So fine-tuning may be just an inherent tendency of the universe to resolve itself into states of adaptive-equilibria. — Pantagruel

I think if you were to write a computer program that generated universes at random, with random forces, random standard model, random initial conditions, you'd fine that the vast, vast majority of universes generated were not life supporting. The vast majority of universes generated would simply not support complex matter (like the atom).

Another example is the fine balance we have between gravity and the expansion of the universe. Gravity is required at its current strength / direction of action / range for life (nuclear fusion, planets) but leads to equilibrium. That tendency is counteracted by the expansion of the universe. Both gravity and the expansion of the universe are therefore likely fine-tuned.

Your assertion is not at all obvious. Many say pleasure in life comes from doing wrong. Even if pleasure comes about by good, the evil in the world brings pain too. I see no argument so far that good wins over evil, or being's power wins over nothing (assuming nothingness is bad) — Gregory

What is "right" and what is "wrong" in life?
And who decides it? — MathematicalPhysicist

It is misleading, decisions that are right (=maximise net pleasure) in the long term can be painful in the short term (eg think exercise, learning to drive).

And decisions that are wrong (=minimise net pleasure) in the long term can be pleasurable in the short term (eg think eating sweets, laziness).

In general, making wrong decisions weakens a person whereas making right decisions strengthens their position, so good wins out over evil.

Net pleasure = total pleasure - total pain

Good/right = net pleasure
Evil/wrong = net pain

I have a simple definition of good and evil:

- Good is right
- Evil is wrong

So Good is more optimal than evil (always better to do the right thing rather than the wrong thing).

So good overpowers evil.

I don't believe there are any infinities as I may have mentioned.

There is also an argument from the start of time that eternalism must be true:

1. There is a start of time (because could a greater than any finite number of days have elapsed?)
2. Assume only now exists
3. Then [1] and [2] requires creation ex nilhilo - impossible - so ‘more' than only now must exist
4. The ‘more’ must be temporal or atemporal
5. Assume temporal:
6. Let the ‘more’ exist in time2
7. Then time2 must also have a start
8. So now we are in an infinite regress of times
9. But infinite regresses are impossible (they have no first member, if they have no nth member, they have no nth+1 member, so they cannot exist)
10. So the ‘more’ must be atemporal
11. When the ‘more’ looks at our universe, which ‘now’ does it see?
12. It has to be all ‘nows’; IE eternalism

If passenger ‘B’ (trackside) sees the light pulse on the left hit before the light pulse on the right does that mean the pulse on the left is the present and the pulse on the right is the future if there is a difference in time between them for ‘B’ ? — Brett

The two people are in the same spacetime location yet the trackside person's past would contain events from the person on the train's present.

That's another big, convenient assumption. Why assume they should be causally connected (which just means they are detectable)? The fact that others have not been detected could mean there's just the one, or it could mean they are merely causally disconnected. You eliminate possibility #2 by assumption, and that's irrational - there's no basis for this, and so it simply sounds convenient. — Relativist

If inflation was a natural event then it should occur with the frequency of a natural event (eg supernovas). Each instance of inflation expands outwards so it would be like the expanding rings rain drops make on the surface of a pond - all of the instances overlap in space leaving evidence of each other detectable.

Inflation strikes me as quite a 'tall tail': it has the universe increase in size by a factor of at least 10^26 between 10^−36 seconds and 10^-33 seconds after the Big Bang. I know that the CMB shows good agreement with inflation's predictions but I still think it should be regarded as a speculative theory. I believe firmly in the Big Bang - an expanding universe is the only possible sort that avoids equilibrium - but the details of what exactly happened 14 billion years ago are opaque to humans.

OK. Thanks for the conversation.

By insisting that moments/states are "undefined" otherwise. — aletheist

But time is indubitably linear in nature; earlier times precede and define later times. The argument I am using works for any infinite regress where earlier elements define later elements:

1. An infinite causal regress has no first element
2. If it has no nth element, it has no nth+1 element
3. Therefore no infinite causal regresses exist

Infinite past time would be an infinite causal regress; earlier periods define later periods. So it is just not possible.

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

It does not matter what unit of time we use. Same question: do you think that a greater than any finite number of Planck time units has passed?

Obviously the point here is that time passing is a sequential process and there is no way for a sequential process to ever construct actual infinity. Hence time must be finite.

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

Well the start of time would be at the Big Bang / Big Crunch point of the circle.

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

"In physics, the Poincaré recurrence theorem states that certain systems will, after a sufficiently long but finite time, return to a state arbitrarily close to (for continuous state systems), or exactly the same as (for discrete state systems), their initial state."

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

So the argument I've used is valid for continuous systems too. Eternal past time leads to the absurd conclusion that the universe has been in the same identical state a greater than any finite number of times.

That does not follow, but if it's true - those other instances of inflation would not be detectable to us because they would be causally disconnected. — Relativist

I do not believe they would be causally disconnected; they would be overlapping in time and space and there would be evidence of multiple instances of inflation.

You'd be better off just striving to show that your belief is rational - I acknowledge that it MIGHT be, but it is NOT rational if if depends on proving the unprovable, as you're trying to do. — Relativist

I acknowledge that it is not possible to outright prove the existence of God. I do however think that God's existence is probable and I argue for the things I think are probable.

tell it to the cosmologists. Us lay people sitting around speculating deductively AND ruling things out is, I think, hubris. — Coben

Everyone has a right to an opinion just as much as cosmologists do. Many cosmologists think time has no start so clearly there is a considerable number of them that do not know their arses from their elbows on even basic matters. And speculating deductively is surely what this site is about?

You cannot prove that time has a start by assuming that time has a start. — aletheist

Where exactly am I assuming that time has a start?

Do you believe that a greater than any finite number of days has passed?

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

Every moment has another moment before it and there is a start of time if time is a circle.

That is not how probability works in the mathematics of infinity. — aletheist

How does it work?

For anyone not familiar with it, there is Einstein's train:

1. A passenger sits in the middle of a train with two light guns
2. He fires each gun at either end of the train
3. The two light pulses hit simultaneously; these two events define his present
4. There is a guy at trackside, also positioned in the middle of the train
5. To him the train is moving to the right so the right beam has slightly longer to travel than the left beam
6. But the speed of light is constant for both beams
7. So he sees the left beam impact before the right beam. That defines his present.

So in summary, two people in the same spacetime location have different interpretations of what 'now' is. This is clearly contrary to presentism and is therefore supportive of an eternalist / 4d spacetime interpretation of time.

No, but if you create time then you do exist in it, for there is now a now and you are in it. For if you have created time yet do not exist in the present moment, then you do not exist. For what is it not to exist apart from not existing in the present moment? — Bartricks

If the vertical axis of the picture is time and the horizontal is space then creation of a picture does not put you within time. Indeed you as a 3D object cannot exist in the 2D world of the picture.

Or there could be black holes birth universes elsewhere. There are a lot of options on the table in current cosmology. — Coben

Not even light can escape a black hole, so they should not be able to give birth to universes.

I do not believe quantum fluctuations can give birth to a whole dimension (time). If what you describe happened naturally, then there would be many instances of it (inflation). There is but one instance of inflation so it is not a naturally occurring event.

unless we add the question-begging premiss that a first moment/state is required to "define" any other moments/states. — aletheist

It is not question begging it is just the way reality works:

- Does today define what happens tomorrow?
- Or does tomorrow define what happens today?

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

- 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

I think if we consider any system over a finite period of time; then clearly it has an initial state that defines all subsequent states and the finite period of time has an initial starting moment.

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.

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

Everything has a start. It does not matter what topology you think time has; it has a start. Name a topology for time that has no start? Circles have start points BTW.

One more argument for you:

1. Assume time has no start
2. 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)
3. Call the current state of the universe X
4. How many times has the universe been in state X in the past?
5. A greater than any number of times *
6. Reductio ad absurdum. [1] is wrong. Time has a start.

* Which is impossible all by itself; you cannot use successive addition to arrive at a number greater than any number

Nothing precludes existing at all points of time. For example, there's no reason to think the fundamental quantum fields will cease to exist. — Relativist

We have established separately that there is a start of time. The start of time requires a cause. An uncaused cause. Quantum fields I feel are part of spacetime and so I doubt they can preexist spacetime (there is no time/space for them to fluctuate in).

Yes we have, and that why I knew your argument was dependent on convenient assumptions. Here you have pontificated another - asserting, without proof, that an intelligence must be behind it. You also seem to be stuck in a classical (non-quantum) view if physical reality. — Relativist

A start of time needs a cause from from beyond spacetime. Each cause requires a prior cause. The chain of causes cannot stretch back forever; ultimately we must arrive at an uncaused cause. An uncaused cause must be able to effect things without being effected itself; IE self-driven, IE intelligent.

QM is the science of the microscopic; the origin of the universe is a macroscopic tale.

No, the question-begging claim is that time as an infinite succession of moments is impossible because it would have no first element. — aletheist

So we are talking about an infinite causal regress right? You'd agree they have no first moment? 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.

Infinite causal regress have by definition no first element; so they do not exist / are not possible.

Which does not entail a start of time. — aletheist

What caused the start of motion? Call it A, what caused A, call it B, what caused B, call it C. 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.

Begging the question (again). — aletheist

Are you claiming the future defines the past?

Non sequitur. — aletheist

If you had thought it through, you would appreciate that the impossibility of perpetual motion implies a start of motion.

That doesn't explain God's existence it just asserts that he's uncaused. Any first cause is uncaused, so this alleged "explanation" is equally applicable to any first-cause state of affairs. — Relativist

But what is causality if it is not a feature of time. So something from beyond time must be uncaused; it has no 'before' so it is by definition uncaused.

Nothing can exist permanently in time; that is impossible; it would have no temporal start point, so no temporal start point +1, no temporal start point +n, it does not exist. Because there is something in the universe, it follows that something from beyond time must exist.

You will undoubtedly rationalize all this, but it will require making just the right assumptions that preclude a natural first cause while permitting a supernatural one. But this doesn't actually prove[/] anything. — Relativist

I think we have been here before. A natural cause implies the universe is a dumb mechanical system. Dumb mechanical systems cannot start themselves without input from an intelligence and end up in equilibrium. The universe has movement; so it cannot be a dumb mechanical system; there must be an intelligence behind it.

Again, it is impossible to "prove" that time has a start with only mathematics and logic. — aletheist

Well I disagree; time is a logical, sequential phenomenon so induction works just fine to prove it has a start. Time with the way one moment defines the next is a example of an infinite causal regress, all of which are impossible as they have no first element.

We can also use physics too: perpetual motion is impossible, therefore time has a start.

The universe can only have one of the following as its average long term behaviour:

1. Expanding. This is what science says.
2. Contracting. Impossible. One big black hole
3. Steady state. Impossible. Leads to 2
4. Cycling. Impossible. Loses energy on each cycle, leading to 3 then 2

Any expanding universe must have a start in space and time (see BGV theory).

What you are missing is that the past defines the future and an infinite past can never be a fully defined past because it has no initial starting state (so it must by induction be null and void all the way through).

There are about 6 other ways to prove time has a start. I gave a couple here:

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/369717

But of course, it seems inevitable that there would be SOMETHING unexplainable at the root of it all: neither is there an explanation for a "God's" existence. — Relativist

There is an explanation for God's existence; he is uncaused because he is from beyond causality, IE beyond time.

But as I've already argued, that's false by your own lights - God, having created time, would exist in it, yet God is uncaused. — Bartricks

If you create a painting, do you exist in it?

You could insist that God does not exist in time, but you'd need an argument to show that. And so far as I can tell, your only argument is that he created it. But that fails because creating something does not preclude one from being in it. I create a cave, I am in a cave. — Bartricks

- God can't exist in time because he'd be subject to the 2nd law of thermodynamics and therefore dead.
- God can't exist eternally in time because he would have no start to his existence (would you exist if you were not born?)
- God can't exist non-eternally in time because there would be nothing before God to create him.

Also, if you consider that time must have a start:

1. Assume time has no start
2. Then there is no first moment
3. If there is no nth moment there is no nth+1 moment
4. But we have moments (contradiction)
5. So time must have a start

Then something must start time. That must be God.

How would you suggest removing a moment from time? — Metaphysician Undercover

Since all real moments are indefinite, it is logically impossible to distinguish one from another, let alone "remove" one. — aletheist

We can't, but we know that an infinite past essentially comes with a moment removed at the start so such a construction is therefore impossible.

Infinite past time is like a something from nothing - there is no initial state, so no subsequent states - the existence of the present would therefore be like a magic trick.

We cannot even mark off intervals of time by designating instants, because as special relativity indicates such designations would differ depending on your frame of reference. — Metaphysician Undercover

Time may run at different rates for different people, but I feel each individual experiences it linearly so it is best represented by a linear series of moments. In SR/GR spacetime has a specific shape to it, so definitely has a temporal starting point (eg the spacetime of the Big Bang and aftermath are visualised as a 3d cone).

If we remove any a moment or time interval if you prefer, then all subsequent moments or time intervals become undefined. Time with no start means no initial moment/interval, so the basic argument therefore still holds.

I think that time is an important part of the argument; its impossible to exist in an uncaused state within time, so the uncaused cause has to be beyond time.

IE no substance can exist forever in time - it would have no temporal start.

Mind reading fallacy? (I'm entirely irrelevant.) — jorndoe

Could the counting eternal alien be on a finite number? No, then he would not be eternal.
Could the counting eternal alien be on a infinite number? No, impossible to count to infinity.
So by elimination of all possible numbers, he must be on UNDEFINED.

He never started counting (a past forever has no start).

The general rule is 'in order to be X, one has to start X', eg:

- In order to be counting, one has to start counting
- In order to be moving, one has to start moving
- In order to be orbiting, one has to start orbiting
- In order to be existing, one has to start existing

Nothing can exist forever in time. Can't get something from nothing, so something must have always existed. Hence time must have a start and something timeless must exist.

1. If every event has a cause, then some events are substance-caused
2. Every event has a cause
3. therefore some events are substance-caused — Bartricks

A. Ultimately, God's first action (be that creation of spacetime or whatever) has to be uncaused. So this action counts as an event and it has no cause. So you terms, think of the substance moving on its own with no prior reason; this is not caused by the substance, it simply has no cause.

B. I do not see that you have proved substance causation; God could be composed of parts that all exist timelessly.

C. I feel it is remiss to leave out the start of time from such arguments as it has a pivotal role.

Not when all the bananas are stipulated as identical. — aletheist

But the mass of the sequence must have changed. But the maths says the sequence is identical so it has the same mass. So its a contradiction.

It is possible to change something in one respect without changing it in another respect. If I peel a banana, it is still the same banana, even though I have changed it in one respect. — aletheist

A peeled banana is no longer identical to a non-peeled banana.

I honestly do not see what there is to explain. Do you not know the difference between the hypothetical and the actual? — aletheist

I assume by hypothetical you mean the imaginary structure of actual infinity in our minds? But hypothetical means it might or might not be true. In this case, it cannot be true. It is impossible to actualise infinity in the mind; just dreaming illogically about it is as close as we can get.

I think of actual infinity as both a logical concept and something that could apply to reality. But it is illogical so it can exist only in our minds (where the impossible is possible) and reality is logical so it cannot exist in reality.

If you don't like my proof actual infinity is impossible, how about this reductio ad absurdum proof:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ross–Littlewood_paradox

So there are 9n balls in the bag for each finite step. There are 0 balls in the bag after actually infinite steps. An infinite number of steps is just the sum of the actions of the finite steps and none of the finite steps result in 0 balls in the bag. Reductio ad absurdum. Actual infinity is logically impossible.

Again, we have changed it in one respect but not in another - no contradiction. — aletheist

If I add one banana to the sequence, I should get back something that is someway different from the original sequence. The fact that I get the same sequence back is a contradiction.

You seem to be saying it is possible logically and/or in reality to change something and it does not change. Your logic / reality therefore differs from mine.

We are discussing hypothetical infinity, not actual infinity. We do not have an actually infinite sequence of actually identical bananas, let alone two such sequences. — aletheist

Can you explain the difference between hypothetical and actual infinity?

But we have added a banana to the sequence so we have definitely changed it. So we have changed the sequence and it has not changed - contradiction.

I think you are trying to defend the indefensible; actual infinity is a logical impossibility. For example, is it possible to construct actual infinity or its inverse mathematically or otherwise? No it is not, each is a task that never ends and never ending tasks are impossible to complete.

Something that goes on forever like actual infinity would just be pure magic and magic is not possible because it defies logic and reality is logical. Is there anything with the structure of the natural numbers in reality? No so aleph-zero is just the invention of a deranged mind.

What are aleph-zero, aleph-one? They are names of patterns formed by imagining the abstract and illogical structure we call infinity. They are not sizes or cardinalities; just names of patterns or organisations. Does it make sense to add one to a snowflake? Or multiply a snowflake by a hexagon? Cantor had it all wrong about set theory just like he had it wrong about God talking to him.

There is this hypothesis that ties in with the theme of the OP:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zero-energy_universe

But I feel it cannot explain the origins of the universe:

1. Some driver for the creation of matter from negative gravitational energy is required. So it cannot be a true something from nothing event; something must pre-exist it to act as a trigger.

2. If something can come from nothing naturally and past time is infinite, then matter density would be infinite by now, which is clearly not the case. So 'something from nothing' mandates a start of time which would be the creation event of the universe.

We change it in one respect (whether it includes this particular individual member), but it is not changed in another respect (its cardinality as an infinite set). Not a contradiction. — aletheist

We change the sequence (its a sequence of identical bananas; not a set) to include an extra identical banana and we get back an identical sequence of identical bananas. So both the sequence itself and the cardinality remain unchanged despite us adding one banana.

I am using a revised version of the PSR: 'everything in time has a cause'.

You think everything has existed forever I think. That is impossible. Imagine an eternal counting alien. He has been counting forever. What number is he on now?

How is 'we change it and it is not changed' not a contradiction?

Immanence- Are the causal relata immanent, or transcendent? That is, are they concrete and located in spacetime, or abstract and non-spatiotemporal? — BrandonMcDade

1. Assume that a substance has existed forever in spacetime
2. Then it has no temporal start point
3. If it has no temporal start point, it has no temporal start point + 1
4. If it has no temporal point n, it has no temporal point n+1
5. So it does not exist
6. So nothing can exist forever in spacetime
7. So God cannot be immanent within spacetime.

It is not only not observed, it is semantic self-contradiction, fallacy in itself to begin with. — Zelebg

Just because we only have experience of existence within time, does not mean that atemporal existence is impossible, it is just something that we are not familiar with.

A couple of more proofs that time has a start:

Actual infinity is impossible (see https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/7379/infinite-bananas/p1) and past infinite time is an example of actual infinity. So time must have a start.

And...

1. Assume time had no start
2. Assume a particle had a collision 5 minutes ago, label that 1
3. Assume the particle had a collision 10 minutes ago, label that 2
4. Assume the particle had a collision 20 minutes ago, label that 3
5. And so on, collision numbers getting higher as we go back in time
6. How many collisions has the particle had?
7. It cannot be actually infinite collisions as it is impossible to count to actual infinity
8. So it must have had every number of collisions
9. So the particle has counted every possible number in the past
10. But [9] is impossible, if you count 100 numbers, you are 0% of the way to counting all numbers. If you count a billion numbers, you are 0% of the way there. n/∞=0% so it is not possible that the particle counted all numbers
11. So the particle must have a finite number of collisions in the past
12. So time has a start.

Barring special pleading, "atemporal" thinking sentience is nonsense. — jorndoe

The almost certain existence of a start of time mandates that something atemporal and intelligent exists. You have to remember that as humans we are only familiar with a small fraction of possible states of existence - God maybe something completely different to what we are experienced with.

If time is circular then why would the spotlight have started at the big bang? It could have started at any point. — khaled

It depends on how exactly time works:

- If time is fully future real all the time, then the spotlight of time could start anywhere as you say. But fully future real is sort of a tough sell

- So instead I was thinking of a hybrid model between future real and the growing block model of time: The Big Bang is the moment of initial creation. On the first iteration (first circle of time), the future is real but null (so like growing block). Then future is built up - the Big Bang happens, our earth results and later there is a Big Crunch. On the second and subsequent iterations, the future is real and non-null (and repeats exactly as before).

If time is circular, events must be deterministic, because if they're not they wouldn't repeat given the same conditions, so time wouldn't be circular — khaled

I'm not sure that determinism is a requirement: each event happens once (is determined once) but it experienced multiple times.