No, the question-begging claim is that time as an infinite succession of moments is impossible because it would have no first element.Are you claiming the future defines the past? — Devans99
Which does not entail a start of time.If you had thought it through, you would appreciate that the impossibility of perpetual motion implies a start of motion. — Devans99
No, the question-begging claim is that time as an infinite succession of moments is impossible because it would have no first element. — aletheist
Which does not entail a start of time. — aletheist
Where we mark the "start" of any finite series of events, and how we parse it out into discrete steps, is completely arbitrary. Before #1, presumably a person deliberately pushes the cue such that it hits the white ball. That involves a multitude of mental decisions, nerve signals, and muscle movements. We would have to go much farther back in time before that in order to account for all the causal factors. Moreover, none of the three listed events is instantaneous--each requires a finite interval of time, during which complex physical interactions occur--and in between, each ball presumably rolls across a frictional surface, slightly slowing its velocity.If we take an example of a finite causal regress:
1. The cue hits the white ball
2. The white ball hits the black ball
3. The black ball goes in the pocket
Note that if we remove the first element of the finite causal regress ([1] above) then the rest of the regress disappears. — Devans99
Again, not relevant; the issue is whether time has a start, not whether motion has a start.What caused the start of motion? — Devans99
Again, non sequitur; even if something outside of time created time (as we both apparently believe), that would not by itself entail that time had a start.So we are in an infinite causal regress. The only way out of such is to posit something uncaused as the base of the regress; IE something from beyond causality; IE something from beyond time. IE time has a start. — Devans99
Again, non sequitur; even if something outside of time created time (as we both apparently believe), that would not by itself entail that time had a start. — aletheist
Non sequitur; having no initial moment/state does not entail having no "defined" moments/states (whatever that means), unless we add the question-begging premiss that a first moment/state is required to "define" any other moments/states.So it is but a small step to see that any system over an 'infinite' period of time has no initial moment or state and therefore all subsequent states are undefined. — Devans99
More question-begging.Everything has a start. — Devans99
A straight line extending from the infinite past to the infinite future. A hyperbola for which the initial and final moments/states are ideal limits that never actually occur.Name a topology for time that has no start? — Devans99
Only if we arbitrarily designate one; a circle in itself has no points of any kind. If I use an inked stamp, I can "create" an entire circle on a piece of paper all at once, with no start point.Circles have start points BTW. — Devans99
Instantaneous states, positions, and velocity vectors are all abstractions that we artificially create to describe reality. They are not themselves real. Besides, our best current science indicates that it is impossible to determine both the position and the velocity of any particle at the same hypothetical instant, let alone all the particles in the universe.The state of the universe is given by the precise positions and velocity vectors of all its particles (10^80 or so in the observable universe I read) — Devans99
Zero. Besides wrongly treating an instantaneous state as a reality, the latest argumentation wrongly presupposes that the universe can be in the same state more than once.How many times has the universe been in state X in the past? — Devans99
unless we add the question-begging premiss that a first moment/state is required to "define" any other moments/states. — aletheist
Zero. Besides wrongly treating an instantaneous state as a reality, the latest argumentation wrongly presupposes that the universe can be in the same state more than once. — aletheist
You cannot prove that time has a start by assuming that time has a start. Besides, if every moment has a preceding moment, then time cannot have a start, because that would require a (first) moment that does not have a preceding moment.It is not question begging it is just the way reality works: — Devans99
That is not how probability works in the mathematics of infinity.- The probability of being in state X must be greater than 0% (because we have been in that state)
- Leading to the number of times in state X as ∞ * non-zero = ∞ times — Devans99
You cannot prove that time has a start by assuming that time has a start. — aletheist
Besides, if every moment has a preceding moment, then time cannot have a start, because that would require a (first) moment that does not have a preceding moment. — aletheist
That is not how probability works in the mathematics of infinity. — aletheist
By insisting that moments/states are "undefined" otherwise.Where exactly am I assuming that time has a start? — Devans99
Time is not composed of days. A day is an arbitrary unit of duration that we use to mark and measure the passage of time.Do you believe that a greater than any finite number of days has passed? — Devans99
If time is a circle, then every moment has another moment before it, but there is no start of time unless we arbitrarily designate one. Remember, I can use an ink stamp to "create" an entire circle on a piece of paper all at once.Every moment has another moment before it and there is a start of time if time is a circle. — Devans99
That is not how probability works in the mathematics of infinity. — aletheist
Again, in reality there are no instantaneous states, so the "probability" of any such state occurring is meaningless. Besides, in infinite time there would be infinitely many such states, and no reason in principle to assume that any two of them are identical.How does it work? — Devans99
By insisting that moments/states are "undefined" otherwise. — aletheist
Time is not composed of days. A day is an arbitrary unit of duration that we use to mark and measure the passage of time. — aletheist
If time is a circle, then every moment has another moment before it, but there is no start of time unless we arbitrarily designate one. Remember, I can use an ink stamp to "create" an entire circle on a piece of paper all at once. — aletheist
Again, in reality there are no instantaneous states, so the "probability" of any such state occurring is meaningless. Besides, in infinite time there would be infinitely many such states, and no reason in principle to assume that any two of them are identical. — aletheist
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.