Yes but your mathematical operations don't fit. If you want to modify a probability P(X) of 1/2 with a piece of evidence that, say, only has a likelihood of occurring if not X of 1/3, you multiply. You take P(~X) times 1/3, in this case 1/6, and your new P(X) is now 5/6 — Echarmion

No it is for simultaneous occurrence of two events when you multiply.

I am combining evidence which is an additive process.

But this is an argument. It's not evidence. You cannot assign probability values to arguments — Echarmion

I can if I want to perform a meta-analysis of all available evidence and arguments, assign a rough probability to each and then combine them. Its more refined than taking a wild guess.

All the evidence depends on the notion that the physical constants and laws could be different. So in order to treat the physical constants and laws as evidence, you need to assume they are subject to change - for which you have no evidence. Since X * 0 is always 0, the value of your evidence is zero.

According to our current understanding, physical constants and laws are unchangeable (that is their definition), so they always have probability 1 — Echarmion

I'm not sure I follow you. If physical constants and laws are unchangeable and they are fine tuned for life then surely a non-zero probability of a creator is in order?

A probability analysis that comes up with a 97% chance for the existence of "Creator"...is zero steps away from being a blind guess that the blind guesser just cannot kick — Frank Apisa

Well at least I'm systematic about it, unlike you - you are just using gut instinct / taking a wild guess. I am calculating.

Why are you adding probabilities together if you want to modify a prior using given evidence? — Echarmion

Well I start at 50% probability, and then consider each piece of evidence for/against the proposition, modifying the probability for the proposition as I go.

Furthermore, there is no evidence for either a prime mover or for "fine tuning". Both are merely thought experiments. — Echarmion

Well the first is the subject of the OP. Presentism ('Only now always exists') always leads to an infinite regress which is logically impossible. Only by having a start of time and something timeless creating time can we escape the infinite regress. So I think that rather strengthens the prime mover argument (by having a timeless prime mover - he does not need creating because he's beyond time and thus beyond cause and effect). I allowed 75% probability of a creator for this in my calculation.

On the second, there seems to be lots of evidence of fine tuning (for example here: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/fine-tuning/). I also allowed a 75% probability of a creator for this in my calculation.

I did not say a 97% chance of God. I said a 97% chance of a creator. There is a difference. The chances of that creator also complying with the traditional religious attributes of a deity is then somewhat lower depending upon how much 3O mayonnaise is added to the deity.

I must reject this because everyone knows for certain that 87.6% of all statistics are made up on the spot. — Frank Apisa

A probability analysis is one step away from being made up on the spot.

It is every bit as "probable" that there was (is) no "directing intelligence" involved...as that there was (is). (Fact is, the "probability" of both is beyond human abilities to calculate.) — Frank Apisa

Here you would be resorting to the Weak or Strong Anthropic Principle?

BTW, it is possible to estimate the chance of the existence of a 'creator of the universe':

- Start at 50% / 50% for a unknown boolean proposition
- Allow for evidence of the Prime Mover argument: 50% + 50% * 75% = 87.5%
- Allow for evidence of the Fine tuning of the universe 87.5% + 12.5% * 75% = 96.875%

So 97% chance of 'creator of the universe' existing.

It might be a god...if might be one of many gods...it might not be a god in the sense of "God" as written by Aquinas. IT MIGHT NOT EVEN BE. — Frank Apisa

Fair point, but the argument is strong enough to have one allowing for the possibility of God. So its a pretty good argument.

I think really the argument from design needs to be recast in modern day terms to be applicable. If we look at how unlikely it is that the universe would be the way it is (life supporting) by chance, we can see that there was probably some directing intelligence at work with the creation of the universe. Again one has to make another probability adjustment for the existence of God.

If the universe if infinitely old, then the age of the universe is not numeric, by definition. — Terrapin Station

But it's impossible for a numeric property to take on a non-numeric value; the age of the universe must be a number.

We could for example have a clock in our eternal universe. What would it read? Can't read infinity (because it's impossible to 'tick' to infinity). It must read some finite number IE the universe is finite in time.

If you agree infinity is not a number then you must also agree that properties of reality of a numeric nature (such as age of the universe) cannot take infinity as their value.

.because they are, for the most part, devoid of logic. — Frank Apisa

The argument of the first cause follows just from cause and effect. I fail to see what is illogical about it.

The argument from design holds today; there are about 20 physical constants which appear to have been fine-tuned to life supporting ranges.

What is wrong with that? For example, an infinite number of particle collisions, extending into the past, can be represented by the numeric sequence:

-∞, ..., -3, -2, -1

Any time ordered set of events can be arranged linearly like this.

Suggests that you do not understand the concept of infinity. Infinity is not a number. — Terrapin Station

You are agreeing with me. Infinity is not a number so it cannot stand in for 'number of events' because that expression requires a numeric value.

I did not set out to prove the prime mover; I set out just by observing that presentism leads to an impossible infinite regress. So I just set out in unbiased sort of way using logic and arrived quite naturally at eternalism as a way out of that infinite regress. It leads to a timeless prime mover who is therefore beyond cause and effect and therefore does not in itself need to be caused. Its the only logical way out of the infinite regress at the start of time.

As far as Aquinas goes, his argument from design is still applicable today. The argument from first cause is still applicable if you believe in cause and effect. It is reenforced if you make God timeless and thus beyond cause and effect.

The error there would be that you're calling it a number in the first instance-- "The number of events." — Terrapin Station

For any infinite regress, you can number off the events sequentially so there is no error.



I think a main consequence is that there is a timeless, prime mover who created time and the universe.

I think actually I have made an error with my proof that an infinite regress is impossible - sorry. Amended version below:

1. The number of events in an infinite regress is greater than any number.
2. Which is a contradiction; can’t be a number and greater than any number.
3. But can be a number greater than every other number
4. But there is no greatest number (If X is greatest, what about X+1)
5. So is not a number (from 3 and 4)
6. Contradicts [1] which says it is a number

But there is an actual physical property of the system, the age of the universe, which takes a numeric value. It must have some value. That value has to be greater than any number. Contradiction.

I think that reality is logical so it would not include illogical concepts like infinity.

But the events have happened, they are in the past. And I know whatever finite number I pick, it is smaller than the number of events. The only conclusion is that the number of events is greater than any number.

It would be like me proving infinite integers smaller than 0 don't exist this way:
1) The total number of integers smaller than 0 is greater than any number.
2) Which is a contradiction; can't be a number greater than any number*. — coolguy8472

I take your point, but [1] above is still valid. And it leads to [2]. And infinity is not a number so [2] is still a correct conclusion.

IE There is no number that describes the size of the set of negative integers. I know mathematicians have made up a number for size of the natural numbers but that definition leads to ∞+1=∞ and the same craziness with the other arithmetic operators.

One common way to use the term "impossible" is to refer to something that would amount to a logical contradiction--an instance of P & ~P. I presume you're not using the term that way, though. What sense are you using instead? — Terrapin Station

I'm using it in the way of meaning a logical contradiction. To quote the op:

1. The number of events in an infinite regress is greater than any number.
2. Which is a contradiction; can’t be a number and greater than any number*.

*(Infinity is a concept not a number, proof: Infinity, if a number, would be a number X which is greater than all other numbers. But X+1>X). — Devans99

So here we have something that is a number but greater than any number. Thats clearly a logical contradiction.

The only way for something to 'exist always' is for it to exist timelessly; otherwise you have an infinite regress which is impossible.

And if it is not too much trouble, I would love to read the P1 and P2 that brings you to the C of "Therefore, to exist you must first start existing." — Frank Apisa

Points 1-6 in the OP here:

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

No, it isn't — Terrapin Station

Yes it is. It leads to an infinite regress which is impossible, so it's incoherent. At least Eternalism is logically possible.

No, it isn't, because as I've explained to you time and again, stuff either exists always or there was a start to it, and there's no way around that, despite both being counterintuitive. — Terrapin Station

- 'stuff either exists always' is impossible as I've proofed over and over. To exist you must first start existing.
- 'or there was a start to it' which leads to a start of time. Which rules out presentism.

You can have no upper limit to the amount of time before now while at the same time having any number of age of any moment in history. So a million years ago exists, 10^434343 years ago exists, but "infinity" years ago does not exist because it's a malformed value. But any finite number of years ago exists — coolguy8472

You are trying to make an actual infinity (past eternity) into a potential infinity. That's not possible, past eternity actually happened; implying whatever number we choose will be smaller than the number of moments elapsed; but there is no number with the quality it is bigger than all the others (there is no largest number X because X+1>X). Hence the nonsensical conclusion that the number of moments elapsed is not a number.

If the starting point is non-existent in your scenario then it serves no purpose to use it within that hypothetical reality to arrive at a contradiction — coolguy8472

But that is the defining characteristic of objects that have 'always existed' - they have no start, so I am perfectly entitled to use that fact in a proof.

Presentism is incoherent too though.

There would be a moment a million years ago, a billion years ago, or any other number of years ago. But not a moment "infinity" years ago. While at the same time having an infinite amount of time before now — coolguy8472

Yes, you have to come to the conclusion the age of some moments is greater than any number which is a contradiction. You cannot have past eternity without actual infinity.

It sounds like you're projecting backward to a starting moment from "now" and then saying you cannot reach "now" from the starting moment because it never would have reached "now" from the starting moment. — coolguy8472

What I am doing is starting from the non-existent start point and adding infinity moments to it to get to a non-existent end point in the present.

Since you seem so sure of your position, though, I'd like to ask you if you see any significant implications of it on the "human condition." If you are correct, as you seem certain you are...are there significant other truths that derive from it? — Frank Apisa

I would not say I'm 100% sure of my position but there seems to be more evidence in favour of eternalism.

Impacts on the human condition depend what type of eternalism. If time is circular for example, that would mean we experience the same lives over and over again. Not as far fetched as all that; the Big Crunch would fit very nicely with the Big Bang. And there is no place in spacetime apart from the Big Crunch to get enough energy/matter for the Big Bang.

The "time runs slower in the presence of gravity" is an unusual statement. — Frank Apisa

The more intense the gravity the slower times runs I should of said.

Do you not concede that there are imponderable that MAY make what you see as cut-and-dry "logic" that dictates as invalid? — Frank Apisa

There are probably questions we can't answer (maybe 'why is there something rather than nothing?). But where we are presented with a logical absurdity (presentism), we can draw appropriate conclusions; that is just part of the scientific method.

If we assume an eternal universe we are assuming that there exists an unlimited amount of time before now. I don't see a logical contradiction in the idea of "no start to a series" when we grant an unlimited amount of time before now — coolguy8472

But I would argue that it does not matter how much time you allow; if the objects do not have temporal starts, they do not exist. To see what I mean, try imagining a brick without any identifiable spacial start point. It would not exist. Works exactly the same for time as it does for space. As I've pointed out before (https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/5242/infinite-being), infinite existence is impossible for beings so it should be impossible for anything else also.

Infinity means without limit that doesn't exist as a value in conventional math. It's not part of a set of natural numbers therefore not appropriate to treat it as a number in conventional math like "∞+1=∞". — coolguy8472

You are saying you can't perform mathematical operations on infinity? IE it's not a number.

Every whole number maps to every fraction like this: — coolguy8472

The point is that the rationals are larger than the naturals. For every natural, there is an infinity of rationals. That's a simple proof that bijection gives the wrong answers.

"time start+∞" in your point number 4 contradicts point number 1. You're identifying a start point when you've already said none existed — coolguy8472

Step 4 is just steps 2 and 3 repeated an infinite number of times. If you object to step 4, you should object to something in steps 2 and 3. I don't see a problem, I'm using the absence of a start point rather than the presence of a start point in my argument.

If something cam from nothing, the that falls under case [X] in the proof.

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

Thats many people's gut instinct on time, 'only now exists'. My point is time is unintuitive and you actually have to work through the logic to see that 'only now exists' is not viable. For example, your gut instinct on time would not have told you that it runs slower in the presence of gravity, but it does. Not intuitive.

'Only now exists' leads to 'only now always existed' which leads to an infinite regress; IE its can't happen; more than only now must exist.

Consider the anti-realist's interpretation of time — sime

But even an anti-realist must have an opinion on whether sensory input data from the past/future actually exists in the same sense as 'nows' sensory input data?

That is, that time is always occurring at the same speed, or at the very least progressing at some speed. This would be a fallacy. The problem though is that your argument hinges on this — Roland

If time is not progressing at some speed, that would seem to lead directly to eternalism?

By this logic, time needn't have begun and it need not end. — Roland

How would you then counter my argument in the OP that time has a start?

How would you explain the low entropy state of the universe?

Did you know you were a Hegelian? — unenlightened

I guess so. A universe where 2+2!=4 is a universe with no information in it:

A. 2+2=5
B. Implies 0=1
C. Implies True=False
D. Implies no information

A universe without information would be a very boring place. So I'd argue for any substantive universe, basic logic and basic maths must hold.

Plus I don't think I bother with philosophy too much if metaphysics is impossible; thats my favourite part.

I have no idea what you'd think logic is if you think this has anything to do with logic. At any rate, logic, ontologically, is a way of thinking about relations. — Terrapin Station

Logic involves information; truth values are either 1 or 0 in the case of boolean logic or somewhere in-between for fuzzy logic. The truth values from logic correspond to information. The universe is composed of information. So the universe is logical.

For example, the big bang involving "maximum gravity" is really about us playing with mathematics. It's a consequence of our mathematical constructions — Terrapin Station

How else can we interpret the fact that the red shift of galaxies increases with their distance from us if it is not that they were once very close together?

Hence "precipitated by the counterintuitiveness of it," but the world isn't actually required to conform to what's intuitive to us. — Terrapin Station

But the world appears to follow logical (if not intuitive) rules; hence all the progress in science has been possible. I see no reason why the start of time should disobey basic logic... what you call 'counterintuitiveness' is actually contrary to logic IMO (and the world is logical).

I had a laundry list of objections to that in that thread.

Re the other two things, constructing things with mathematical conventions doesn't actually work as evidence. — Terrapin Station

IMO I addressed your objections. What is mathematical about an expanding universe needing a start point? It makes perfect sense just as a logical argument. And we know from experiments that time slows in the presence of gravity; so time starting at the Big Bang (=maximum gravity) is not unbelievable,

Re causing it, apparently you buy the old "something can't come from nothing" bumper sticker slogan, but that slogan is actually unsupportable — Terrapin Station

But something coming from nothing, including no time? Sounds unbelievable to me.

What evidence? — Terrapin Station

There is a strong argument for a start of time here:

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

There is also the Big Bang theory which has time running slower and slower as we get closer to the Big Bang till the point of the singularity when it is unknown what happens to time. It is suggestive of a start of time.

Also the BGV Theorem states in brief that an expanding (on average) universe cannot have a timeline infinite into the past; it must have a beginning.

So not actually presentism but presentism without a start. — Terrapin Station

I don't think presentism and a start of time are compatible. What would come before and cause the start of time? There is nothing to do that, so it seems an impossible combination.

And as I believe the evidence points to a start of time, that seems to rule out presentism.

The point here is that when it comes to all issues concerning time, the most likely answer may be the we have no idea what we're talking about. — Jake

I agree. Hence we must continue to probe this fascinating mystery.

don't understand this. First of all, you say an infinite regress is impossible — T Clark

I gave a proof:

1.The number of events in an infinite regress is greater than any number.
2. Which is a contradiction; can’t be a number and greater than any number*. — Devans99

Or think of it this way. Each event in an infinite regress has a predecessor so each event makes sense on its own, but the series as a whole has no start so the series as a whole can't exist logically.

Physicists speculate that the universe may be infinite in size, there may be infinite multi-verses. — T Clark

The universe started expanding 14 billion years ago so common sense says it can only have reached a finite extent.

The leading multiple universe theory, Eternal Inflation, has a definite start in time, so there would be a finite but growing number of other universes under that theory.

While we are at it, show us how presentism and eternalism can be differentiated by experiment or observation? — T Clark

Presentism is the belief that 'only now always existed' so we need to look for evidence of a start of time (like the Big Bang).

but it's also true if I drop a glass 5 feet onto concrete it will fall and break on the floor. (thermodynamic direction of time) It will then not spontaneously reassemble and jump back onto the counter. — T Clark

The 2nd law works the same whether 'now' is involved or not; it does not matter whether you drop the glass now or 10 minutes ago or 10 minutes into the future, the result is the same. The 2nd law counts against presentism as proponents need to explain why entropy is so low.

So if we experience a stream, a linear sequence of nows, where we don't experience the past and future in the same way, how do we avoid an infinite regress in terms of our temporal experience? — Terrapin Station

The infinite regress occurs only with infinite time; if there is a start of time there is no infinite regress. If time is circular, there is no infinite regress. It's only the 'time goes back forever' model that is a problem.

Therefor time doesn't have to begin or end. — Roland

I think that time has a start and provably so (see https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/5302/an-argument-for-eternalism/p1).

Or has it occurred to you that the universe does what it does because that is all that it can do, and that maths and physics is just a modeling language that tries to describe that doing? — tim wood

Information is unarguably real and logic is how information is processed. The universe is composed of information thus governed by logic.

It is a weakness of standard eternalism that the present has no privileged status, whereas it does for us.

There is also a variation, moving spotlight theory, which is eternalism with a presentness indicator.

Nothing has ever not happened in the present — Anthony

So you mean the universe has never been completely at rest? Yes I agree, an at rest universe would be a dead universe.

Quite literally, nothing can escape the present — Anthony

There is the quantum eraser experiment (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_eraser_experiment). It seems to suggest retro-causality; IE signals travelling from present to past.

Where have we caught the universe doing its sums like some sort of school boy? — Anthony

F=ma, e=mc^2, etc... when have we not caught the universe doing sums? It seems to follow purely mathematical rules. And thats what you'd expect; logic transcends everything and maths is just an extension of logic.

The world does not have to do what you or anyone else says — unenlightened

But logic predates, transcends and governs the universe, so yes, the universe has to behave logically. Any time we find absurdities (infinite regresses), we can use those to narrow down the true nature of things. This is just part of basic logic.