An Infinite Past?

[shunyadragon]

If I remember correctly Philosophical Naturalism denies any possibility of the supernatural. How, can a person, with limited experience and understanding, hold that position?

A metaphysical position like philosophical naturalism or theism do not require experience, knowledge, nor understanding because they represent beliefs.

[seer]

All current theories start with something, and even if physicists call it "nothing" their version of nothing is something, namely the quantum vacuum, and not really "nothing" at all - as I said previously. Newtonian mechanics breaks down at the Planck epoch right where Quantum Mechanics comes into play. Vilenkin himself proposes a possible solution to his own theorem in quantum terms via quantum tunnelling. The most one can say about the BGV Inflationary model, according to Carol is that it is past-incomplete and requires different physics to describe what, if anything went before.

BTW: Your attitude to science is dishonest. You critique incomplete scientific theories, i.e. those which are still in the developmental stage, as though they were established theories and then when they fall short conclude with a triumphant: “Therefore God…” In short, a god-of–the-gaps argument; your speciality it seems.


So in your mind scientific theory is only true if it conforms to Christian doctrine. Do you not see the problem here?

See above re “nothing”.



Not "created" by God", necessarily! Modern physics has discovered natural phenomena that do NOT have discernible causes, e.g. radioactive decay whereby it’s utterly impossible to predict when a specific atom will disintegrate - similarly the spontaneous generation of virtual particles which randomly appear even in the apparent complete vacuum, which in Quantum Mechanics is called Zero-Point energy.

OK Tass, I think we beat this poor horse the death. I will leave you with the last word.

[Boxing Pythagoras]

If I remember correctly Philosophical Naturalism denies any possibility of the supernatural. How, can a person, with limited experience and understanding, hold that position?

Because "supernatural" is not even a cogent concept.

How can a person, with limited experience and understanding, hold the position that there do not exist any numbers which are red? There is an infinite quantity of numbers, and no person can have checked them all, individually!

Of course, a rational person can immediately see that the question makes no sense. Similarly, the idea of something "outside" of space or something "before" time-- generally features ascribed to the supernatural-- are entirely nonsensical. Of course, there may be some cogent definition of "supernatural" of which I am unaware, in which case I welcome it.

I think you are missing my point. Such events, i.e. miracles, would be rare and witnessed by a limited number of people. These are not phenomenon that you reason out through hypotheses. That is not how history works or is known. That however does not make them any less true. And I wasn't trying to convince you, I was seriously asking if you could come up with a natural explanation. I could not, and I asked a number of people (more educated than I) if they could. Even though I was praying at the time, and I think this event did violate the laws of nature, I really am open to a natural explanation.

You said that you brought up this occurrence in order to show that not everything has a natural explanation. That was your original intention in mentioning it, at all, correct?

If you intended the readers of this thread to believe that this occurrence is evidence that not everything has a natural explanation, the burden of proof is on you to show that it has no natural explanation. If you did not intend the readers of this thread to believe that this occurrence is evidence that not everything has a natural explanation, then the occurrence is entirely irrelevant to the conversation.

So, which is it: did you intend for the readers of this thread to believe that this occurrence is evidence that not everything has a natural explanation, or did you not?

[seer]

Because "supernatural" is not even a cogent concept.

How can a person, with limited experience and understanding, hold the position that there do not exist any numbers which are red? There is an infinite quantity of numbers, and no person can have checked them all, individually!

Of course, a rational person can immediately see that the question makes no sense. Similarly, the idea of something "outside" of space or something "before" time-- generally features ascribed to the supernatural-- are entirely nonsensical. Of course, there may be some cogent definition of "supernatural" of which I am unaware, in which case I welcome it.

Sorry, I do not see how this follows from your analogy. Just because your limited mind can't wrap around the concept tells us nothing of the truth of it. You say it is nonsensical but what law of logic does it violate? Or is it just nonsensical based on your finite, limited experience? And if memory serves even men like Stephen Hawking claim that there was "something" before time.

You said that you brought up this occurrence in order to show that not everything has a natural explanation. That was your original intention in mentioning it, at all, correct?

No, I was making the point that such events, like mine, are historical in nature. And would be a fact of history, whether you found it convincing or not.

If you intended the readers of this thread to believe that this occurrence is evidence that not everything has a natural explanation, the burden of proof is on you to show that it has no natural explanation. If you did not intend the readers of this thread to believe that this occurrence is evidence that not everything has a natural explanation, then the occurrence is entirely irrelevant to the conversation.

So, which is it: did you intend for the readers of this thread to believe that this occurrence is evidence that not everything has a natural explanation, or did you not?

First, see above. And second, I am open to a natural explanation. But to repeat, this was in context of you requiring a hypotheses - which was just silly, that is not how history works, and these would be historical events..

[Boxing Pythagoras]

Sorry, I do not see how this follows from your analogy. Just because your limited mind can't wrap around the concept tells us nothing of the truth of it. You say it is nonsensical but what law of logic does it violate? Or is it just nonsensical based on your finite, limited experience? And if memory serves even men like Stephen Hawking claim that there was "something" before time.

It has nothing to do with wrapping my mind around the concept. It has to do with the concept lacking cogency.

It's difficult to wrap one's mind around the concept of a non-Euclidean four-dimensional manifold. However, the concept is completely cogent. On the other hand, the proposition that there is a secret military base three kilometers north of the North Pole is not cogent. Cogency has nothing to do with "wrapping your mind around" the concept.

Similarly, the question of what came "before" time is completely lacking in cogency. The word "before" describes a temporal relationship. It is absolutely meaningless in the absence of time. Similarly, the word "outside" describes a spatial relationship, and is completely meaningless in the absence of space.

Hawking certainly does not say that there was something "before" time. In fact, in his book "The Grand Design," he states explicitly that, "You can’t get to a time before the big bang, because there was no time before the big bang. We have finally found something that does not have a cause because there was no time for a cause to exist in."

No, I was making the point that such events, like mine, are historical in nature. And would be a fact of history, whether you found it convincing or not.

First, see above. And second, I am open to a natural explanation. But to repeat, this was in context of you requiring a hypotheses - which was just silly, that is not how history works, and these would be historical events..

You brought up the allegedly supernatural occurrence before I ever even joined the conversation, so it could not possibly have been in response to anything I said. Again, I'll reiterate my question: did you intend for the readers of this thread to believe that this occurrence is evidence that not everything has a natural explanation, or did you not?

[seer]

Similarly, the question of what came "before" time is completely lacking in cogency. The word "before" describes a temporal relationship. It is absolutely meaningless in the absence of time. Similarly, the word "outside" describes a spatial relationship, and is completely meaningless in the absence of space.

Hawking certainly does not say that there was something "before" time. In fact, in his book "The Grand Design," he states explicitly that, "You can’t get to a time before the big bang, because there was no time before the big bang. We have finally found something that does not have a cause because there was no time for a cause to exist in."

Let's be clear. Did something exist before the Big Bang? Or are you suggesting that this finite universe popped out of nothing? How is that not a "concept lacking cogency?" Or do you hold to infinite regression?

You brought up the allegedly supernatural occurrence before I ever even joined the conversation, so it could not possibly have been in response to anything I said. Again, I'll reiterate my question: did you intend for the readers of this thread to believe that this occurrence is evidence that not everything has a natural explanation, or did you not?

How many times must I explain this to you Boxing? I only brought this up in our discussion for the reason I gave, if you go back and read my responses to you that is the context. I brought it up in a different context before you showed up.

[shunyadragon]

No, I was making the point that such events, like mine, are historical in nature. And would be a fact of history, whether you found it convincing or not.

History is an academic discipline with criteria for what may be called 'a fact of history.' Individual anecdotal experiences like yours would not be considered 'historical fact.'

[Boxing Pythagoras]

Let's be clear. Did something exist before the Big Bang? Or are you suggesting that this finite universe popped out of nothing? How is that not a "concept lacking cogency?" Or do you hold to infinite regression?

I'm certainly not suggesting that the universe "popped out of nothing." That would be just as lacking in cogency as any other claim that there was something "before" time. I am simply saying that, regardless of whether one thinks that time is past-finite or past-eternal, the phrase "before time" is nonsensical.

How many times must I explain this to you Boxing? I only brought this up in our discussion for the reason I gave, if you go back and read my responses to you that is the context. I brought it up in a different context before you showed up.

The first time you mentioned your personal experience in the context of our conversation was here:

First, I'm not trying to convince you of anything. My point has been, and is, there is no logical reason to assume that all phenomenon has or needs a natural explanation. I linked to a real event of my own experience. Does the fact that I can't demonstrate its veracity to an audience make it any less real? Any less a fact of history than any other fact of history?

So, again, if you are not trying to convince anyone of anything, why even make the claim that, "there is no logical reason to assume that all phenomenon has or needs natural explanation?" And, if you were not trying to convince anyone of anything, why even mention an event in your own life which, if accurate, would seem to support your proposition? Why even participate in a persuasive dialectic, at all, if you were not trying to convince anyone of anything?

Either you were trying to convince people that, "there is no logical reason to assume that all phenomenon has or needs a natural explanation," or else that statement is entirely irrelevant.

[seer]

I'm certainly not suggesting that the universe "popped out of nothing." That would be just as lacking in cogency as any other claim that there was something "before" time. I am simply saying that, regardless of whether one thinks that time is past-finite or past-eternal, the phrase "before time" is nonsensical.

So what came before? Do you hold to infinite regression? And how does time make sense if it is past-eternal? What year would we be in now?

The first time you mentioned your personal experience in the context of our conversation was here:

So, again, if you are not trying to convince anyone of anything, why even make the claim that, "there is no logical reason to assume that all phenomenon has or needs natural explanation?"

And, if you were not trying to convince anyone of anything, why even mention an event in your own life which, if accurate, would seem to support your proposition? Why even participate in a persuasive dialectic, at all, if you were not trying to convince anyone of anything?

Either you were trying to convince people that, "there is no logical reason to assume that all phenomenon has or needs a natural explanation," or else that statement is entirely irrelevant.

In the very same post I said: But you are making me play by your rules, something I have already rejected.

The next post I said: Let me ask again, why do we need to assume a natural cause for all events? and Ok, for the sake of argument let's say that God interacts in history, with what we call miracles - what possible hypotheses could I offer? Again, you are making me play by your rules by assuming that materialism is the default position.

This was all in the context of you requiring hypotheses for my position. It had to do with: 1) Assuming that all phenomenon has or needs a natural explanation, and 2) the request for a hypotheses, which is not how historical claims are verified.

[Boxing Pythagoras]

So what came before? Do you hold to infinite regression?

"What came before?" is a nonsensical question. You might as well ask "What's north of the North Pole?"

Personally, I favor past-finite models of space-time. However, I do not find any problem with infinite regression on past-eternal models. Either way, the question is irrelevant. "Before time" is still a completely nonsensical phrase.

In the very same post I said: But you are making me play by your rules, something I have already rejected.

The next post I said: Let me ask again, why do we need to assume a natural cause for all events? and Ok, for the sake of argument let's say that God interacts in history, with what we call miracles - what possible hypotheses could I offer? Again, you are making me play by your rules by assuming that materialism is the default position.

This was all in the context of you requiring hypotheses for my position. It had to do with: 1) Assuming that all phenomenon has or needs a natural explanation, and 2) the request for a hypotheses, which is not how historical claims are verified.

I was neither requesting nor requiring a hypothesis. You had already asserted your hypothesis: "there is no logical reason to assume that all phenomenon has or needs natural explanation." I was asking you to justify this claim.

Historical claims are most certainly verified by evidence, in the field of historiography. We don't simply believe everything Herodotus told us in his Histories simply because Herodotus said it. We use the historical claim as an initial hypothesis, and we attempt to gather data which corroborates this hypothesis. That is how historians study history.

[seer]

"What came before?" is a nonsensical question. You might as well ask "What's north of the North Pole?"

Personally, I favor past-finite models of space-time. However, I do not find any problem with infinite regression on past-eternal models. Either way, the question is irrelevant. "Before time" is still a completely nonsensical phrase.

Ok, so if we have a finite past then either space-time popped out of nothing, or something came before that gave rise to it. I don't see a third option, do you. And how does time make sense if it is past-eternal? What year would we be in now? How do we mark time in an eternal past?

I was neither requesting nor requiring a hypothesis. You had already asserted your hypothesis: "there is no logical reason to assume that all phenomenon has or needs natural explanation." I was asking you to justify this claim.

Historical claims are most certainly verified by evidence, in the field of historiography. We don't simply believe everything Herodotus told us in his Histories simply because Herodotus said it. We use the historical claim as an initial hypothesis, and we attempt to gather data which corroborates this hypothesis. That is how historians study history.

OK, I explained what I was trying to do.

[Boxing Pythagoras]

Ok, so if we have a finite past then either space-time popped out of nothing, or something came before that gave rise to it. I don't see a third option, do you.

I most certainly see a third option-- especially since neither of the options you offered are cogent, in the least. The third option is that space-time is temporally bounded in the past, very much in the same way that Latitude is directionally bounded to the North.

And how does time make sense if it is past-eternal? What year would we be in now? How do we mark time in an eternal past?

This seems fairly obvious. In a past-eternal universe, we would mark time in exactly the same manner as we mark time, currently: choose an arbitrary point in time, and mark temporal displacement from that point. We wouldn't have to change a thing!

OK, I explained what I was trying to do.

Then I'll suppose I'll leave it at that.

[seer]

The third option is that space-time is temporally bounded in the past, very much in the same way that Latitude is directionally bounded to the North.

What does that mean? Temporally bounded in the past? How does this look physically?

This seems fairly obvious. In a past-eternal universe, we would mark time in exactly the same manner as we mark time, currently: choose an arbitrary point in time, and mark temporal displacement from that point. We wouldn't have to change a thing!

So what year would we be in now given an eternal past? I'm not speaking of marking arbitrary sections, but how time could make sense in an infinite past.

[Boxing Pythagoras]

What does that mean? Temporally bounded in the past? How does this look physically?

Non-Euclidean geometry can be a bit peculiar, but are you familiar with Polar Graphs, at all? That would give a really nice two dimensional analog. A past-finite temporal boundary would be something akin to the pole on a polar graph.

So what year would we be in now given an eternal past? I'm not speaking of marking arbitrary sections, but how time could make sense in an infinite past.

...2014. We don't currently mark time from the beginning of time. We chose an arbitrary moment, 2014 years in the past. Other points in time are marked by their temporal displacement from that arbitrary moment. When did Pythagoras win at boxing in the Olympic games? Five-hundred eighty-eight years before our arbitrary marker, so 588 BC (or BCE, if we're being politically correct). When did Cassius Clay win the gold medal in the Olympics? One-thousand nine-hundred sixty years after our arbitrary marker, so AD 1960 (or CE, similarly).

[seer]

Non-Euclidean geometry can be a bit peculiar, but are you familiar with Polar Graphs, at all? That would give a really nice two dimensional analog. A past-finite temporal boundary would be something akin to the pole on a polar graph.

You are going to have to put that in more familiar terms. How would this actually relate to how this universe was created. What actually caused this universe.

...2014. We don't currently mark time from the beginning of time. We chose an arbitrary moment, 2014 years in the past. Other points in time are marked by their temporal displacement from that arbitrary moment. When did Pythagoras win at boxing in the Olympic games? Five-hundred eighty-eight years before our arbitrary marker, so 588 BC (or BCE, if we're being politically correct). When did Cassius Clay win the gold medal in the Olympics? One-thousand nine-hundred sixty years after our arbitrary marker, so AD 1960 (or CE, similarly).

Is time really anything besides our arbitrary marking of events?