Mark Goldblatt on a medieval debate with modern echoes.
https://philosophynow.org/issues/44/Did ... _Beginning
Did the World Have a Beginning?
-
Dalek Prime
- Posts: 4922
- Joined: Tue Apr 14, 2015 4:48 am
- Location: Living in a tree with Polly.
Re: Did the World Have a Beginning?
Yes. 1964. That's all that matters, subjectively. I can only guess when it ends, and if I'm lucky, not horribly.
-
Scott Mayers
- Posts: 2485
- Joined: Wed Jul 08, 2015 1:53 am
Re: Did the World Have a Beginning?
I think that the world can have both a beginning and no beginning. I'm for a multiverse (multi-worlds) theory and so hate using terms that keep begging we have only one unique world as we contingently experience it. Yet, most people are too fixated on the easily graspable which defaults to what is 'practical' considering their own experience. As such, I can't see any way to convince anyone without being able to resort to their contemporary needs and arguing within their limits in practice.
A particular world, like ours, could have a beginning but lead to some 'end' which then allows for another potential identical world based on whether our 'end' is equal to how we began. As such, it is indeterminate. However, if we begin by assuming an infinite world from every possible world, it is impossible to infer a unique beginning. Thus, since both rationally work, I default to assuming at least some 'beginning' as it is logically inclusive and allows us to attempt to find some means to interpret reality based on some such origin.
P.S. The article mentions the Steady State was one assuming just such an infinite world. I assume a Steady State model that can be derived with a beginning as I suggest above. As such, a possible revaluation of Big Bang too could work but would have to be re-introduced in different way that leads to the significant factors of a Steady State model. The BB, while suggesting a 'beginning', also can be shown to arise out of an infinite regress towards its singularity recognizing that as you approach the past, each of the past apparent moments may too be a product of acceleration. Thus as you approach a beginning, you never could actually reach it even though it appears from our perspective this is limited.
A particular world, like ours, could have a beginning but lead to some 'end' which then allows for another potential identical world based on whether our 'end' is equal to how we began. As such, it is indeterminate. However, if we begin by assuming an infinite world from every possible world, it is impossible to infer a unique beginning. Thus, since both rationally work, I default to assuming at least some 'beginning' as it is logically inclusive and allows us to attempt to find some means to interpret reality based on some such origin.
P.S. The article mentions the Steady State was one assuming just such an infinite world. I assume a Steady State model that can be derived with a beginning as I suggest above. As such, a possible revaluation of Big Bang too could work but would have to be re-introduced in different way that leads to the significant factors of a Steady State model. The BB, while suggesting a 'beginning', also can be shown to arise out of an infinite regress towards its singularity recognizing that as you approach the past, each of the past apparent moments may too be a product of acceleration. Thus as you approach a beginning, you never could actually reach it even though it appears from our perspective this is limited.