Philosophy Now Forum

Has the universe been around forever, or did it have a beginning? Furthermore, does it even make sense to say that it has been around "forever"?

Kant observes,

If we assume that the world has no beginning in time, then up to every given moment an eternity has elapsed, and there has passed away in that world an infinite series of successive states of things. Now the infinity of a series consists in the fact that it can never be completed through successive synthesis. It thus follows that it is impossible for an infinite world-series to have passed away, and that a beginning of the world is therefore a necessary condition of the world's existence.

Consider the following before replying:

• Albert Einstein thought Steady-State was reasonable and coherent.
• Fred Hoyle thought Steady-State was a grand idea.
• Kant wrote the above 120 years after the invention of infinitesimal calculus.
• We can assume that Kant was fully aware of Zeno paradoxes regarding runners who never finish races and arrows which are "everywhere stationary", and so on. And that he was aware of how calculus solves them.
• Regarding Zeno, summation of T / (2^n) as n -> inf, converges. A very transparent proof about epsilons and deltas shows that moving arrows are, in fact, never stationary anywhere. In other words, the derivative of a function exists and is coherent.
• However, Summation of n, as n -> inf, diverges. Summing all the seconds from from previous times yields a nasty divergence.
• Kant flubbed the ending of this passage. It is clear that what he really meant to communicate, was that a finite beginning time (Tb) is a necessary condition for the existence of the present moment. (not necessarily the existence of the "world").

i believe
consider a fat burger with egg and cheese before replying

the universe began when set in motion by designer.
and will like all things except reality itself. come to an ending.

the set universe [has >1 population]
i believe
in reality all is tried.verses with other laws.
ours is a success. it results in thinking entities
you and i are qualifiers for success.
thus this verse will be left to play out and if we think. we will one day join those who design.

Purpose


zeno was playing
the arrow in q state shows velocity . it cannot be halted without that state overriding all else.
time ,while a variable . Demands contiguity.
if you haltframe universe to observe arrow[if such a thing was even possible], it looses V and falls in dirt
Newton was no fool.every action as an equal reaction.If such must pass through logic fantasy of zenos arrow
well who are we to argue?

Hjarloprillar wrote: zeno was playing
the arrow in q state shows velocity . it cannot be halted without that state overriding all else.
time ,while a variable . Demands contiguity.
if you haltframe universe to observe arrow[if such a thing was even possible], it looses V and falls in dirt
Newton was no fool.every action as an equal reaction.If such must pass through logic fantasy of zenos arrow
well who are we to argue?

That reminds me. Kant, in no way, made the argument that the universe must be finitely old due to the idea of "infinity" being ill-defined or a nonsensical notion. He would never fall into a juvenile argument like that. In everyday situations, I usually always concede that mathematics has the best toolbox for speaking about infinities.

Einstein and Hoyle both had no qualms about an eternal time before now. I wonder what I'm missing.

Im sorry but what is an infinity?
and how does it fit in a toolbox?

AS i have said i am math stupid.
my ideas are concepts that exist in head as 3d mentufacture
conceptual objects that can be panned and tilted
taking zenos arrow and doing this we have a thing now halted in observatin and q theory it now has one state
a game yes.. what comes next?
That it is destined to over and over be 1/2v'd and not reach its target
this game id not worth the efffort.
I said what i said. about verses.
that we live in one that works'

that is my belief

Kuznetzova wrote:Has the universe been around forever, or did it have a beginning? Furthermore, does it even make sense to say that it has been around "forever"?

Kant observes,

If we assume that the world has no beginning in time, then up to every given moment an eternity has elapsed, and there has passed away in that world an infinite series of successive states of things. Now the infinity of a series consists in the fact that it can never be completed through successive synthesis. It thus follows that it is impossible for an infinite world-series to have passed away, and that a beginning of the world is therefore a necessary condition of the world's existence.

This is just one-half, though; the thesis part of Kant's first antimony. In Pyrrhonistic-like fashion he argues the other as well. The point being to demonstrate that opposing metaphysical hypotheses can be defended with equal force; thus neither actually emerging as victor or being proven via reason.

Wowza

Thanks for the reply, hammock.
Cheers

Kant was no doubt a smart and thinking being.. but no great power of mind.
Critique of pure reason is an overblown fop of a heafty tome.
Kant tries to explain everything.. bad move.
There is no unified field theory of philosophy
No GUT
he would have done better writing children's stories.