Eternal Universe?

[Veritas]

This is part of a discussion that was held between an Athiest and a Theist. Here is part of what the Theist is saying. What would the objectivist say concerning this?

You said it is not clear to you that it is impossible to have an eternal past, so let me argue this point a little more. In philosophy it is called "the impossibility of traversing the infinite." It is impossible to have an infinite amount of time before the present because the present would be the terminus of that infinite amount of preceding time. Because infinity has no terminus, however, it would be a contradiction in terms to speak of an infinite amount of time before the present. If there existed an eternal past would could never have arrived at "today." Greg Koukl summed this up very well when he said:

We agreed you cannot get to any infinite point in the future by adding … events one to another. Therefore, this present moment in time can't represent an actual infinite number of events added one to another proceeding from the past. Time has proceeded forward from the past as one event is added onto another to get us to today. But we know that whenever you pause in the count … you can't have an infinite number of events. Which means that there is no infinite number of events that goes backward from this point in time, only a finite number of events. … If you can't get into the infinite future from a fixed reference point (the present) by adding consecutive events one by one, you cannot get into the infinite past by subtracting consecutive events, one by one, from a fixed reference point (the present).11

An actual infinite is philosophically and experientially impossible. As the famous mathematician, David Hilbert, wrote, "The infinite is nowhere to be found in reality. It neither exists in nature nor provides a legitimate basis for rational thought. … The role that remains for the infinite to play solely that of an idea." [David Hilbert, "On the Infinite", in Philosophy of Mathematics, ed. with an Intro. by Paul Benacerraf and Hilary Putnam (Prentice-Hall, 1964) p. 151.]

[intellectualammo]

What would the objectivist say concerning this?

There may be some confusion at times with the theist and the words "eternal" and "infinite." The universe is not infinite, but finite. Just because it's eternal does not mean that it is infinite.

[...] but we can say: since everything possesses identity, the universe possesses identity. Since everything is finite, the universe is finite. But we can't ascribe space or time or a lot of other things to the universe as a whole.

Edited October 20, 2007 by intellectualammo

[Praxus]

This same problem arises with the claim that the universe is infinitely large. Largeness is of course a physical relationship between several existents. Since the universe has no boundaries, there can be no relationship between such a 'boundary' and any other existent in the universe. The same applies when looking at time, as it is nothing but relationship. In his argument he is making the invalid implicit assumption that there was this creation event, but it happened infinitely far back into the past. Quite the contrary is true, there was no creation event and so time is not a valid concept in this context. There can be no relationship between a thing which exists and a 'thing' which does not.

[Capitalism Forever]

You might want to point out to the theist that his position implies that even God is not eternal--that God himself must have come into existence somehow. But how? Who created him? Whoever designed God must have been very, very intelligent!

[Tenure]

This reminds me of one of my very early questions here, one that I was never truly sure if I understood.

So, say we jet out to the very edge of material space and we go beyond where any naturally occuring elements are, beyond all dust, debris, stars and what have you, where all you can see is the universe behind you and a large blackness ahead of you... well... my question is actually - is that an accurate description of the 'outside' of the Universe, theoretically speaking. Obviously, I understand, as soon as you venture beyond every other existents, you are still part of the Universe, but I'm just wondering what we metaphysically or scientifically describe that vacuum beyond as? Does it even exist?

[Capitalism Forever]

where all you can see is the universe behind you and a large blackness ahead of you

How do you know that all you will see ahead is blackness? Have you got any proof that you will not discover a faint glimmer trillions of light years away, which could be the silhouette of another set of galaxies? To have such proof, you would have to be able to prove a negative ... or to actually travel there and confirm that there is no such glimmer. But even if you have managed to do the latter, have you got proof that you will not notice such a glimmer eventually ? That could only be answered by proving a negative; in other words, it cannot be answered.

The known universe will always be bounded. But, since the universe--without the qualifier "known"--is an open-ended collection, to include everything we have identified and everything we may yet identify, you can never say that you have found its edge. And similarly, you cannot say that you have identified a point in the past before which there had been no past, nor a point in the future after which there will come no more future, nor a small entity that is not composed of even smaller entities--nor, for that matter, a prosperity that cannot be improved by creating additional wealth. I like to refer to this principle as the inexhaustibility of the Universe.

[Robert J. Kolker]

How do you know that all you will see ahead is blackness? Have you got any proof that you will not discover a faint glimmer trillions of light years away, which could be the silhouette of another set of galaxies? To have such proof, you would have to be able to prove a negative ... or to actually travel there and confirm that there is no such glimmer. But even if you have managed to do the latter, have you got proof that you will not notice such a glimmer eventually ? That could only be answered by proving a negative; in other words, it cannot be answered.

I will now prove a negative:

There do not exist integers p, q, with q != 0 such that (p/q)*(p/q) = 2.

Proof. Suppose such integers exist. We can assume without loss of generality that they are positive and have no common factor other than 1. By supposition p^2 = 2*q^2. This implies p is even. Let p = 2*k. Then p^2 = 4*k^2 which gives us

4*k^2 = 2*q^2. Divide both sides by 2 to get 2*k^2 = q^2. This means that q is also even. But we -assumed- that p and q do not have a common factor other than 1, yet 2 is a common factor. The contradiction proves the theorem which is negative.

The known universe will always be bounded. But, since the universe--without the qualifier "known"--is an open-ended collection, to include everything we have identified and everything we may yet identify, you can never say that you have found its edge. And similarly, you cannot say that you have identified a point in the past before which there had been no past, nor a point in the future after which there will come no more future, nor a small entity that is not composed of even smaller entities--nor, for that matter, a prosperity that cannot be improved by creating additional wealth. I like to refer to this principle as the inexhaustibility of the Universe.

If you believe that the universe (or cosmos) is all, then it is by assumption a closed thermodynamic system (since there is nothing external to it). If so, by thermodynamic laws the entropy must increase until everything in the cosmos is the same temperature. At which point no work can be derived from temperature differences (that is how heat engines work). What will be produced in a cosmos that eventually will not have any work done by any form of operative heat engine (including animals)? What is your stand on thermodynamic laws?

Bob Kolker

[Capitalism Forever]

I will now prove a negative:

There do not exist integers p, q, with q != 0 such that (p/q)*(p/q) = 2.

The brilliant thing about your proof here is that you actually proved another, entirely unrelated negative by the same proof: namely, that "Robert J. Kolker has never read OPAR." Please be so kind as to do your homework and familiarize with Objectivism before you start asserting your own philosophic (mis)conceptions; most of these things have been addressed by Ayn Rand and other Objectivist intellectuals long ago and the purpose of this forum is not to run a kindergarten where we explain the same basics to lazy pupils day in and day out.

If you believe that the universe (or cosmos) is all, then it is by assumption a closed thermodynamic system (since there is nothing external to it).

While we're at it, please try and read my posts before responding to them. By the inexhaustibility of the Universe, I was referring precisely to the fact that you will never get to point to a set of entities and say, "This is all; there is nothing external to it."

[DMR]

What would the objectivist say concerning this?

"So?"

Apart from the fact that the argument does not, as presented here, explain why an eternal past is inconsistent with atheism, but consistent with theism, the real problem is that it doesn't do the work the theist thinks it does.

If your argument that God exists is that we must postulate a God to get around the problem of an eternal past, then the only "God" this has purchased you is "Some sort of thing which, for whatever reason, gets around the problem of an eternal past." Good luck showing that anything which has these properties must necessarily have all the properties a theist would like to attribute to God.

But all this is premature. We do not yet know enough about how the universe originated to determine whether an eternal past is a problem we actually have to explain, or whether this just does not accurately describe how the universe came to be.

[Robert J. Kolker]

The brilliant thing about your proof here is that you actually proved another, entirely unrelated negative by the same proof: namely, that "Robert J. Kolker has never read OPAR." Please be so kind as to do your homework and familiarize with Objectivism before you start asserting your own philosophic (mis)conceptions; most of these things have been addressed by Ayn Rand and other Objectivist intellectuals long ago and the purpose of this forum is not to run a kindergarten where we explain the same basics to lazy pupils day in and day out.

While we're at it, please try and read my posts before responding to them. By the inexhaustibility of the Universe, I was referring precisely to the fact that you will never get to point to a set of entities and say, "This is all; there is nothing external to it."

You wrote, without caveat or qualification that one cannot prove a negative. I proved a negative. I took the advice of a certain Russian born novelist to take folks -exactly- at their word. I did. I took -you- exactly at your word. What do you know? You ware flat out wrong.

I have read every word Rand ever published. I don't necessarily agree with everything she has published, but I did read what she had to say. Just as I read what you had to say.

Bob Kolker

Edited October 22, 2007 by Robert J. Kolker

[Capitalism Forever]

We do not yet know enough about how the universe originated to determine whether an eternal past is a problem we actually have to explain, or whether this just does not accurately describe how the universe came to be.

Came to be, from where? The Universe includes everything, so wherever the Universe originated from must also be part of the Universe, so to understand where the Universe came from, we'd have to find where that place came from ... and so on. The idea that the Universe has an origin is subject to the same kind of response I posted above with regard to God.

[DavidV]

Have you seen the One Minute Case Against the Cosmological Argument?

Also see Infinite Universe

[Robert J. Kolker]

Have you seen the One Minute Case Against the Cosmological Argument?

Also see Infinite Universe

Consider the set of all integers (including 0 and negative integers). There is no first, there is no last (in the normal ordering) but the successor function is well defined. If you liken the successor function to causation, and the integers to events, we have a set of events with no first cause and no last event.

It is turtles all the way down.

Bob Kolker

[MikeJoyous]

Hi:)

I have no idea what a True Objectivist would say about this. My attitude, being a Humble Lad (you can call me HL in the future:)), would be that if there ain't no infinity in time, why not? What is time if not a record of the movement of things? Why can't movement go on and on and on without end? Unless our theological fellow had in mind the notion of the Immovable Mover somewheres in the fifth dimension (I presume) who is stirring up the gases and electrons and such to create a nice Big Bang on earth?

In my answer, I think I might rhapsodize about the Lord who can do anything, who can move though He is Immovable. Yea, verily. My heart grows bigger as I think about it. The joy, the effluvium of the Holy Ghost affecting things through the etheric continuum:)

Some days I wish I were a preacher. Like would be so much simpler:)

Fun and joy to all,

Mike Rael