55 posts / 0 new

Thanks for all the feedback... I've decided to take your advise and try and get a paper published! So here is an exclusive preview!

Infinite Time
----------------

Date: March 2019

Abstract
-----------

With infinite time, we can divide the possible models for the origin universe into deterministic ('Can’t get something from nothing’) and non-deterministic ('Can get something from nothing’). We argue that both possible models lead to contradictions so therefore time must have a start.

Motivation
--------------

There are problems with prime mover / cosmological arguments:

- In the quantum era, cause and effect are under question [1]. Cosmological arguments rely heavily on cause and effect.
- The prime mover argument is inconsistent in that it uses cause and effect to trace back all motion to a single unmoved mover but then says that the unmoved mover is beyond cause and effect.

So there is a need for a cosmological argument that does not rely on cause and effect as an axiom.

Method
----------

With infinite time, we can break down the possible models of the origin of the universe into two:

1. Matter/energy is created - ‘Can get something from nothing’
2. Matter/energy has always existed - ‘Can’t get something from nothing’

If we can show that both models are impossible, we can conclude that time has a start.

Model 1 - 'Can get something from nothing' and 'Time is infinite'
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

If matter/energy is naturally created and time is infinite, we should have reached infinite matter/energy density by now which is clearly not the case. Notes:

1. The universe is expanding, but it cannot have been expanding forever because if we trace back in time, we would find a point in time when it was not expanding; at best the universe must be oscillating, so infinite matter density would still be reached.
2. If creation events are naturally occurring and time is infinite, we would expect an infinite number of Big Bangs. There is evidence of only one Big Bang.
3. If matter creation is not natural, that implies a creator. But such a creator must be outside time as discussed in footnote 1 below, so time would still have a start.

Model 2 - 'Can’t get something from nothing' and 'Time is infinite'
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This is the model of matter/energy always existing (never created). Infinite existence within time, is it possible? Consider a particle or an entity that has existed forever:

1. In order for something to exist, it must start existing. But there is no time from which the particle/entity could start existing.

2. Certain innate attributes are permanent like eye colour for a being or mass for a particle. For an infinite particle/entity, there is no time at which these permanent attributes could have been established.

3. An infinite entity would have a memory. Everything it remembers would have happened a finite time ago. But some things are infinitely memorable (first sex etc…). Remembering the first of something would contradict its status as an infinite being - it would remember that it first had sex X years ago - meaning it must of had a finite life span after all.

4. The particle/entity has always experienced events (eg particle collisions). No matter how far we go back in time, the particle/entity experienced events. So it must have experienced some events greater than any number of years ago. Which is a contradiction - can’t be a number* and greater than any number at the same time.

By these considerations, infinite existence seems untenable.

*(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).

Summary
------------

We have argued that both the following are impossible:

- ‘Infinite time’ and ‘can’t get something from nothing’
- ‘Infinite time’ and ‘can get something from nothing’

So the possibility space is exhausted and time must be finite.

Footnote 1: God
----------------------

This is an argument that if God exists, then time must have a start:

1. An eternal in time (presentist) God exists in a universe where time has no start.
2. Such a God has no start in time; no coming into being; so cannot logically exist
3. Or if the God had a start point in time, there would be an empty stretch of time before him and nothing to cause his existence, which is also impossible
4. So God must be timeless
5. Implying time has a start

Footnote 2: Eternalism
------------------------------

Eternalism is the opposite view of presentism. It is the belief that past, present and future are all equally real. A proof via contradiction that Eternalism is true:

1. Assume only now exists (presentism)
2. So before the start of time there was nothing *
3. But creation ex nihilo / without time is impossible
4. So more than only now exists **

* If there is more than one time, this proof refers to the first or top level time (base reality).
** We know now exists and more than now exists. So at least one moment other than now must exist. But all moments are identical so they all must exist.

References
---------------

[1] Procopio, L. M. et al. Nature Commun. 6, 7913 (2015).

## Subscription Note:

Email notifications will be sent out daily by default unless specified otherwise on your account which you can edit by going to your userpage here and clicking on the subscriptions tab.

Dan - 1. Matter/energy is created - ‘Can get something from nothing’

Matter is created regularly in laboratories.

That does not invalid my argument (you need to read the rest of it)

Dan - That does not invalid my argument...

Oh I agree; I just pointing out you don't know what the fuck you are talking about.

@ Nyar

*boom*......loved that....

@ Nyar

Bwahhh ha ha ha!!!! I tip my hat to you sir.

Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ...... Good Luck!

Dan, if you think we atheists are hard on you, be prepared for a completely new level of brutality when the scientific community responds to this submission.

I think its probably more aimed at a philosophical rather than scientific journal...

In other words, a piece of bullshit that requires no cleaning.

rmfr

In other words, you are not submitting your proposition to real examination and criticism, you are just going to dump it into the community where nothing has to be proven or defended.

Dan - Certain innate attributes are permanent like eye colour for a being...

The color of people's eyes change all the time.

Thanks... need a better example...

@Dan
Oh, make sure you tell them that set theory is bollocks. Especially since set theory is the foundation of probability, something else you don't understand.

Also make sure to include copious amounts of your 50/50 balance fallacy, they will love that.

/e oh an I almost forgot: make sure you tell them ∞ - ∞ = 0 (ie tell them that calculus is bullshit), so even though you are wasting their time, you can lighten their day with a little laughter.

If infinity existed (which it does not) then ∞ - ∞ = 0 is correct.

There are not different sizes of infinity. Infinity is defined as the biggest thing ever so that precludes the existence of more than one kind of infinity (because if two kinds existed then one of them would not be infinity... by the definition of infinity).

@Dan Re: "Infinity is defined as the biggest thing ever so that precludes the existence of more than one kind of infinity..."

Nuh-uhhh, Mr. Smartie Pants. Because if I add infinity+infinity then that will be bigger than infinity. Hah!... Nanny-nanny-boo-booo... *thumbs in ears while wiggling fingers*... *sticking out tongue*.... *swishing butt back and forth*.....

Unfortunately not... maths defines ∞ + ∞ = ∞. Its mad I'm afraid but people still believe in it.

It is a fact that not everything we were taught at school is true... people need to take a open mind to new ideas that run contrary to established thinking because time and time again in the history of science, established thinking has been overthrown.

@Dan

Obviously my sarcasm flew waaaay over your head, didn't it?.... *shaking head in bewilderment*... Dammit, I must be losing my touch.... *frownie face*...

Dan - Unfortunately not... maths defines ∞ + ∞ = ∞. Its mad I'm afraid but people still believe in it.

Well I'm glad to see you acknowledged that you don't agree with mathematics.

Since you have repeatedly rejected mathematics; perhaps you should stop trying to appeal to mathematics in your arguments. In that same vein, I reject astrology; so you won't catch me appealing to astrology in an argument.

@ Dan

Saw this as I skimmed through all the posts. Here is one of your fallacies.

∞ - ∞ = undeterminable (until a degree of magnitude is assigned to the ∞s)

In other words…

∞′ - ∞″ = −∞

∞″ - ∞′ = +∞

∞ - ∞ = 0, but only if of equal magnitude.

However, ultimately,

∞ [+/−/×/÷] [any ℜ] = ∞

And you seem to be the only person on these boards who cannot grasp this concept: "∞ [+/−/×/÷] [any ℜ] = ∞."

Please, do not require me to sic Tin-Man on you to explain it to you. The results won't be pretty.

And as an aside, please go back to college and truly learn mathematics this time. I still know you are lying about having a degree in math.

rmfr

@Dan

"people need to take a open mind to new ideas that run contrary to established thinking because time and time again in the history of science, established thinking has been overthrown."

YES, absolutely yes, I am in full agreement.

But Dan, do you know what overthrew old ideas and perceptions? Evidence and rational thinking.

You are not attempting to make progress, you are attempting to rationalize a concept that was proven false hundreds of years ago. At one time mankind did believe in that crap. And then evidence and smart people put that into the dumpster.

Dan, you were born in the wrong time and place. You should have been born 600 years ago in Spain, because you would have been a fantastic defender of the faith. No matter how good the argument, it goes against god's word and the Spanish Inquisition must always defend outdated and barbaric beliefs.

@Dan:

It is a fact that not everything we were taught at school (CHURCH) is true... people need to take a open mind to new ideas that run contrary to established thinking because time and time again in the history of science, established thinking has been overthrown.

*** AND YOU PRETEND YOU DO NOT UNDERSTAND ATHEISM. ****

@Dan, this is exactly why science is superior to religion, because they overthrow their established thinking on a regular basis.

When a particular idea in science is proven wrong, they say so. They update all the books with the new information and begin teaching that going forward.

When religion is proven wrong, they re-interpret their books without changing them and tend to say "This was not meant to be taken literally" even though people in the past risked torture and death for claiming it was not literally true.

What would atheists be able to argue if the Bible was updated? If the bits about slavery and genocide were removed? Many of our arguments would lose their punch. No longer could we pull the "Bible condones slavery" card. We couldn't talk about genocide, or stoning adulterers, or forcing a rape victim to marry her rapist.

Updating the Bible could easily stem the tide of people moving toward Atheism. Reading the Bible cover to cover is the most effective way to de-convert and still the book remains as close as possible to the original. It's time to overthrow some established thinking.

"Infinity is defined as the biggest thing ever"

There you have it folks...Stop the internet. Dan has officially broken complex math and proven that god is, in fact, real.

Hahahahallelujah

LMAOWF

Indeed.

rmfr

LMAO...FAIL. God LMAO.

So that's you and Breezy, I will keep one eye on the news for your paradigm shifting ideas to be lauded by the scientific world. Your's evidencing a deity, his falsifying evolution.

In the meantime, I remain an atheist, and evolution remains a scientific fact.

We best tell all mathematicians and physicists to stop using infinity, whilst also deleting it from dictionaries and the general lexicon, because Dan had a brain fart.

Its actual infinity (set theory) I'm objecting to, not potential infinity (calculus):

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Actual_infinity

Scientists can manage perfectly well without actual infinity... it is merely leading them astray (especially the cosmologists).

“Scientists can manage perfectly well without actual infinity... it is merely leading them astray (especially the cosmologists).”

Have you called then and told them to stop then?

CyberLN: "Fuck YOU" I spit coffee out my nose and short circuited my frigging keyboard. Give us a frigging warning when you are going to say a funny!!!

## Pages

Donating = Loving

Bringing you atheist articles and building active godless communities takes hundreds of hours and resources each month. If you find any joy or stimulation at Atheist Republic, please consider becoming a Supporting Member with a recurring monthly donation of your choosing, between a cup of tea and a good dinner.