Announcement

Collapse

Philosophy 201 Guidelines

Cogito ergo sum

Here in the Philosophy forum we will talk about all the "why" questions. We'll have conversations about the way in which philosophy and theology and religion interact with each other. Metaphysics, ontology, origins, truth? They're all fair game so jump right in and have some fun! But remember...play nice!

Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less

An Infinite Past?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by seer View Post
    Yes, but if you lose the loss of work through heat what do you have left?

    Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_law_of_thermodynamics

    Work and heat are expressions of actual physical processes of supply or removal of energy, while the internal energy U is a mathematical abstraction that keeps account of the exchanges of energy that befall the system. Thus the term heat for Q means "that amount of energy added or removed by conduction of heat or by thermal radiation", rather than referring to a form of energy within the system. Likewise, the term work energy for W means "that amount of energy gained or lost as the result of work". Internal energy is a property of the system whereas work done and heat supplied are not. A significant result of this distinction is that a given internal energy change ΔU can be achieved by, in principle, many combinations of heat and work.

    © Copyright Original Source



    This gives us the first law of thermodynamics which is really a system-specific phrasing of the conservation of energy. The second law introduces entropy (S) and basically mandates that some part of internal energy change is heat loss (for irreversible systems).

    A very simplified system equation ends up being akin to this: Input=Waste+Output. Waste here is entropy. It's still a change in internal energy, but it exists as heat instead of work.


    The short answer to your question then is this:
    You have energy transfer through work, and you have energy transfer through entropy. The loss of work just means you have less energy transfer done by the work process.
    I'm not here anymore.

    Comment


    • Originally posted by seer View Post
      Originally posted by 37818 View Post
      There has to be an always of some kind of uncaused self existence.
      Yes, God.
      Originally posted by robrecht View Post
      Do not call 37818 "God." He is a mere mortal, like us.
      He was referring to the argument. NOT to me.
      . . . the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; . . . -- Romans 1:16 KJV

      . . . that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures: . . . -- 1 Corinthians 15:3-4 KJV

      Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ is born of God: . . . -- 1 John 5:1 KJV

      Comment


      • Originally posted by 37818 View Post
        He was referring to the argument. NOT to me.
        'Twas a joke.
        I'm not here anymore.

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Carrikature View Post

          This gives us the first law of thermodynamics which is really a system-specific phrasing of the conservation of energy. The second law introduces entropy (S) and basically mandates that some part of internal energy change is heat loss (for irreversible systems).

          A very simplified system equation ends up being akin to this: Input=Waste+Output. Waste here is entropy. It's still a change in internal energy, but it exists as heat instead of work.


          The short answer to your question then is this:
          You have energy transfer through work, and you have energy transfer through entropy. The loss of work just means you have less energy transfer done by the work process.
          Yes, but eventually there is no useable energy left. A small star for instance will burn out and become a white dwarf - where/how is the past energy of that star used? Seems to me at that point that energy is no longer useable.
          Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...

          https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s

          Comment


          • Originally posted by seer View Post
            Sure, we can not grasp infinity, but where is the "something more" that we could never imagine? It would just be more of the same, over and over again. No big deal.
            Yes, we can grasp infinity, define infinities and use infinities in math, and physics. Yes, we cannot grasp the end of infinities. There will simple be other possible universe beyond any number one could imagine. You cannot use Infinite Regress to justify anything finite.
            Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
            Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
            But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

            go with the flow the river knows . . .

            Frank

            I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

            Comment


            • Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
              Yes, we can grasp infinity, define infinities and use infinities in math, and physics. Yes, we cannot grasp the end of infinities. There will simple be other possible universe beyond any number one could imagine. You cannot use Infinite Regress to justify anything finite.
              I still have no idea what this "something more" is that you are talking about.
              Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...

              https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s

              Comment


              • Originally posted by seer View Post
                I still have no idea what this "something more" is that you are talking about.
                More universes.
                Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
                Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
                But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

                go with the flow the river knows . . .

                Frank

                I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Leonhard View Post
                  We do know that things change, just pick up an object and drop it. I baptise you in the name of the five senses.

                  Your experience will go through several stages, at one point the object will be in your hand, the next you've let it go, the next moment again its accelerating downwards and finally it hits the floor.

                  Now you could argue that all these are subjective experiences, but unfortunately then you're left with making sense of having subjective experiences that can undergo change even if the world is utterly static. It wouldn't solve the problem, it would just move it back one step.

                  The only solution is that there are objective changes in the world around us, and these are the cause of our experiences.

                  As for Einstein his first paper on the theory of relativity was pretty much an A-theory of time. Later Minkowsky introduced the notion of a spacetime, since one could use that to make certain aspects of special relativity mathematically more elegant. However its only a preference of math.
                  You needn't convince me of that, because i would be in agreement with you that things do change, my point is that we don't know it for a fact. There are still scientist out there who believe that change is an illusion. Btw, isn't your argument that God is utterly changeless or static? If so, before the universe of change existed, how did God undergo subjective changes if an external world of change is necessary for subjective experiences to change?


                  Agreed, but he doesn't, that would be a fairly recent and heterodox idea about God. That's not the conception I defend, and for many of the same reasons you outline. It comes with unsolvable problems.
                  How would you describe Gods thought process then? Eternal and fixed?


                  Yes, if God had to move from a state of being alone and content with being alone, to a state of willing the creation of the world, then a change would have occurred.
                  Well then how would you describe the non change in God that created the universe


                  As long as it doesn't result in a later complaint about God not appearing in theories and models in physics I'm good.
                  Yes, I know, God doesn't appear in any scietific theory or model of existence.


                  In your view what does it mean for something to have a size?
                  To have size, like omnipresence, means to be extended. In the case of omnipresence to be extended everywhere. What does it mean to be omnipresent in your view?


                  Uh, I agree. That's why I said that everything would be accessible not inaccessible? Typo?
                  Okay, Accessible is not the same as omnipresent. Your analogy of God being the point or center of the circle is not omnipresence of the circle.
                  However theologians do mean that God is present by His act: He maintains things in existence moment by moment, and He sometimes moves them directly by intervening in various ways. He's just not present by having a physical form, and this physical form filling the universe. There's no place where He can't or doesn't act in some way.
                  No matter the form, physical or non physical omnipresence means to extend everywhere. If God is not omnipresent in this way, if he doesn't extend throughout existence then he is not infinite. The way you seem to be describing God is that he doesn't exist anywhere and yet he exists everywhere. Does he exist somewhere?


                  I would agree only in so far as objects that can change, has to undergo a change to get from one state to another. However there are many ways that this can be done without time. For example if mutualness and synchronicity was relaxed then a thousand years of subjective might pass for you, but only a few seconds worth for your neighbour. In that case I'd advice you to ditch using clocks.
                  You'll have to explain that one. No matter how slow or fast time passes, it still passes, and if God can observe that passage of time then he to would need be of time. Same for his thought process and creative acts. Are all of his thoughts and creative acts fixed and eternal because if they are then he is not really thinking or creating at all? If they are then how do they objectify themselves at different times? For example, if our universe comes to an end and God creates another universe in its stead, did the former universe and the act of its creation take place at a "time" before the existence and act of creation of the latter universe?
                  However since its not argued that God changes, this does not apply to Him. He's beyond time.
                  Well, I am not arguing that God changes, but I am arguing that if God existed then he would have to change in order for his creative thoughts to objectify themselves at differing times.


                  This is a very interesting problem, but I know how to explain some of the issues. Relating each moment to God is easy enough, its like all the points of a circle having an equal distance from a center. He's equally present to all those moments, being the exact God at all times, even if he doesn't have extension like the line. What this looks like from God's perspective I'm not sure.
                  This doesn't explain how God would be any more equally present to all of those moments than you would be if you were the center of the clock.


                  Christ couldn't have been eternally incarnate, that's true. However what's the problem with Him simultaniously having a human nature, and a divine nature, each with different properties? And why must his divine nature undergo change? It could be in him in pure act, being completely a harmonious part of his human will.
                  I thought I gave my reason for that. Its a contradiction. Jesus was either the spirit body, or the flesh body. If he is the spirit, then the flesh is just a house, if he is the flesh then there is no spirit. But if spirit then it is the spirit that is moving and undergoing changes in time.


                  Seriously?



                  Why? I just outlined the difference, and I even showed how something logically prior could be simultaneous.
                  And i believe I showed how that is illogical.


                  So if the hand instantaneously created the ball, what would be different?
                  What difference would it make how fast the hand created it? If the hand existed prior to the ball, then it existed prior to the ball.


                  Not if the cause is simultaneous with the effect.
                  But the cause is not simultaneous with the effect, because the cause, which is God, existed before the effect.


                  We also agree with that. You do know that I believe that God made the universe right? I most certainly don't believe in creation ex nihilo qua nihil (creation out of nothing and by nothing). It takes a certain kind of highly educated form of nonsense in order to believe in the latter.
                  Yes I understand that. But it still came from nothing even if it was created by something, and that is where we disagree. I don't believe in creation ex nihilo, i.e that a non existing thing can be thought into existence rather than being born of an already existing common substance.


                  I agree, if God does undergo change seer won't be able to defend the idea that infinite regressions are impossible.
                  And how do define God as a free willed being if his thoughts are fixed and eternal?

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by seer View Post
                    Yes, and that is Linde's "theory." Gravitational waves simply could be a feature of our universe, pointing to nothing else:
                    Could be, but probably not!

                    When a leading cosmologist like Andre Linde (and equally eminent physicists such as Stephen Hawking, Laurence Krauss, Sean M. Carroll, Victor Stenger, Michio Kaku, Alan Guth, Alex Vilenkin, Robert A.J. Matthews, and Frank Wilczek) argues that the Big Bang could arise from nothing but a random quantum vacuum fluctuation in a particle field AND that there is good reason to assume this is a process which happens repeatedly resulting in a multiverse, he warrants being taken seriously – not dismissed with a hand-wave.

                    “Guth and his colleagues favour a theory called eternal inflation, which says that the universe is constantly giving birth to smaller "pocket" universes within an ever-expanding multiverse. We live in one of these pockets…But other pockets will continue to be born, inflate and grow to produce stars, planets and maybe life at a rapid and ever-increasing rate.”

                    http://www.newscientist.com/article/...ses-birth.html

                    Nothing conclusive here. And look at the title of this thread, does a multiverse necessarily get us to an infinite past? Well no, not according to Vilenkin and Guth:
                    Science is a work in progress and the current thrust of scientific thinking is clear: Multiverse theory is almost certain to become the standard model of the cosmos.

                    “Most inflationary models, almost all, predict that inflation should become eternal,” says Alan Guth, a theoretical physicist at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), who first predicted inflation in 1980.

                    If the BICEP2 results end up proving inflation occurred, then the multiverse may be part of the bargain. “I think the multiverse is a natural consequence of inflation ideas,” says theoretical physicist Frank Wilczek, also at MIT. “If you can start one universe form a very small seed, then other universes could also grow from small seeds. There doesn’t seem to be anything unique about the event we call the big bang. It is a reproducible event that could and would happen again, and again, and again.”

                    http://www.scientificamerican.com/ar...ational-waves/

                    Your repetitive posting of this two-year old article by Lisa Grossman (the same Lisa Grossman who authored one of the above links re the multiverse) merely reinforces the rapid accumulation of knowledge in this area of science. You're are clutching at straws with your cherry-picked, out-of-date quotes.
                    Last edited by Tassman; 04-18-2014, 12:18 AM.
                    “He felt that his whole life was a kind of dream and he sometimes wondered whose it was and whether they were enjoying it.” - Douglas Adams.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Tassman View Post
                      Could be, but probably not!

                      When a leading cosmologist like Andre Linde (and equally eminent physicists such as Stephen Hawking, Laurence Krauss, Sean M. Carroll, Victor Stenger, Michio Kaku, Alan Guth, Alex Vilenkin, Robert A.J. Matthews, and Frank Wilczek) argues that the Big Bang could arise from nothing but a random quantum vacuum fluctuation in a particle field AND that there is good reason to assume this is a process which happens repeatedly resulting in a multiverse, he warrants being taken seriously – not dismissed with a hand-wave.

                      “Guth and his colleagues favour a theory called eternal inflation, which says that the universe is constantly giving birth to smaller "pocket" universes within an ever-expanding multiverse. We live in one of these pockets…But other pockets will continue to be born, inflate and grow to produce stars, planets and maybe life at a rapid and ever-increasing rate.”

                      http://www.newscientist.com/article/...ses-birth.html



                      Science is a work in progress and the current thrust of scientific thinking is clear: Multiverse theory is almost certain to become the standard model of the cosmos.

                      “Most inflationary models, almost all, predict that inflation should become eternal,” says Alan Guth, a theoretical physicist at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), who first predicted inflation in 1980.

                      If the BICEP2 results end up proving inflation occurred, then the multiverse may be part of the bargain. “I think the multiverse is a natural consequence of inflation ideas,” says theoretical physicist Frank Wilczek, also at MIT. “If you can start one universe form a very small seed, then other universes could also grow from small seeds. There doesn’t seem to be anything unique about the event we call the big bang. It is a reproducible event that could and would happen again, and again, and again.”

                      http://www.scientificamerican.com/ar...ational-waves/


                      Your repetitive posting of this two-year old article by Lisa Grossman (the same Lisa Grossman who authored one of the above links re the multiverse) merely reinforces the rapid accumulation of knowledge in this area of science. You're are clutching at straws with your cherry-picked, out-of-date quotes.

                      Tass, Guth and Vilenkin have not changed their minds. Look at your quote: Most inflationary models, almost all, predict that inflation should become eternal - yes they believe the multiverse could be eternal going forward - their work does not point to an eternal past. Vilenkin made that clear in my link, and you keep ignoring one of the conclusions in one of your own links: And for some theorists, simply proving that inflation happened at all would be a sign of the multiverse.... For now, physicists don't know how they might observe the multiverse and confirm that it exists

                      So Tass, even with a multiverse, there is zero evidence for an infinite past. And even if they can confirm inflation that does not confirm a multiverse. Never mind the age old problem of infinite regression.
                      Last edited by seer; 04-18-2014, 05:54 AM.
                      Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...

                      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by seer View Post
                        Tass, Guth and Vilenkin have not changed their minds. Look at your quote: Most inflationary models, almost all, predict that inflation should become eternal - yes they believe the multiverse could be eternal going forward - their work does not point to an eternal past. Vilenkin made that clear in my link, and you keep ignoring one of the conclusions in one of your own links: And for some theorists, simply proving that inflation happened at all would be a sign of the multiverse.... For now, physicists don't know how they might observe the multiverse and confirm that it exists

                        So Tass, even with a multiverse, there is zero evidence for an infinite past. Never mind the age old problem of infinite regression.
                        As already demonstrated Infinite Regression is not relevant to whether the greater cosmos is infinite or eternal in the past. Yes is represents an archaic ancient out of date 'old problem.'

                        You do not accept any of the evidence for our physical existence beyond our universe demonstrated by Borge, Guthe, and Vilrnkin, so what are you arguing now? Are you accepting the whole research or unethically cherry picking their research.
                        Last edited by shunyadragon; 04-18-2014, 06:40 AM.
                        Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
                        Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
                        But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

                        go with the flow the river knows . . .

                        Frank

                        I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
                          As already demonstrated Infinite Regression is not relevant to whether the greater cosmos is infinite or eternal in the past. Yes is represents an archaic ancient out of date 'old problem.'
                          You have demonstrated no such thing Shuny, if you have a multiverse then you still need and infinite chain of cause and effect to get to this present universe. And that is both irrational and impossible.

                          You do not accept any of the evidence for our physical existence beyond our universe, so what are you arguing now?
                          That is because there is no evidence for anything beyond our universe. But what is your point?
                          Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...

                          https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by JimL View Post
                            You needn't convince me of that, because i would be in agreement with you that things do change, my point is that we don't know it for a fact. There are still scientist out there who believe that change is an illusion.
                            Scientists believing something if they don't have reasons for it isn't evidence. However we do have clear and incontrovertible evidence that the world undergoes change, our experience.

                            Btw, isn't your argument that God is utterly changeless or static?
                            Yes.

                            If so, before the universe of change existed, how did God undergo subjective changes if an external world of change is necessary for subjective experiences to change?
                            He didn't undergo changes. That follows as a corrolary to the argument I gave you. If he could undergo changes, then he would exhibit both potentiality and actuality, and then God would need an ultimate cause for his existence. If the ultimate cause can't be the ultimate cause, then we have a contradiction. So its false that the ultimate cause can undergo change.

                            To have size, like omnipresence, means to be extended. In the case of omnipresence to be extended everywhere.
                            And if something isn't physically extended, and you can't assign locality to it at all, but it can and does interact with everything, what one word would you use to describe it?

                            What does it mean to be omnipresent in your view?
                            To be in act everywhere.

                            No matter the form, physical or non physical omnipresence means to extend everywhere. If God is not omnipresent in this way, if he doesn't extend throughout existence then he is not infinite. The way you seem to be describing God is that he doesn't exist anywhere and yet he exists everywhere.
                            Is it okay if I'm asking you whether you're making a distinction with a difference. It seems we're only arguing about what you'd permit the words 'infinite' and 'omnipresent' to mean. You do know what we believe though, that God has access to all parts of the world, and there's no where without his influence, and that it requires his constant activity to maintain everything in existence. You're not objecting to this, just the terms used to describe it.

                            Lets accept the definitions of the words and move on.

                            Does he exist somewhere?
                            Are you asking for his spatio-temporal coordinates?

                            You'll have to explain that one. No matter how slow or fast time passes, it still passes, and if God can observe that passage of time then he to would need be of time. Same for his thought process and creative acts. Are all of his thoughts and creative acts fixed and eternal because if they are then he is not really thinking or creating at all? If they are then how do they objectify themselves at different times? For example, if our universe comes to an end and God creates another universe in its stead, did the former universe and the act of its creation take place at a "time" before the existence and act of creation of the latter universe?

                            Well, I am not arguing that God changes, but I am arguing that if God existed then he would have to change in order for his creative thoughts to objectify themselves at differing times.
                            Why can't he just have them all timelessly in one single coherent vision?

                            This doesn't explain how God would be any more equally present to all of those moments than you would be if you were the center of the clock.
                            I don't understand what you're saying here, but I don't think we are making progress. Wanna move on to something else, we've opened enough topics to discuss and this is turning into a mess of one-liners.

                            I thought I gave my reason for that. Its a contradiction. Jesus was either the spirit body, or the flesh body.
                            I'm afraid you're making the fallacy of false dichotomy. Christians hold to neither, one is the gnostic heresy the other is nestorianism. Both have been soundly condemned. Christ wasn't a spirit controlled meat puppet, and he wasn't a human being who was adopted by God. You have to argue against what's actually believed, otherwise you're ultimately arguing against a strawman. And I don't have to defend that the strawman is wrong, its sufficient for me to point out that you're not answering what Christians believe and teach.

                            What difference would it make how fast the hand created it? If the hand existed prior to the ball, then it existed prior to the ball.
                            I think you're simple rejecting that you can make a logical ordering of causes. However if you use this as an argument that God needs time in order to cause the universe (i.e he has to exist temporally prior to the universe), then you're begging the question. You're assuming that God needs time in order to be a cause, rather than simple being logically prior to the creation of the universe. I've given you some examples of effects that exist simultaneously with their causes. Arguing that the hand existed prior than the ball is a non sequitor, because if the ball fails to fall to the floor is the effect, then the hand holding up the ball is a simultaneous cause.

                            I don't believe in creation ex nihilo, i.e that a non existing thing can be thought into existence rather than being born of an already existing common substance.
                            I can't argue against opinion, but if you've got an argument I'm game.

                            And how do define God as a free willed being if his thoughts are fixed and eternal?
                            God is the ultimate cause of everything he does, they have their origin in his will.

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by seer View Post
                              You have demonstrated no such thing Shuny, if you have a multiverse then you still need and infinite chain of cause and effect to get to this present universe. And that is both irrational and impossible.
                              Your answer is irrational and impossible. Individual Universes are not linked by cause and effect to the present universe. NO you do not NEED an infinite chain of cause and effect, NO multiverse model claims this. Can you cite a reference that supports this delusion.



                              That is because there is no evidence for anything beyond our universe. But what is your point?
                              Your selective misuse of scientific research, and your archeac out of date view of infinities.
                              Last edited by shunyadragon; 04-18-2014, 11:24 AM.
                              Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
                              Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
                              But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

                              go with the flow the river knows . . .

                              Frank

                              I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
                                Your answer is irrational and impossible. Individual Universes are no linked by cause and effect to the present universe. NO you do not NEED an infinite chain of cause and effect, NO multiverse model claims this. Can you cite a reference that supports this delusion.
                                Nonsense Shuny. Are you saying that there are effects without a cause? I'm asking YOU, how do YOU escape an infinite chain? For instance, something in the multiverse cause this universe, but what caused that cause, and so on, and so on?
                                Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...

                                https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s

                                Comment

                                Related Threads

                                Collapse

                                Topics Statistics Last Post
                                Started by shunyadragon, 03-01-2024, 09:40 AM
                                160 responses
                                508 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post JimL
                                by JimL
                                 
                                Started by seer, 02-15-2024, 11:24 AM
                                88 responses
                                354 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post shunyadragon  
                                Started by Diogenes, 01-22-2024, 07:37 PM
                                21 responses
                                133 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post shunyadragon  
                                Working...
                                X