I think what happens with entropy during the big crunch is that the whole universe compresses down to a single discrete space time 'cell'. So the universe is in a state of zero entropy and also the Big Bang is identical to the Big Crunch at that point in time (t=0).

I also think that time has a cursor that moves in one direction only around the circle of time. This allows us to know the direction of time.

The axiom I'm using ('all effects have causes') pretty much rules out Presentism by the way:

What caused the first cause? There is nothing in the presentist model before the first cause except a barren, endless stretch of time. So it's impossible for the universe to begin.

Or what caused God? There is nothing in the presentist model before God but an empty stretch of time. So God must be eternal outside of time.

What I am saying is that if time moves in the direction of entropy increasing, then at the time of the Big Crunch, and as long as entropy is decreasing, time is running backwards: the universe is folding in itself, only to unfold again in the big bang. And the other thing that troubles me is that if time is circular and we are indeed on that circle, then at what point on that circle did the universe began, at the point of the big crunch/bang or someother?

I think time runs always in the same direction. Once the universe starts contracting and compressing, entropy comes down (smaller universe = less micro states) and eventually reaches zero at the point of the Big Crunch / Big Bang. But time does not need to run backwards.

The universe presumably began at the point of the big bang. It plays out completely deterministically until the big crunch where it returns to its initial state and then the time cursor spins around for another loop...

So entropy is not connected in anyway to time and vice-versa?

So one could say that the universe began at the point of the big bang, but this only appears to us so, it's not what really happens/happened: since time is circular, this process of big bang/crunch repeats itself indefinitely and eternally, right?

So entropy is not connected in anyway to time and vice-versa? — Pussycat

I think entropy is unrelated to time; they just happen to point in the same direction; one does not cause the other.

this process of big bang/crunch repeats itself indefinitely and eternally, right? — Pussycat

I'm not sure. I imagine the time cursor spinning around the loop of time a potentially infinite number of times but it's difficult to say.

But the circle of time must have had a beginning, right? Or is it beginning-less you say?

For a circle the choice of start/end point is arbitrary. In the case of the universe; the most obvious place to put it is the Big Bang/Big Crunch. The time cursor if such exists must surely have started at the Big Bang.

But if the choice of start/end points is arbitrary, then why do we preferentially choose the Big Bang as a start?

Or is there something very special for that particular point?

I'm not sure where else to put it. The time cursor must have originally started at the Big Bang I feel. My argument suggests an eternal universe but it would still have to be built up somehow. So the time cursor must of started at a Big Bang, building up the universe as it goes and then spinning around and around.

Sorry if that sounds a little crazy... this is the outer edge of my ideas so please take with pinch of salt.

haha, ok this seems reasonable. After all it's better to do a fresh start, like they say, I mean why on earth would you consider a start at, say, the poor condition we are in today, it's better to reshuffle the cards and hope for the best! Maybe you will get a better card this time, maybe not... But then again as Einstein said: "Stupidity is doing same thing and expecting different results". :)

Have you read Slaughterhouse 5?

No.

You should. I think you would like it.

I just read the synopsis on Wikipedia. Does sound very interesting!

Always loved " Sirens of Titan" that the totality of our entire existence was just to provide a space/time traveler a replacement part for his space ship the size of a old time can opener.

I'm saying the original prime mover argument is basically logical until it reaches the point of the 'unmoved mover' which is not a logical concept. — Devans99

In order for "not a logical concept" being a useful observation we'd first have to establish that human logic is relevant to whatever is being investigated.

In very many cases this is easy to do, because we have a vast pile of data to rely on. As example, we've built millions of bridges using human logic, so we can confidently state that declaring something a "not logical concept" in that arena would be a meaningful and useful analysis.

In some other cases, particularly those of vast scale, we can't just assume that human logic is at all relevant.

On philosophy forums so very many conversations are built upon the unchallenged assumption that human logic is relevant to the question being discussed, and then the logic dancing game is played out as if that had already been proven to be true. As Rank might say, that's just faith posing as reason.

My argument starts with the simple axiom ‘all effects have causes’ and proceeds via deduction to circular time.

You either disagree with my axiom or my reasoning. Which is it?

Like I said, I disagree with the assumption that human reason is relevant to the question. It may be so, or perhaps not. I'm not willing to assume it is relevant as a matter of faith.

My argument starts with the simple axiom ‘all effects have causes’ and proceeds via deduction to circular time. — Devans99

It also smuggles in the premise that everything is an effect, which is precisely what proponents of an unmoved mover deny.

everything is an effect, which is precisely what proponents of an unmoved mover deny. — aletheist

That is a very illogical belief IMO.

'Everything is an effect' makes sense as an axiom.

That is a very illogical belief IMO. — Devans99

What is the warrant for believing that absolutely everything is an effect caused by something else? How is it any more "logical" than believing that there is one unmoved mover, one uncaused cause, whose being is necessary rather than contingent?

We have everyday experience to go by. Everything is caused by something else seems to be the way the world works.

We have no everyday experience of things being uncaused.

Hence I feel it is a good axiom.

We have no everyday experience of things being uncaused. — Devans99

But, um, the ENORMOUS realm you are investigating has very close to nothing to do with everyday human experience.

Everyday experience leads me to believe nature is logical. My knowledge of astronomy suggests this extends to the universe as a whole. So I think applying logic to the origins of time is justified.

If the universe truly is illogical (and there is no evidence to suggest this IMO) then we have no hope of ever figuring it out. Might as well give up on cosmology if thats the case.

Everyday experience leads me to believe nature is logical. — Devans99

Everyday experience tends to revolve around human beings. Human beings have thousands of hydrogen bombs aimed down our own throats, an ever pending suicide event we rarely find interesting enough to discuss. Are human beings logical? This is who you are analyzing a realm so vast as to be beyond our comprehension with, suicidal cave men.

Everyday experience tends to revolve around human beings. Human beings have thousands of hydrogen bombs aimed down our own throats, an ever pending suicide event we rarely find interesting enough to discuss. Are human beings logical? This is who you are analyzing a realm so vast as to be beyond our comprehension with, suicidal cave men. — Jake

We are just creatures of cause and effect. Our inputs determine our outputs. So we are logical entities who just appear to act illogically due to our inability to master the complexity of human dynamics.

The origin of time however is a cleaner problem than human dynamics.

The universe is all cause and effect. — Devans99

How do you know?