to think so, and I think that is the Kantian view, time merely being a ratio of change between objects, one object being a standard rate of change, like a clock or the moons of Jupiter.

But it seems that Einsteins theory of general relativity established time as a part of the physical universe and it can be sped up, slowed down or leaped across.



Yeah, you and me both. But I cannot imbibe untill I shed this flu, lol.

Let me try to "correct" (if this is possible) Mr. H point:

Infinite quantity may very well be a looped finite quantity. Warped or bent by the physical properties of their very existence.

It is possible that the finite quality that Mr. H is referring to is in terms of a measure. For instance, a line segment can be considered (uncontably) infinite if we refer to each point on the line. But we could define the measure of that same segment as a finite number.

By forming a circle with the line segment, we could create an infinite path that never ceases to end but repeat, and if we travel that loop at a certain speed, we would continue to repeat it ad infinitum.

You could then construct a one to correspondance between an infinite line and the loop (minus one point), (Or, if you must insist on having a pure 1-1 correspondence, The loop and a ray originating at a finite point) thus leaving the argument concerning the orders of sets to the side.

Even so, this only leaves open a question of exactly what we are talking about. Are we referring to the measure of time as in its entirety, or are we talking about the measure of time and space as it is believed to have started with The Big Bang.

I tend to think that time,itself, existed long before the Big Bang. Time defined as a loop of finite measure is also a possibility.

I am refering to increments of time of greater than zero but finite measure.

As to the cycles of time idea, each cycle has a one to one correspondence to any linear increment of nonzero, finite time duration, and so does not solve our problem of an infinitely distant origin in time as neither cycles of time nor linear increments can have existed for an infinite time.

 

[amrchaos]

Well, many of the concepts of mathematics only exist in theory as they are abstract concepts like sine, cosine, etc. This does not make them any less real as reality reflects their existance in the relationships that real objects have to each other.



I dont think so, but Cantor wrote quite a bit about transfinite numbers and set theory, and I think he would say that you cannot draw a one to one correspondence between an infinite set and any finite set no matter how large the latter was or how many times you folded, wrapped, cycled or spindled it.



I used to think so, and I think that is the Kantian view, time merely being a ratio of change between objects, one object being a standard rate of change, like a clock or the moons of Jupiter.

But it seems that Einsteins theory of general relativity established time as a part of the physical universe and it can be sped up, slowed down or leaped across.



Yeah, you and me both. But I cannot imbibe untill I shed this flu, lol.

Let me try to "correct" (if this is possible) Mr. H point:

Infinite quantity may very well be a looped finite quantity. Warped or bent by the physical properties of their very existence.

It is possible that the finite quality that Mr. H is referring to is in terms of a measure. For instance, a line segment can be considered (uncontably) infinite if we refer to each point on the line. But we could define the measure of that same segment as a finite number.

By forming a circle with the line segment, we could create an infinite path that never ceases to end but repeat, and if we travel that loop at a certain speed, we would continue to repeat it ad infinitum.

You could then construct a one to correspondance between an infinite line and the loop (minus one point), (Or, if you must insist on having a pure 1-1 correspondence, The loop and a ray originating at a finite point) thus leaving the argument concerning the orders of sets to the side.

Even so, this only leaves open a question of exactly what we are talking about. Are we referring to the measure of time as in its entirety, or are we talking about the measure of time and space as it is believed to have started with The Big Bang.

I tend to think that time,itself, existed long before the Big Bang. Time defined as a loop of finite measure is also a possibility.

I am refering to increments of time of greater than zero but finite measure.

As to the cycles of time idea, each cycle has a one to one correspondence to any linear increment of nonzero, finite time duration, and so does not solve our problem of an infinitely distant origin in time as neither cycles of time nor linear increments can have existed for an infinite time.

Actually, I think that is more of a topological problem. For instance, are we talking about a closed set when referencing a linear increment. Also, the open set (0,1) does have a one to one correspondance to (-infinity,infinity). Such a funtion is tan(Pi*x -Pi/2) if we go from (0,1) to (-inf,inf) and the tan function is invertible under restriction to the range (-pi/2,Pi/2).

So the question I should be asking is--how do we not know that Our Universe is not a cycle. Is it possible to have a big "Crunch" that reverses the physical characterization of our universe. Why then is it not possible for such a patter to repeat itself. Why is it not possible for the duration of Universe(as it exists) to exist for a finite time?

Take care.

 

[JimBowie1958]

Actually, I think that is more of a topological problem. For instance, are we talking about a closed set when referencing a linear increment. Also, the open set (0,1) does have a one to one correspondance to (-infinity,infinity).

Not when looking at set of finite increments of time of nonzero duration. One could draw a one to one corelation between rational numbers between 0 and 1 to an infinite set, but that is not what I am talking about.

So the question I should be asking is--how do we not know that Our Universe is not a cycle. Is it possible to have a big "Crunch" that reverses the physical characterization of our universe. Why then is it not possible for such a patter to repeat itself. Why is it not possible for the duration of Universe(as it exists) to exist for a finite time?

The universe HAS existed for a finite time, which is the point of the post.