Is the Past Infinite?

Sorry, but your speculation is of the "not even wrong" type. A physical theory, to be taken seriously, need some equations, which have to be sufficient to explain the things we observe around us, and in a quite mathematical, quantitative way.

By the way, don't use popular introductions into string theory or other theories as an example what you have to do in fundamental physics. There are professional papers behind such popular introductions, full of mathematics, and if you want to develop a serious theory, you have to present similar professional papers. That's hard, but such is life.

By the way, using UPPERCASE in such postings is considered to be bad style ("crying").

What is Infinity?

Does Infinity have an Absolute Reference Frame?

Does an Infinity Absolute Reference Frame have physical parameters?

I think the Vacuum T=0K gives answer to this questions.

=.

Israel Sadovnik Socratus

Dear All,

who am I?

I am here and now, I is forever.

Love,

Sridattadev.

The Universe is all that exists and by definition it includes everything. It even include the laws of Nature. Assuming that the Universe has an origin is like assuming that it comes from nothing. The only solution is to assume that the Universe has always existed.

I suggest that the black holes are the Universal Banks of the Information in the cycling Universe. The english version of my article is quiet old, about 4 years; afterwards I've bettre expressed the same concepts but only in Italian language. If intereste contact me at the e-mail gr.olograficoflegreo@libero.it, thank you.Attachment #1: italias_black_holes.doc

Hi Louis,

Welcome to FQXi.org. Are you thinking of enterring the essay contest?

James

Louis Brassard,

I hope you consider enterring the essay contest.

James

Hi James,

Yes I am considering to enter.

- Louiw

Louis

In which case you need to assume that you can never know where the "universe" came from or how long it has existed. Such considerations are irrelevant because they are metaphysical. We can only know about reality, as it is manifested to us (or all organisms). That is, there comes a 'boundary point', and that is not associated with practical issues about our ability to effect direct experience (we can hypothesise on the basis of such) but in respect of that which is never knowable (ie it is not of our existence/reality and therefore not even potentially experienceable). James had a phrase for this, something to the effect that 'one needs to allow for one miracle'.

So, all we can know is that there is a present, ie a physically existent state as at any given point in time, and that that ceases as it is superceded by another physically existent state, which occurs because there is some inherent property which is causing alteration in the existent state. The 'past' has no form of existence, except as represented in physically existent phenomena which organisms can sense.

Paul

Louis,

I hope you do. You have very interesting ideas along with the expertise to present them in a professional manner.

James

James

Given the way other exchanges have gone, I cannot be bothered to trace your original comment. Edwin responded and agreed, Georgina had problems. I agreed with it. The simple fact is that our knowledge (whether based on direct experience or hypothecated therefrom) must ultimately hit a 'brick wall'. We cannot know what it is existentially impossible for us to know, but, logically, may exist. There comes a point where we just have to accept a 'full stop', put the other way around 'a miracle'. We have a reality, as is, ultimately, how, why, etc is unknowable, we just have to accept it, as is, and explain it, as is.

Paul

Dear Anthony,

I am so glad that you left a message on this blog.I've only just come across it.

I am interested to hear about your work on a past eternal model.I read the abstract but probably would not understand the whole paper.I also think it very interesting that you followed the mathematics where it went.And that you think (?thought) philosophical thinking is quite important.

I hope my essay will be interesting to you. As I intend to talk about other ways of thinking and what comes from that. I also hope you will be reminded of what you wrote here.

PS thank you for FQXi.

Paul,

This is what you said:

"... That is, there comes a 'boundary point', and that is not associated with practical issues about our ability to effect direct experience (we can hypothesise on the basis of such) but in respect of that which is never knowable (ie it is not of our existence/reality and therefore not even potentially experienceable). James had a phrase for this, something to the effect that 'one needs to allow for one miracle'. ..."

I have never said this nor do I agree with it. My point was that there is at least one 'given' for anyone's explanation of the universe but that there should be no more than that one. No additonal free-bee add-hoc inventions of the mind that continue to pop up out of a necessity generated by both early and ongoing errors. That one first 'given' is experienced by us.

Also it was part of a message that included your repeated unscientific beliefs. I don't want Louis or anyone else to think that I might think that your ideas make sense. You are certainly as welcome as anyone to express your opinions, without my retorts, as long as you do not associate me or my name with them. I understand that this has probably been a waste of my time writing this message. I expect that you will feel compelled to teach me again by repeating your errors. That effort would be a waste of your time. Please teach others.

James

James

And what is the difference between "that there is at least one 'given' for anyone's explanation of the universe" and stating that 'we can only know so much' or 'we cannot know what is not of our existence' or any other such phrase?

If you 'don't want anyone else to think that my ideas make sense', they would probably be more inclined to accept this assertion if you backed it up with evidential argument. But, as is the case with our latest exchange, you never do. Or, at the minimum you put up some comments, to which I respond, then the exchange ceases.

Paul

Greetings folks, I see that I have come late to this discussion, but I might have a little something to contribute. I happen to have made a semi-thorough review of the philosophic literature on this topic. This is in connection with an upcoming paper. Here are some comments taken from that paper: First, theorists who have pointedly focused on the first-cause/infinite-regress issue have an almost unanimous consensus in favor of the latter (Brown 1966; Grünbaum 1989; Reichenbach 2010; Smith 2008). Thus one of the more prominent theorists associated with this issue, the philosopher Adolf Grunbaum (1989) writes: [Quote]There is nothing at all in the concept of causality as such which warrants the claim that all causal chains must ultimately originate in the finite past from a cause that is itself uncaused. Causality as such is wholly compatible logically with physical causal chains which extend infinitely into the past [Endquote]. The law of causality, in fact, only requires that each condition and each change in a condition is the result of preceding conditions. The supposed requirement for a first cause is illusory. Indeed, any supposed first cause would be, by definition, an uncaused condition. This would be the violation of causality. Nor does quantum uncertainty imply some violation of causality. More likely, this applies to gaps in our knowledge; as every student of the subject quickly learns, this is a science that is still incompletely developed at a fundamental level. Free will would imply a violation of causality, but both philosophers and scientists now have an emerging consensus opposed to this notion (Libet et al. 1983; Libet 1985; Wegner 2004; OConnor 2011; Strawson 1986; Pereboom 2001; Smilansky 2002). Likewise, a sometimes-supposed state of primordial or alternative nothingness seems to some to require a first cause. However, this can be named, but is otherwise impossible to conceptualize, imagine or even discuss in an intelligible way. It appears to be an idea completely devoid of merit (Heath 1967). The source of the supposed requirement for a first cause is apparently our everyday experiences with conceptually circumscribed causal sequences (e.g., the appearance of organic molecules as marking the beginnings of life). In fact, each such first event is preceded by additional causal conditions (with the possible exception of conditions at the moment t = 0). Most importantly, it is possible to prove in a simple way the feasibility of an infinite causal regress. Consider, for example, a hypothetical proliferation of universes as in the fecund universes hypothesis of Lee Smolin. This might be physically impossible for some unknown reason, but it is entirely consistent with causal principles. To a descendant observer infinitely remote, we would represent an infinite past. For that observer, there would have been no beginning to the Universe. (I thought references might help a little here.)

Brown, Patterson. 1966. Infinite Causal Regression. The Philosophical Review 75 (4): 510-525.

Grünbaum, Adolf. 1989. The Pseudo-Problem of Creation in Physical Cosmology. Philosophy of Science 56 (3): 373-394.

Heath, P.L. 1967. Nothing. Ed. Paul Edwards. The Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Macmillan and Free Press.

Libet, Benjamin. 1985. Unconscious Cerebral Initiative and the Role of Conscious Will in Voluntary Action. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 8 (04): 529-539. doi:10.1017/S0140525X00044903.

Libet, Benjamin, Curtis A. Gleason, Elwood W. Wright, and Dennis K. Pearl. 1983. Time of Conscious Intention to Act in Relation to Onset of Cerebral Activity (readiness-Potential) the Unconscious Initiation of a Freely Voluntary Act. Brain 106 (3) (September 1): 623-642. doi:10.1093/brain/106.3.623.

OConnor, Timothy. 2011. Free Will. Ed. Edward N. Zalta. The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/sum2011/entries/freewill/.

Pereboom, Derk. 2001. Living Without Free Will. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Reichenbach, Bruce. 2010. Cosmological Argument. Ed. Edward N. Zalta. The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/win2010/entries/cosmological-argument/.

Smilansky, Saul. 2002. Free Will and Illusion. Oxford: Oxford University Press, USA.

Smith, Quentin. 2008. A Cosmological Argument for a Self-Caused Universe. Philpapers. http://philpapers.org/rec/SMIACA-2.

Strawson, Galen. 1986. Freedom and Belief. Oxford: Clarendon Press.

Wegner, Daniel M. 2004. Précis of The Illusion of Conscious Will. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 27 (05): 649-659. doi:10.1017/S0140525X04000159.

The causal past is finite and

the non-causal past is infinite

Wilhelmus

Infinity is a nice mathematical concept. But when applied to anything real, any kind of infinity is just too much.

Evidences gathered so far point to a recent beginning of our universe. But what about time? If we look at our time line back to the moment our universe started... and just a bit before that... and why not a very long time before... well, there is no reason to impose a limit toward the past.

That's assuming time is a "line", a one-dimension thing which could neither be blocked by walls at its extremities nor would makes sense to loop on itself.

We can eliminate quite a few paradoxes if we consider time as a pulsation of the real. What exists is the present, and it changes at every pulsation (sorry for sci-fi writers: time machines will never exist).

Before our Big-Bang appeared, there was nothing to pulse: time did not exist yet... and when the last particle will "evaporate", time will cease to exist.

You may still use time as a dimensional continous parameter to facilitate calculations as long as this does not introduce any paradoxe. But time, really, is neither a dimension nor is it continuous. It is only ticks occuring at indeterminate intervalles.

Oliver,

I've been advocating that point for awhile and that the conceptual miscue is as we live lives of linear motion, we experience change sequentially, when the reality is distributed and non-linear. So rather then it be the present moving along an external vector, from past to future, it is the changing configuration, turning future into past. Not the earth traveling a vector from yesterday to tomorrow, but the rotation of the earth turning tomorrow into yesterday.

The problem with physics is that in its obsession with measurement, it treats time as a measure of duration, which only re-enforces the narrative vector. Yet duration is not external to the present, but is the state of the present between measurement events.

Keep in mind that "spacetime" is a correlation of measures of distance and duration. So if duration is only an effect of action and not foundational to it, then the premise of an expanding universe is based on faulty assumptions and redshift must be due to some other, ie. optical, effect.

It is all piled rather deep at this point, so watch where you step.

Usually, we perceive "duration" as a segment of time measured with a clock. Thus the idea of continuity, of very small (Planck scale?) segments aligned end-to-end.

What I am suggesting is that we should consider any duration as a discrete, finite number of "ticks" which impose the same number of updates of the universe.

The small segments are replaced by a gap of nothingness between two ticks. From the point of view of our clocks, these gaps could have a length of Planck duration, but since nothing happens to the sub-particules of our updated clock "waiting" for the updating of the rest of the universe, there is no way of quantifying the gaps themselves. We can only count the ticks.