Assign a tiny probability that an event will happen each time period and then multiply that by infinite time: — Devans99
If time has a start, it must of been caused by something. — Devans99
That certainly makes sense, but if we're forwarding a logical argument what is the ground for assigning any probability for any arbitrary time period? If it's just an arbitrary assumption why would we expect anyone to give it any weight as something true? — Terrapin Station
We know a lot from relativity about photons and in general we know things moving at the speed of light do not experience time. So movement does not require time. — Devans99
Any given event has a probability of happening over any fixed time period. If it's a 'natural' event then that probability is non-zero. With infinite time, as soon as the probability is non-zero, the event will/has happened infinite times. — Devans99
So far as we know, things moving at the speed of light don't experience anything, since they aren't sentient. And the "speed of light", is, as the name implies, a speed. Speed, or velocity, has the unit m/s. How is this possible without time? — Echarmion
There's a serious problem with that per theory, then, because an event can happen just once given an infinite amount of time. — Terrapin Station
Sorry I'm not using 'event' in the strict sense of relativity defines it; what I mean is infinite instances of the same class of 'event'; IE infinite Big Bangs. — Devans99
I wasn't using the term that way, either. There can be just one big bang, say, given infinite time. Again, see what i wrote above if you want to argue that's impossible. — Terrapin Station
There can be just one big bang, say, given infinite time — Terrapin Station
If the big bang was a natural event, it would have a non zero probability of occurring over any finite period. — Devans99
Put it this way. If I were to say, "Between the last message I posted and this one--a finite time period, there was zero probability of a big bang occurring," we could know that I'm wrong by . . . . ? Well, by what? — Terrapin Station
As far as I understand it, relativity says we are always travelling through spacetime at the speed of light but there is a time and space component. For someone stationary, movement is all in the time direction, but for something moving at the speed of light, movement is all in the space direction with no time component. So movement is possible without time. — Devans99
So your argument is that because the movement of all objects can be expressed as a vector in a 4 dimensional space that always has the same length, the 4th dimension of that space is not necessary for movement? — Echarmion
If Big Bangs occurs naturally, then there is always a non-zero probability of a Big Bang in any finite time period. — Devans99
Based on what? The fact that you're stipulating it? — Terrapin Station
We have to say that the qualifier 'natural' applies to certain time periods. For an event to be natural within a time period; it has to have a non-zero possibility of occurring in that time period. — Devans99
- If an event is non-natural in a time period, then it has a 0% chance of occurring in that time period.
- If an event is natural in a time period, then it has a non-zero chance of occurring in that time period. — Devans99
What is the probability based on? — Terrapin Station
We're not just assigning probabilities randomly, are we? — Terrapin Station
No, but all we need to be able to deduce that infinite Big Bangs occurred is to assign a non-zero probability of a Big Bang occurring in a tiny fraction of the universe's infinite history; that is sufficient to ensure infinite Big Bangs.
The actual probability numbers do not matter; all that matter is if the probability is zero (Big Bang must be a non-natural event) or non-zero (Big Bang must be naturally occurring and infinite in occurrence). — Devans99
If I say that the probability of the Big Bang occurring today is zero and you say it's not, then we need a way to determine which one of us is correct. — Terrapin Station
What I say implies infinite natural Big Bangs (with infinite time). We can tell from astronomy that there is only one Big Bang so empirical evidence is in my favour when concluding that the Big Bang is singular and non-natural. — Devans99
You're only using "natural"/"non-natural" to refer to probability right? — Terrapin Station
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.