Why do we always speak of eternally going back instead of eternally going forward or the notion of time going in two separate directions at the same time .

(February 11, 2018 at 1:26 am)Tizheruk Wrote: Why do we always speak of eternally going back instead of eternally going forward or the notion of time going in two separate directions at the same time .

About the perceived directionality of time, Sean Carroll says this intuition has something to do with the universe starting at low entropy. As far as the laws of physics themselves are concerned, time can move both ways. There is nothing in the formulas and equations that say otherwise. But because the universe is structured in a way where low entropy is at the start and then increases, we're conditioned to see time as flowing in one direction.

I don't know the specifics, by the way. So perhaps polymath can provide more elaborate input on this, unless he happens to disagree with Sean Carroll, of course.

(February 11, 2018 at 1:33 am)Grandizer Wrote:

(February 11, 2018 at 1:26 am)Tizheruk Wrote: Why do we always speak of eternally going back instead of eternally going forward or the notion of time going in two separate directions at the same time .

About the perceived directionality of time, Sean Carroll says this intuition has something to do with the universe starting at low entropy. As far as the laws of physics themselves are concerned, time can move both ways. There is nothing in the formulas and equations that say otherwise. But because the universe is structured in a way where low entropy is at the start and then increases, we're conditioned to see time as flowing in one direction.

I don't know the specifics, by the way. So perhaps polymath can provide more elaborate input on this, unless he happens to disagree with Sean Carroll, of course.

You mean the time arrow theory

(February 11, 2018 at 1:59 am)Tizheruk Wrote:

(February 11, 2018 at 1:33 am)Grandizer Wrote: About the perceived directionality of time, Sean Carroll says this intuition has something to do with the universe starting at low entropy. As far as the laws of physics themselves are concerned, time can move both ways. There is nothing in the formulas and equations that say otherwise. But because the universe is structured in a way where low entropy is at the start and then increases, we're conditioned to see time as flowing in one direction.

I don't know the specifics, by the way. So perhaps polymath can provide more elaborate input on this, unless he happens to disagree with Sean Carroll, of course.

You mean the time arrow theory

Yep

(February 10, 2018 at 10:43 pm)SteveII Wrote:

(February 10, 2018 at 10:54 am)polymath257 Wrote: Once again, there is no *logical* problem with an infinite regress. Mathematics deals with the set of negative integers all the time. It isn't a logical problem. This is one example of the problems with ancient philosophy: we have learned a LOT about how to deal with infinities over the last 150 years or so. Yes, they don't act the same way as finite things do. But that isn't a contradiction.

You are imagining a problem (counting from negative infinity) where there is none. At each point, the 'counting' has been going on forever. So? The only problem with that is that there is no start. And that is not a *logical* problem. We are here and the clock has always been ticking.

This is getting tiring. Look back over your posts. I give reasons why an infinite series of past causes are logically impossible and all you keep coming back with is "no it's not". SHOW ME SOMETHING. A syllogism would be great. Post a link from a respected source if you can't articulate it. Until then, you are simply making assertions with no reasons to believe them. I want to see something that says there can be an actual infinite number of anything.  

Quote:Every single cause we have ever seen has been a physical cause. Since there is no reason to even assume the existence of a supernatural, it is reasonable and valid to say that all causes are natural. In fact, I strongly suspect you can't give a coherent definition of what it means to be supernatural.

You have NO IDEA if every single cause we have seen has been a physical one. The people in the NT think otherwise. The billions of Christians who believe they have a relationship with God or feel God has changed them, or has performed this or that miracle in their lives or someone close to them think otherwise. 

To say "all causes are natural" is the very height of a question begging argument! I have pointed out this very logical fallacy over and over, yet you still repeat it. Smart people would read up on it and adjust their arguments to they don't through out textbook fallacies. 

Sure I have a definition of supernatural: Not natural. Not originating nor belonging to the natural order of things. 

Quote:As for OT vs NT, there is some valid history in the OT. Some historical persons are mentioned in the NT (Pilate, Herod), but many of the facts are wrong about them (timing of census that never happened?). Past that, it is stories and expositions of religious positions.

LOL. There are a thousand articles and books written about the census. Have you actually read one or are you just reading off an atheist internet bullet list? There were regional census all the time plus there were enrollments where people would be compelled to go and pledge loyalty to Caesar. It is entirely possible one of these happened in Palestine in 6-4 BC. Luke was not an eyewitness--he was investigating and writing. He had records and people available to him that are long gone. 

I don't know what your last sentence is supposed to mean.

I gave the example of the negative integers to show how an infinite regress is *logically* possible. Did you not understand the example?

The distinction between potential and completed infinities is part of the philosophical problem: it is a false dichotomy. There is no logical problem with a completed infinity.

OK, so what does it mean to be 'part of the natural order of things'? How is that any different than simply existing? Anything causally connected to something natural is itself natural.

---

(February 11, 2018 at 1:33 am)Grandizer Wrote:

(February 11, 2018 at 1:26 am)Tizheruk Wrote: Why do we always speak of eternally going back instead of eternally going forward or the notion of time going in two separate directions at the same time .

About the perceived directionality of time, Sean Carroll says this intuition has something to do with the universe starting at low entropy. As far as the laws of physics themselves are concerned, time can move both ways. There is nothing in the formulas and equations that say otherwise. But because the universe is structured in a way where low entropy is at the start and then increases, we're conditioned to see time as flowing in one direction.

I don't know the specifics, by the way. So perhaps polymath can provide more elaborate input on this, unless he happens to disagree with Sean Carroll, of course.

In the most basic equations of physics, as we now understand them at least, there *is* a slight difference between the 'forward' and 'backward' direction of time. This is seen in the weak nuclear force. But this is such a small thing, it is difficult how it translates into the large scale differences we all appreciate.

So, that bringsus down to entropy. And here, the issue is that entropy describes the number of microscopic states that are equivalent to a given macroscopic state: it is a statistical law and NOT a fundamental one. But, yes, there is good reason (based on how thebrain works) to think that the direction of consciousness (memory) is the same as the direction of entropy increase.

And no, there is no real difference between postulating infinite time into the future and infinite time into the past, at least in terms of the models we use (which encompass ALL space and time into a single spacetime).

(February 11, 2018 at 5:01 pm)polymath257 Wrote:

(February 10, 2018 at 10:43 pm)SteveII Wrote: This is getting tiring. Look back over your posts. I give reasons why an infinite series of past causes are logically impossible and all you keep coming back with is "no it's not". SHOW ME SOMETHING. A syllogism would be great. Post a link from a respected source if you can't articulate it. Until then, you are simply making assertions with no reasons to believe them. I want to see something that says there can be an actual infinite number of anything.

I gave the example of the negative integers to show how an infinite regress is *logically* possible. Did you not understand the example?

The distinction between potential and completed infinities is part of the philosophical problem: it is a false dichotomy. There is no logical problem with a completed infinity.

OK, so what does it mean to be 'part of the natural order of things'? How is that any different than simply existing? Anything causally connected to something natural is itself natural.

If I may play Devil's advocate, and because I'm curious about how Steve's overall argument about infinity can be effectively countered without assuming at least B-theory of time (if not eternalism).

Steve isn't necessarily arguing against the existence of an already completed infinity. At least not here (from what I've read). He's arguing against the impossibility of successively adding things (integer by integer) from negative infinity to any integer. Hence, the counting analogy.

(February 9, 2018 at 10:21 am)Succubus Wrote:

(February 9, 2018 at 10:08 am)RoadRunner79 Wrote: There is no reason or rule that states only the one making the positive claim had the burden of proof. It is on anyone making a claim.   If if you claim something as false, you are still making a claim of truth

How many times does this have to be explained to you?

Quote:If someone has presented you with an idea and says that the burden of proof is on you to disprove the idea, work out what the null hypothesis is and then put their evidence for the idea against it.
The person claiming something is possible or has happened needs to produce evidence to refute the null hypothesis.
If they have considerable and well-tested evidence, the burden of proof may reasonably be considered to be on the person claiming that the evidence does not hold.

Regarding the highlight: That is where you fail.

The Null Hypothesis

I don't see where this changes what I said about the one making the claim having the burden of proof (regardless to whether that claim is considered a positive or negative claim).
I would encourage you and others to look this up... Wikipedia calls the notion that the negative claim is somehow exempt from the burden of proof pseudo-logic. 

To be honest, the null hypothesis seems more akin to a skeptical position to me.  Where it is not really  making a claim.  How do you feel that this makes it unnecessary for one making a negative claim to not have to support their assertion?

---

(February 9, 2018 at 10:36 am)Kernel Sohcahtoa Wrote:

(February 9, 2018 at 10:08 am)RoadRunner79 Wrote: There is no reason or rule that states only the one making the positive claim had the burden of proof. It is on anyone making a claim.   If if you claim something as false, you are still making a claim of truth

Is god/supernatural belief falsifiable in your opinion? If it is, then in your opinion, what makes it falsifiable, and out of curiosity, how would you go about falsifying the existence of the Christian deity or any deity?

I think that there are claims within Christianity which are falsifiable, and those which are not.   There certainly seem to be a fair number of atheists who think that it is falsifiable.

---

(February 9, 2018 at 11:44 am)polymath257 Wrote:

(February 9, 2018 at 10:08 am)RoadRunner79 Wrote: There is no reason or rule that states only the one making the positive claim had the burden of proof. It is on anyone making a claim.   If if you claim something as false, you are still making a claim of truth

And this is where you have an issue. Atheists, for the most part, do NOT claim no deities exist. Instead, they claim that there is no proof of the existence of deities.

No issue here.... I didn't say anything about atheists here.  Although your jumping to that in immediate defense from talking about those making negative claims is interesting.

Quote:But, again, the *default* is non-existence. This is as true for deities as it is for fundamental particles and it is for Bigfoot. The burden of proof is *always* on the side making the existence claim.

And there is good reason for this. An absolute disproof of non-existence is very rare *for anything*. Again, this is true for deities, Bigfoot, or the Loch Ness Monster. Especially if something can 'hide' effectively, an absolute disproof is impossible.

But a proof of existence is easy if the thing in question does, in fact, exist: produce it.

because of this dichotomy, it is the positive existence statement that has the burden of proof *almost always*.

The one exception I can think of is when the object in question is so well defined that we know *when* it *should* appear. If it fails to then appear, the non-existence is shown. But this is a very rare case.

So the ball is in your court. Either
1) produce a deity to show the existence.
OR
2) Give a situation where that deity is guaranteed to be observable if it does exist. This is a stronger condition, but is required if you demand a proof of non-existence.

In the absence of either 1) or 2), the default is a position of non-existence.

Sorry, the burden of proof is on the one making the claim.   You do not get to default your position in, and shift the burden of proof.  I would suggest you look this up.  You haven't given any reason to exempt a negative claim from the burden of proof. 

This is not to say, that one cannot have a neutral or skeptical position (not making a claim either way).  Really the skeptic is not making any claim except for one about their own mental state in regards to the matter.  For this you do not need to fulfill the burden of proof, because you are not making  a claim outside of your own subjective self.

---

(February 10, 2018 at 10:08 pm)Minimalist Wrote:

(February 9, 2018 at 10:08 am)RoadRunner79 Wrote: There is no reason or rule that states only the one making the positive claim had the burden of proof. It is on anyone making a claim.   If if you claim something as false, you are still making a claim of truth

I thought you were somewhat brighter than G-C.  Perhaps I was mistaken.

You said:  "I thought you were somewhat brighter than G-C.  Perhaps I was mistaken."

I say:  Perhaps you should read a little more carefully and with comprehension before questioning someones intelligence.  All I said, is that those making negative claims have a burden of proof.  This statement doesn't entail anything that would mean the one making a positive claim does not have a burden as well (both sides can have a burden of proof). 

Your stick figures in addition to being out of context, also share the happy distinction of not representing what I believe at all.  So while you are questioning how bright people are.... I would say that you failed epically here.

(February 11, 2018 at 8:01 pm)RoadRunner79 Wrote:

(February 9, 2018 at 10:36 am)Kernel Sohcahtoa Wrote: Is god/supernatural belief falsifiable in your opinion? If it is, then in your opinion, what makes it falsifiable, and out of curiosity, how would you go about falsifying the existence of the Christian deity or any deity?

I think that there are claims within Christianity which are falsifiable, and those which are not.   There certainly seem to be a fair number of atheists who think that it is falsifiable.

In the interest of learning more about you and your beliefs, would you be willing to elaborate on the part in bold?  With that said, I will understand if you do not wish to discuss it.  Thanks for your reply.

(February 11, 2018 at 5:10 pm)Grandizer Wrote:

(February 11, 2018 at 5:01 pm)polymath257 Wrote: I gave the example of the negative integers to show how an infinite regress is *logically* possible. Did you not understand the example?

The distinction between potential and completed infinities is part of the philosophical problem: it is a false dichotomy. There is no logical problem with a completed infinity.

OK, so what does it mean to be 'part of the natural order of things'? How is that any different than simply existing? Anything causally connected to something natural is itself natural.

If I may play Devil's advocate, and because I'm curious about how Steve's overall argument about infinity can be effectively countered without assuming at least B-theory of time (if not eternalism).

Steve isn't necessarily arguing against the existence of an already completed infinity. At least not here (from what I've read). He's arguing against the impossibility of successively adding things (integer by integer) from negative infinity to any integer. Hence, the counting analogy.

Yes, and the porblem here is the implicit assumption that there is a start to all the adding. If there is no start, then the adding has always been going on.

I certainly have no issue with considering time (and space) as a whole. it is done all the time in cosmology. So, time being infinite in one direction or the other is equally problematic. And, in fact, in a multiverse cosmology, time *is* infinite in both directions.

So is size, infinite in both smaller and larger . . . .