On The Nature Of Infinity

[Brad Thomson]

What could POSSIBLY have prompted a beginning to time?

This is simple. The only answer possible is nothing, or not anything. Another way of saying this is that existence itself is miraculous, there can be no explanation, for then we would need an explanation for the explanation ad infinitum. There can be no coming from, for before Time there is nothing to come from. If something prompted a beginning to time then it would have to have existed in time and then you would be saying that time existed before it existed, which is a contradiction in terms. (This is also a demonstration against religious people who like to say that God caused Himself. To cause Himself He would have had to exist before He existed, which is a contradiction in terms.) All time comes from nothing and returns to nothing, this is what substance/being/existence is. In a sense there is not one Big Bang, but rather a continual Big Banging, without possible explanation, from nothing, or not from anything. My contention, being an immaterialist, is that what Big Banged/Bangs into existence was/is One mind. This mind then thinks the sensible universe, and as Bob suggests in some sense, "individuates" into a multitude of sentient beings that live IN the mind and sense what it is imagining. Volitions which are wishes to move our bodies are experienced by this mind and S/he/it rethinks or reimagines the sensible universe to correspond. The Laws of Nature are only the patterns of the thoughts of the One initial mind.

As far as time ending, I have no opinion. It is possible that we and all sentient life will become extinct and yet the One mind may continue un-individuated, or maybe it will simply disappear, and the miracle will come to an end.

[Bob Armstrong]

Re God:

God IS. There only exists IS, not time.

God did create other Isnesses.

There was change is the original IS/God.......S/He/It created.

Bob

[Brad Thomson]

Bob, if God exists outside of time, or to put it another way, if time does not exist from the perspective of the Absolute/S/he/it (because all of the illusory time that we experience is eternally present to the Absolute/S/he/it), as is the case I believe with the God of Aquinas, and certainly the God of many of the Scholastics, then God does not change, change is in fact impossible, and therefore how can we avoid lapsing into Spinozism which in its full conclusions is actually atheistic, materialistic and deterministic? If God is eternally present to our past, present and future, then how can we be free to change it, change being but an illusion? It seems to me that we cannot. Berkeley declared this sort of system to be atheism in disguise, and he mocked the thinkers who believed such theories. If everything you and I will do from now on for the rest of our lives already exists in S/he/it and always has from infinite eternity, then we are completely determined and can only from our limited perspectives pass through what already and eternally IS. This is precisely determinism, it denies free will and responsibility. Or am I confused?

[Fred Henderson]

Time is a human mental construct that assists us in organization. There is no "time" (No past, present or future; no NOW even).

<snip>

.

I say no, since we are all trying to be precise in this discussion. Maybe the measurement of time is a human mental construct, but not time itself.

[Fred Henderson]

Surely we all know what infinity means, it's just very difficult, if not impossible, to express that concept.

It's kind of like the ever-expanding universe. Yes the universe is expanding. So that means that the universe itself cannot be infinite, and therefore not all-encompassing. So if the universe is expanding, it must have an "outer limit". Or if you will, a border. \ANd if there is a border to the universe, then there must be something on the outside of that border that is not a part of the universe.

Then there is the infinitesimal. Suppose a man has to walk ten miles to get to where he is going. If he walks half that distance, then walks half of the remaining distance and repeats, he will never get to where he is going.

[Pargat Perrer]

Bob, if God exists outside of time, or to put it another way, if time does not exist from the perspective of the Absolute/S/he/it (because all of the illusory time that we experience is eternally present to the Absolute/S/he/it), as is the case I believe with the God of Aquinas, and certainly the God of many of the Scholastics, then God does not change, change is in fact impossible, and therefore how can we avoid lapsing into Spinozism which in its full conclusions is actually atheistic, materialistic and deterministic? If God is eternally present to our past, present and future, then how can we be free to change it, change being but an illusion? It seems to me that we cannot. Berkeley declared this sort of system to be atheism in disguise, and he mocked the thinkers who believed such theories. If everything you and I will do from now on for the rest of our lives already exists in S/he/it and always has from infinite eternity, then we are completely determined and can only from our limited perspectives pass through what already and eternally IS. This is precisely determinism, it denies free will and responsibility. Or am I confused?

If the definition of infinity is what I proposed at the beginning of this thread, it means that God, who is described as infinitely knowing, is by my definition of infinity still learning. S/he/it ... (sounds like a redneck saying "sh*t") ... is therefore changing. Not only the future, but the PAST is constantly changing as more is added, at an exponentially increasing rate. Again, imagine a number which is Pi minus 3 and then the digits BEFORE the decimal point are mirroring the digits AFTER the decimal point. In both directions, the digits go to infinity, never causing a repetitive cycle.

[Pargat Perrer]

Surely we all know what infinity means, it's just very difficult, if not impossible, to express that concept.

It's kind of like the ever-expanding universe. Yes the universe is expanding. So that means that the universe itself cannot be infinite, and therefore not all-encompassing. So if the universe is expanding, it must have an "outer limit". Or if you will, a border. \ANd if there is a border to the universe, then there must be something on the outside of that border that is not a part of the universe.

Then there is the infinitesimal. Suppose a man has to walk ten miles to get to where he is going. If he walks half that distance, then walks half of the remaining distance and repeats, he will never get to where he is going.

Ok, Fred, you got me in the hockey thread, I didn't know "tangle with" meant fighting ... English is not my first language.

The universe can be both infinite AND expanding. In fact, expanding is in the very definition of infinity. Infinity is a moving target, moving at an ever faster and faster rate, and the rate is increasing at a faster and faster rate .... ad infinitum.

EDIT: I just thought of something in regards to your second point about the infinitesimal. Going infinitely smaller may be the same as going back in time infinitely. The Planck time is the smallest time that can be measured, and this is because of. the constant speed of light.

What if the Big Bang happened WHEN the speed of light became this constant?

That would mean that BEFORE the Big Bang, the speed of light was infinitely growing (expanding) ... or could it have been infinitely SLOWING but never ever ever reaching zero?

Some scientists have proposed the idea of infinite universes ... what if each universe pops into existence each time the speed of light reaches a new number, and in that universe, the speed of light is a constant with that new value? That would mean the mind-boggling idea that the rate of production of new universes is expanding into infinity at an exponentially expanding rate ... again, infinity defining itself on its own terms!

[Brad Thomson]

S/he/it ... (sounds like a redneck saying "sh*t".

I think the first person to use S/he/it in this forum was Bob. But I have been using it in my personal notes for years. Yes, from my perspective at least, you get the point.

It seems to me that God is One, which is a finite number.

With respect to your post to Fred, to me there is nothing before the Big Bang, it is the first event, it has no cause nor can it possibly have a cause prior, because if it did then we would need to posit a cause for the cause ad infinitum. Existence does not come from anything, or it comes from nothing. It has no explanation, nor can it, for again, if it did we would need to post an explanation for the explanation ad infinitum. Thus, we must have a first uncaused, unexplainable event. This is the appearance of the universe. Once more, there is NO before this, for it is the beginning of time.

[Bob Armstrong]

From the Non-Timer:

The Supra-Natural (My term for "God" so as to avoid all the religious baggage) IS.........period. There is not "before" or "after" - they are just mental constructs....do not exist........have no "mass".

But there is "change" - The Supra-Natural created "beingness" separate from itself (The physics description of this change is The Big Bang).

Bob A

[Pargat Perrer]

From the Non-Timer:

The Supra-Natural (My term for "God" so as to avoid all the religious baggage) IS.........period. There is not "before" or "after" - they are just mental constructs....do not exist........have no "mass".

But there is "change" - The Supra-Natural created "beingness" separate from itself (The physics description of this change is The Big Bang).

Bob A

This seems to tie in with what I just posted to Fred. It's an idea that just came to me.

The greatest constant in our universe is the speed of light. We have no idea why it is the value that it is (afaik).

Could it be that the speed of light is some "Supra-Natural" creation which is designed to keep increasing infinitely, and each time it increases by some quantum amount (and who knows what that amount might be), a whole new universe springs into existence via a Big Bang, and that particular universe has as its CONSTANT speed of light the new value.

Thus each universe must develop into a unique creation. What makes it expand is the creation within it of more and more spacetime, at a rate correspondent to that universe's speed of light constant. Outside of each universe is an area we can't imagine, perhaps the word "area" isn't even valid, it's a "void of spacetime", wherein perhaps your Supra-Natural exists, Bob, and maybe even where our souls come from and go to.

Brad wrote in post #33 of this thread regarding the Supra-Natural being outside of time: "This is precisely determinism, it denies free will and responsibility." I'd like to hear more about the implications of that. The one thing most NDEers relate to us from their experience is that indeed, there is no JUDGMENT. The whole idea of responsibility is man-made, part of our judicial system of morals and ethics, but it does not translate to our spiritual destination where no one is ever "guilty" of anything.


EDIT: Just as one more comment, if an individual universe is fully deterministic, but there is a true infinity of such universes, can there be free will? I think yes if there is the notion of life outside of the infinite collection of universes, life which is constantly in transit between physical, deterministic, spacetime universes and one surrounding non-physical non-spacetime Supra-Natural realm. Anyone who believes in the Big Bang must by definition believe in such a realm.

[Bob Armstrong]

From a "Theist" Non-Timer (It is not necessary to be a Non-Timer to be a Theist; on time, Theism simply presents "Considerations" & people decide what suits them):

1. It is of no benefit for the Supra-Natural to create puppets for which It is pulling the strings. It is then just playing with itself.
2. To truly create, the new being must have "Free Will" (Now the modern scientists can flog me with brain neuro-research that free will went out with the dinosaurs). This freedom includes the right to oppose the creating Supra-Natural. Some religions conceptualize these initial beings as spiritual/non-material. But the same is true re intelligent material beings (We believe man has an animate physiological body with a life force, in partnership with an immaterial Spirit existence. To what extent, during life, the Spirit is able to separate from the body is controversial).
3. Determinism is the situation of no free will, no real choosing. Our belief is that there is free will, and therefore there is NO determinism.
4. The Supra-Natural is all-knowing. To know is not to direct. I can know two cars are about to crash.....I am not causing the crash.

Bob A

P.S. The topic of this thread is "infinity". It seems to me that this topic necessarily involves whether there exists any non-material superior force. I don't think the thread is being "hi-jacked" by discussing God/Yahweh/Allah/The Great Spirit/Zeus/Supra-Natural/One Absolute. But if the majority think it is being hijacked, I will not purse further what I think is a critical aspect of the infinity issue.

[Brad Thomson]

I think our fundamental difference of opinion, Bob, is that for you S/he/it knows the future perfectly because S/he/it exists outside of time and is therefore present to all past and future from our limited perspectives eternally, while for me S/he/it has to wait and see just like the rest of us. I do not see how change is compatible with this metaphysic, A being outside of time cannot/does not change. I realize that there are philosophers/theologians who believe it is not a contradiction in terms to suggest that God is present to our future and yet we are still free to choose it, but I am not one of them. I do not believe that S/he/it knows what choices I will make tomorrow any more than I do. But if S/he/it does, then we are not free, all is determined. This entails atheism/Spinozism, it seems to me.

[Pargat Perrer]

From a "Theist" Non-Timer (It is not necessary to be a Non-Timer to be a Theist; on time, Theism simply presents "Considerations" & people decide what suits them):

1. It is of no benefit for the Supra-Natural to create puppets for which It is pulling the strings. It is then just playing with itself.
2. To truly create, the new being must have "Free Will" (Now the modern scientists can flog me with brain neuro-research that free will went out with the dinosaurs). This freedom includes the right to oppose the creating Supra-Natural. Some religions conceptualize these initial beings as spiritual/non-material. But the same is true re intelligent material beings (We believe man has an animate physiological body with a life force, in partnership with an immaterial Spirit existence. To what extent, during life, the Spirit is able to separate from the body is controversial).
3. Determinism is the situation of no free will, no real choosing. Our belief is that there is free will, and therefore there is NO determinism.
4. The Supra-Natural is all-knowing. To know is not to direct. I can know two cars are about to crash.....I am not causing the crash.

Bob A

P.S. The topic of this thread is "infinity". It seems to me that this topic necessarily involves whether there exists any non-material superior force. I don't think the thread is being "hi-jacked" by discussing God/Yahweh/Allah/The Great Spirit/Zeus/Supra-Natural/One Absolute. But if the majority think it is being hijacked, I will not purse further what I think is a critical aspect of the infinity issue.

I'll address your #4 first: "The Supra-Natural is all-knowing."

This is saying the Supra-Natural has infinite knowledge. Which by my definition of infinity means the Supra-Natural is infinitely in a process of learning.

Now to #1: "It is of no benefit for the Supra-Natural to create puppets for which it is pulling the strings."

I don't know where the notion of souls created as puppets to have their strings pulled came from.

Our souls are not puppets and our free will comes while we are on "the other side". We each decide how to achieve our soul's development. We each decide what our incarnations in the physical world will entail. In essence, we are "random number generators" with perfect randomness, because the Supra-Natural has no prior knowledge of what we will decide. These "random numbers" we generate are can be imagined as new, never-before-encountered sections of digits in the sequence of Pi: infinite, going both forwards and backwards, there was never a beginning to them and will never be an end. The concept of "no beginning" to something that exists is purposely beyond comprehension of us in this physical dimension.

[Pargat Perrer]

I think our fundamental difference of opinion, Bob, is that for you S/he/it knows the future perfectly because S/he/it exists outside of time and is therefore present to all past and future from our limited perspectives eternally, while for me S/he/it has to wait and see just like the rest of us. I do not see how change is compatible with this metaphysic, A being outside of time cannot/does not change. I realize that there are philosophers/theologians who believe it is not a contradiction in terms to suggest that God is present to our future and yet we are still free to choose it, but I am not one of them. I do not believe that S/he/it knows what choices I will make tomorrow any more than I do. But if S/he/it does, then we are not free, all is determined. This entails atheism/Spinozism, it seems to me.

Evangelical Christians seem to believe that God and his prophets have told us exactly what is coming in our endtimes future. Yet these same Christians believe that we all have free will. How do you see that, Brad? Is there some way that God could know about the macro trends (towards for example humanity learning nuclear technology and using it to create weapons of mass destruction which would actually get used in the endtime) but could still allow for micro deviations due to free will?

I also think often about the case of Judas, the apostle who betrayed Jesus. If Judas had free will, could he have NOT betrayed Jesus and changed history?

[Brad Thomson]

Is there some way that God could know about the macro trends... but could still allow for micro deviations due to free will?

I also think often about the case of Judas, the apostle who betrayed Jesus. If Judas had free will, could he have NOT betrayed Jesus and changed history.

First, yes, in fact this is exactly how I understand S/he/it, and this is certainly the position of Hegel with respect to his dialectic of the unfolding of the Absolute Idea. Marx, though an atheist, also believed in necessary evolutionary patterns based upon economic conditions and at the same time human free will. So, there is no contradiction when a Christian says we have free will and at the same time that God plans Armageddon, and so on.

Second, I am no Christian. I do believe that the person of Jesus did walk the earth as a normal, or perhaps exceptional man, since there are historical references to him from sources other than the Bible, but I do not believe that he was anything more than a man. Of course, if the story of his betrayal is true, then Judas had a choice and could have chosen not to, at least by my definition of S/he/it as existing IN time, or more accurately, being time itself. I do believe, as I have suggested, that if God, or S/he/it, is outside of time and does not change, then we have a deterministic system, akin to Spinoza.