'In cosmology, the steady state model is an alternative to the Big Bang theory of the evolution of the universe. In the steady state model, the density of matter in the expanding universe remains unchanged due to a continuous creation of matter, thus adhering to the perfect cosmological principle, a principle that asserts that the observable universe is basically the same at any time as well as at any place.'

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steady_state_model

I would point out that the universe cannot expand 'forever' - there would be a point in the past where it was not expanding - so with infinite time it can best be oscillating. Then with continuous matter creation we would still reach infinite matter density.

Hm. Have you ever visited Hilbert's Hotel? It will help with the mathematics — Banno

Yes and its marsh gas. Such a hotel could never exist in reality so we can banish any considerations of such a monstrosity when considering the universe.

Says who? Devans? — Banno

What is the point you are trying to make?

Well, no. It shows instead that for presentism there is no start to time — Banno

No the first part shows that for presentism and eternalism there is a start of time. You have still not read the OP properly.

OK. Have fun.

It would be an error to think that the universe acts logically. Instead, we choose logical descriptions of the universe. The universe acts as it will; it's our descriptions that are "restricted" by logic. If our descriptions do not work, we don't conclude that he universe is being perverse, we change the description.

We can't "give up on logic" and still be saying anything interesting. — Banno

Physics presently has no over arching description as quantum theory is yet to be reconciled with relativity in a way that suits everyone. Sometimes we just go without a description. But as we change, logic is source of confidence that we're changing in the right direction, so its something more fundamental than any particular description.

You sound like an indirect realist.

What could it mean to go in the wrong direction?

"God works in mysterious ways" explains everything, at the expense of explaining nothing.

What could it mean to go in the wrong direction? — Banno

We rely on logic to help us avoid the wrong direction.

"God works in mysterious ways" explains everything, at the expense of explaining nothing. — Banno

I don't understand the significance of this.

Have you ever chatted with @Devans99? He wants to talk about an infinite universe, but rejects Hilbert's Hotel because it could never be real. That is, he rejects the best description we have of infinity, without replacing it with something else, and expects us to listen to his argument.

Instead I'd recommend working within this best explanation of infinity - this best logic of infinity.

I asked what it could mean to go in the wrong direction; Your reply is that logic helps us avoid the wrong direction. So the wrong direction is to go against logic. In rejecting our best logic of infinity, @Devans99 is going in the wrong direction...

"Because God likes it that way" will serve as an explanation for anything.

But it puts an end to any ongoing conversation.

I reject infinity as a valid quantity. So I do not believe it can be used as the value of real world quantities like the size or age of the universe. So I believe the universe is finite both in space and time.

I do not regard ∞+1=∞ as a valid logical proposition. I think the bijection procedure in set theory yields the wrong results. I think set theory has other flaws around handling of infinite sets. Set theory fails to pass muster as logic IMO.

Have you ever chatted with Devans99? — Banno

I have. It was a short conversation.

It would be.

SO write it up and get your Ph.D.

Addition:

I do not regard ∞+1=∞ as a valid logical proposition. — Devans99

But this leads me to think you do not know what validity is. There are clear ways in which this proposition can be used to set out the mathematics of infinities coherently. Rejecting a mathematical theorem because it fucks you pet theory will not do, unless you can replace it with something of equal or greater power.

I reject the proposition because it 'fucks' with logic - two things that are different are not equal.

Maths can do perfectly well with potential infinity only (limits); actual infinity (transfinite numbers) is not required.

Yeah I get it. The contradiction you tried to point out doesn't work. I suppose the best way to describe the reality of an eternal universe is that it would exist with an actual infinite age but any attempts to quantify it would fall within potential infinity. Within your proof you try to disprove it by appealing to the actual infinity which doesn't work within real number math.

If there is no "start", then there is no "start"+1, etc... then say you'd never reach "now" therefore it's not possible. But there is no "start" because there is no beginning. Also would it not be possible for a universe to be created with infinite age by a god?

I suppose the best way to describe the reality of an eternal universe is that it would exist with an actual infinite age but any attempts to quantify it would fall within potential infinity — coolguy8472

The age of the universe is a numeric property; it takes a single numeric value. Actual infinity has no fixed value. Having a fixed value is the defining characteristic of a number. So Actual infinity is not a number. So it cannot be used for the age of the universe, size of the universe or any other real life numeric property.

Within your proof you try to disprove it by appealing to the actual infinity which doesn't work within real number math. — coolguy8472

Actual infinity has its own mathematical rules like:

∞+1=∞

Which make no logical sense. An object that when you change it, it does not change? There is no such object so the actual infinity concept flies in the face of our everyday experience and logic.

But there is no "start" because there is no beginning — coolguy8472

It does not matter if it's called 'start' or 'beginning', objects must have one in order to exist.

Also would it not be possible for a universe to be created with infinite age by a god? — coolguy8472

I'd argue that infinite beings are impossible:

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/5242/infinite-being/p1

So God it he exists is timeless rather than of infinite age.

The age of the universe is a numeric property; it takes a single numeric value. Actual infinity has no fixed value. Having a fixed value is the defining characteristic of a number. So Actual infinity is not a number. So it cannot be used for the age of the universe, size of the universe or any other real life numeric property. — Devans99

Pretty close to agreement. It's more like "if age of the universe is finite then it has a numeric property". By proving the age of the universe does not have a value in an eternal universe does not contradict that statement because it's a conditional.

Actual infinity has its own mathematical rules like:

∞+1=∞

Which make no logical sense. An object that when you change it, it does not change? There is no such object so the actual infinity concept flies in the face of our everyday experience and logic. — Devans99

not in conventional math. At best we could say as x approaches infinity x+1=(no limit) or infinity as a symbolic value to mean no upper bound.

It does not matter if it's called 'start' or 'beginning', objects must have one in order to exist. — Devans99

Maybe this is where you're tripped up on the whole thing: https://artofproblemsolving.com/wiki/index.php/Conditional Within logic "if A then B" is considered true when A is false. A="anything that begins to exist" and B="needs a cause". Proving the universe did not have a cause in an eternal universe does not make the statement false. It makes A false but not "if A then B" false.

Pretty close to agreement. It's more like "if age of the universe is finite then it has a numeric property". By proving the age of the universe does not have a value in an eternal universe does not contradict that statement because it's a conditional. — coolguy8472

I could say if the universe does not have an age; it is not a universe. Having no age implies the universe has no temporal start implies none of it exists.

not in conventional math. At best we could say as x approaches infinity x+1=(no limit) or infinity as a symbolic value to mean no upper bound — coolguy8472

Yes I was referring to transfinite mathematics.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transfinite_number

I consider a limit from calculus to be an example of potential infinity. Set theory is the only place in maths I know of that deals with the Actually Infinite.

Proving the universe did not have a cause in an eternal universe does not make the statement false. It makes A false but not "if A then B". — coolguy8472

You have lost me. An eternal universe would not have a cause makes sense.But apart from that I not sure what you mean?

I could say if the universe does not have an age; it is not a universe. Having no age implies the universe has no temporal start implies none of it exists. — Devans99

Having an age of 0 and an infinite age are 2 different things in case you're conflating them with the phrase "no age". Universes that have a beginning need a temporal start but that does not mean that universe that don't have a beginning need a temporal start.

You have lost me. An eternal universe would not have a cause makes sense.But apart from that I not sure what you mean? — Devans99

Say you have the statement "If it's a raven then it's black". This statement is not disproven with a white dove. It would need to be disproved by finding a raven that's some color other than black.

Similarly if you have the statement "if something begins to exist then it needs a cause". This statement is not disproven when you show the universe had no cause. We can take the contrapositive and say "if it does not need a cause" then "it does not need a beginning"

Universes that have a beginning need a temporal start but that does not mean that universe that don't have a beginning need a temporal start. — coolguy8472

The OP contains an argument that a particle needs a temporal start to exist. For particle you could read universe.

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/5302/an-argument-for-eternalism/p1

Similarly if you have the statement "if something begins to exist then it needs a cause". This statement is not disproven when you show the universe had no cause. We can take the contrapositive and say "if it does not need a cause" then "it does not need a beginning" — coolguy8472

My stance is that the universe has a cause and has to have a beginning. No beginning lead an impossible infinite regress (as well as not existing due to having no start). Having a beginning gets around these two logical problems.

I think we might be going in circles at this point.

Yeah I'm sure we are going in circles. Looked at this OP argument again:

1. Assume a particle does not have a (temporal) start point
2. If the particle does not have a start, then it cannot have a ‘next to start’ (because that would qualify as a start)
3. So particle does not have a next to start (by Modus Ponens on [1] and [2]).
4. And so on for next to, next to start, all the way to time start+∞ (IE now)
5. Implies particle does not have a (temporal) end
6. Implies particle never existed

Here's a proof that Santa Clause exists in the north pole using this same argument form:

1. Assume Santa Clause does not exist at the North Pole
2. If Santa Clause does not exist at the north pole then there does not exist a place next to Santa Clause at the North Pole
3. So Santa Clause does not have a place next to Santa Clause at the north pole
4. And so on for next to place, next to Santa Clause at the North Pole, all the way where to I exist right now
5. Implies that I don't exist
6. implies I never existed

Therefore Santa Clause exists at the north pole.

The argument form used in your proof has at least 2 ways to correct the argument that can be pointed out similarly in the Santa Clause argument. Either from referencing a non-existent location (Santa Clause at the north pole) against a real location (my location). Or from assuming the place "next to" the North Pole doesn't exist because Santa Clause doesn't exist there.

Using these same types of corrections arguments your proof, either this premise can be disproven:

2. If the particle does not have a start, then it cannot have a ‘next to start’ (because that would qualify as a start)

The point of time where any would-be starting point may not exist but that particular point of time still exists except does not have the property of being a "starting point". Any point in time next to this point of time also exists. So we could say the point of time "next to start" does exist except the point it's next to does not have the property of being the "starting point". Like the North Pole and the place next to the North Pole still exists regardless of whether or not Santa Clause exists there.

or this point could be disproven

4. And so on for next to, next to start, all the way to time start+∞ (IE now)

Referencing our universe from a non-existent point of time or a point of time in parallel universe. It's invalid because for the same reason why I cannot compute the distance between myself and Santa Clause if Santa Clause does not exist.

Therefore Santa Clause exists at the north pole — coolguy8472

Your argument shows that Santa does not exist. That does not show my argument is invalid.

The point of time where any would-be starting point may not exist but that particular point of time still exists except does not have the property of being a "starting point". Any point in time next to this point of time also exists. So we could say the point of time "next to start" does exist except the point it's next to does not have the property of being the "starting point". Like the North Pole and the place next to the North Pole still exists regardless of whether or not Santa Clause exists there — coolguy8472

Just because time still exists, does not mean that the object existed at that time. We know the object has no temporal start point so the object will not exist at the next point in time (even though that point of time exists).

Referencing our universe from a non-existent point of time or a point of time in parallel universe — coolguy8472

I am not; it is a fact that the start is connected to the end. So if the start does not exist, the end does not exist. All that is required is to know that the start is missing.

Either NOTHING exists...or at least ONE THING had no cause.

If ONE THING had no cause...that ONE THING could be EVERYTHING.

This entire discussion can be resolved into: We do not know the true nature of the REALITY of existence...and anyone asserting "the universe is eternal and infinite" OR "the universe is NOT eternal and infinite"...is doing nothing more than sharing a blind guess.

The arguments that pretend to have logic, reason, math, or science as a basis...are bogus.

ither NOTHING exists...or at least ONE THING had no cause. — Frank Apisa

Correct. The timeless prime mover has no cause. That is what started everything else off.

Devans99
1k

ither NOTHING exists...or at least ONE THING had no cause. — Frank Apisa


Correct. The timeless prime mover has no cause. That is what started everything else off. — Devans99

Devans...you have no idea of what "started everything else off"...nor if "everything else" was actually started off...or if it always existed.

You are trying to pass off your blind guesses on these matters as the result of logic, math, and analysis.

In the interests of truth...you ought really to stop.

Well we can say that an infinite regress is impossible - it has no start - so how could any of it come about? So the only way to avoid an infinite regress is a first cause.

Then we have the start of time (see OP); that requires a timeless first cause too.

So I would argue my position is the most logically coherent model for the start of the universe.

Silencing the debate is not in the interests of truth.

Your argument shows that Santa does not exist. That does not show my argument is invalid. — Devans99

it actually shows that santa clause does exist with a proof by contradiction. I used the same form of argument you used to show what it doesn't work.

Just because time still exists, does not mean that the object existed at that time. We know the object has no temporal start point so the object will not exist at the next point in time (even though that point of time exists). — Devans99

Within your argument you're using the absense of existence of a start point to spread that non-existence to infinity to "now". That's the same concept as me using santa's non-existence at the north pole to spread his non-existence to where I'm at now to prove I don't exist therefore santa must exist by contradiction.

I am not; it is a fact that the start is connected to the end. So if the start does not exist, the end does not exist. All that is required is to know that the start is missing. — Devans99

Within your proof you we assume a start point does not exist but then invoking the existence of it anyway when doing "start+infinity". If we assume an eternal universe in our premise then we are assuming the start does not exist.

Within your argument you're using the absense of existence of a start point to spread that non-existence to infinity to "now". That's the same concept as me using santa's non-existence at the north pole to spread his non-existence to where I'm at now to prove I don't exist therefore santa must exist by contradiction. — coolguy8472

You cannot use Santa's non existence to prove you don't exist.

Within your proof you we assume a start point does not exist but then invoking the existence of it anyway when doing "start+infinity". If we assume an eternal universe in our premise then we are assuming the start does not exist. — coolguy8472

It is a fact that the start is always connected to the end so it is always valid to traverse from start to end proving non-existence.

You cannot use Santa's non existence to prove you don't exist. — Devans99

Correct, that's why you can't use the non-existence of a start point of an eternal universe to prove now doesn't exist either.

It is a fact that the start is always connected to the end so it is always valid to traverse from start to end proving non-existence. — Devans99

That hasn't been proven. If there exists a scenario where a start does not exist then that would be false.
Saying something is true because it's a fact is still question begging.

But for it to be one object, the temporal start must be connected to the temporal end (else it is two separate objects).

I think you have to think about the topology of objects in space and then transfer that thinking to time. In space, saying something has no identifiable start point is equivalent to saying it does not exist - if it has no start point, it has no length (end-start) or breadth so it can't exist. It is exactly the same thing when you come to consider time.

For me, things without starts are in an infinite regress and thus are impossible. If you think about a moment, it defines the following moment. So infinite time forms an infinite regress. But there is no overall starting moment, so none of the moments in the infinite regress can ultimately be fully defined. Each moment makes sense by its own, but overall infinite time cannot be because the whole think is undefined.

If you think about the set of negative integers:

{ ..., -4, -3, -2, -1 }

The ... means the set is partially defined. Strictly speaking that means undefined. Anything without a start is undefined.

Devans99
1k
↪Frank Apisa
Well we can say that an infinite regress is impossible - it has no start - so how could any of it come about? So the only way to avoid an infinite regress is a first cause.

Then we have the start of time (see OP); that requires a timeless first cause too.

So I would argue my position is the most logically coherent model for the start of the universe.

Silencing the debate is not in the interests of truth. — Devans99

One...there is NO debate. There is you pontificating about the true nature of REALITY...and others explaining some of the inconsistencies of your "reasoning."

Using your "reasoning" either NOTHING exists...or at least one thing has always existed.

But you then go to the totally illogical conclusion that the "one thing"...cannot be everything that exists. You insist there must be a creator being "or creator something"...and I think that is because your intention always has been to show necessity for a Prime Mover/First Cause...which will then resolve itself into a god.

Not trying to stop debate. Pointing out there is no debate happening. And attempting to inject truth into the discussion.

I am trying to use logic rather than pontificating. I do no agree that inconsistencies in my reasoning having been demonstrated.

Using your "reasoning" either NOTHING exists...or at least one thing has always existed — Frank Apisa

'Always' existing in time is impossible; rather it is that something has permanent existence outside of time.

But you then go to the totally illogical conclusion that the "one thing"...cannot be everything that exists. — Frank Apisa

If we assume that everything that exists, exists in time, we always end up with an infinite regress. So there must be something outside of time that caused everything else. Something beyond cause and effect so needs no cause itself. Sorry if I'm repeating myself, but it's the only possible solution to how the universe started.

As to whether the first cause is God, I think you have to define 'God' first. If the definition is the traditional religious definition then that reduces the likelihood that the first cause is God - the 3Os do not follow logically from anything - so it's hard to logically argue for the traditional view of God.

↪Frank Apisa
I am trying to use logic rather than pontificating. — Devans99

Then you are not succeeding.

I do no agree that inconsistencies in my reasoning having been demonstrated.

I suspect that has to do with selective blindness. But let's let that be for a moment...and concentrate on something else...if I can persuade you to do so.

Using your "reasoning" either NOTHING exists...or at least one thing has always existed — Frank Apisa


'Always' existing in time is impossible; rather it is that something has permanent existence outside of time.

But you then go to the totally illogical conclusion that the "one thing"...cannot be everything that exists. — Frank Apisa


If we assume that everything that exists, exists in time, we always end up with an infinite regress. So there must be something outside of time that caused everything else. Something beyond cause and effect so needs no cause itself. Sorry if I'm repeating myself, but it's the only possible solution to how the universe started.

As to whether the first cause is God, I think you have to define 'God' first. If the definition is the traditional religious definition then that reduces the likelihood that the first cause is God - the 3Os do not follow logically from anything - so it's hard to logically argue for the traditional view of God.

This is all bullshit.

I want to tell you what I suspect about your thesis...and if you can take an honest view of those suspicions...we might get past that stuff I mentioned "putting aside" up above.

I suspect you are either hiding...or are unaware...of your true motivation here.

I suspect that the existence of a GOD is something that means a great deal to you...and that you have devised what you consider a brilliant plan to argue for the "GOD" while pretending not to be. In fact, while pretending that to be the furthest thing from your mind.

Internet arguers do this often...not necessarily for the existence of a GOD...but for political and moral notions also. Abortion, capital punishment, extreme left or right politics...all come immediately to mind.

The only person who can actually talk to you with any authority about this...IS YOU.

YOU have got to come to the realization of what is happening (if I am correct in my suspicions)...in order to deal with it.

Some questions I might ask to aim you towards thoughts in that direction:

Have you ever argued for the existence of God...expressed that way? (Not for the possible existence of gods...but for "God.")

Are you convinced that a God exists...expressed that way? (Not for the possibility of a god or gods...but for "God.")

On the spectrum of guesses about whether or not "God" (expressed that way) exists...where do you fall? Is it more toward "Yes, God exists" or more toward "No, God does not."

Deal with these questions without concern for "traditional views of God" (that very wording you used already answers some of the questions)...or about the 3 O's nonsense.

Hope you can respond.