there is no such thing as forever, because it doesn’t have an initial state. — Brett
a system’s initial state determines all subsequent states. — Devans99
Yes, that is true, but initial state does not have to be a start state. It could be any point in a continuing series of states. If today's state is taken, then we could deterministically calculate the state as of tomorrow, AND still have a state preceding today's state, such as yesterday, last year, ten billiion years ago, any time ago.a system’s initial state determines all subsequent states. — Devans99
there is no such thing as forever, because it doesn’t have an initial state.
— Brett
You deny the existence of something that has been forever, ONLY on the premise that everything must have an initial state. But something that has been forever, does not have an initial state. To not be able to internalize how that is possible is plain limitation in insight.
an hour ago — god must be atheist
Next time try and do philosophy though otherwise you're just going to annoy people on here when you don't understand what is being said to you. — Mark Dennis
You deny the existence of something that has been forever, ONLY on the premise that everything must have an initial state. But something that has been forever, does not have an initial state. To not be able to internalize how that is possible is plain limitation in insight. — god must be atheist
Because you're the one who made the post. You have two accounts. — Mark Dennis
Yes, that is true, but initial state does not have to be a start state. It could be any point in a continuing series of states. If today's state is taken, then we could deterministically calculate the state as of tomorrow, AND still have a state preceding today's state, such as yesterday, last year, ten billiion years ago, any time ago.
Your deterministic approach does not exclude and infinite chain of states predicating other states. Initial, that is, starting time is NOT a necessary feature of determinism. — god must be atheist
So the proposition "(Principle of Sufficient Reason - everything in time has a cause/reason)" cannot be used as evidence of the beginning of the universe because it comes from this very conclusion. If the proposition is only true if the conclusion is true, then we are going to have some very sticky problems grounding this argument logically — Mark Dennis
Why would you say that we have to be determinists? — Terrapin Station
Even if reality is not fully deterministic, there is still a relationship between prior and subsequent states - if the prior state does not exist then the subsequent state does not exist. — Devans99
So for a non-deterministic eternal particle, I would argue it has no start (because it existed 'forever') so it cannot have a start+1 state, a start+2 state, so by induction, it can't exist. — Devans99
If it "has existed eternally" then sure, those words conventionally refer to there being no start to it. And indeed it wouldn't have a starting state then, because of what "start" refers to. But this doesn't imply that something can't have existed forever. It just wouldn't have a "start + n" state, because there's no start to it. Again, that's what "existed forever" refers to--there's no start. — Terrapin Station
As always, by the way, you either have something existing forever or you have something spontaneously appearing "out of nothing" so to speak. Neither seems intuitively right, but there's no way around those being the only two options. — Terrapin Station
This argument here actually supports a cyclical universe that has been here forever, as the universe cannot be the reason for itself — Mark Dennis
In general: 'to be X something has to start X' works for everything — Devans99
Is it just me that feels like this guy keeps jumping between these two options? I can't make sense of him anymore as I feel half the time he is saying he hasn't arguing for the thing he was just arguing for two minutes ago. First there is a forever then forever can't be. I am getting confused here. — Mark Dennis
If you think that works for everything, then it's necessary for you to have things always existing. — Terrapin Station
I think it's because he has the aim of arriving at a particular conclusion (a religious conclusion), and the arguments are basically ad hoc means of getting to the conclusion he wants. — Terrapin Station
There are also quite a few other arguments that the universe cannot have existed ‘forever’:
— Devans99
What's the alternative?
9 hours ago — Brett
a system’s initial state determines all subsequent states. 'Forever' has no initial state so is impossible.
— Devans99
So, there is no such thing as forever, because it doesn’t have an initial state. And if it did it wouldn’t be forever. — Brett
You (meaning "god must be atheist" by "you") don’t read very carefully. The above statement I made was confirming to Devans99 what I believed he was saying. I’m not pushing any argument. As I said I’m just exploring ideas. — Brett
I don't think that we can just assume determinism though. At least not in a "proof." — 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.