(February 25, 2018 at 10:04 am)LadyForCamus Wrote: @steve,
I was a bit confused about this ‘no start’ as well, but I think the relevant distinction here is in how we are viewing time. If time actually flows from moment to moment the way we experience it, then I agree with you that if we assume infinite time, it seems like a logical impossibility to not ever start anywhere, and somehow still get somewhere. But, the point that Poly and Grand are making is that it could very well be true that time does not flow. That there is no, ‘first this one, then the next, and then the next, ect.) but rather, time is a static collection of an infinity of points in existence; past, present, and future. All points exist simultaneously, and every time slice represents a section, or point, in the ‘set’ of infinite time. If that is the case, then infinite time is very much like an infinite set of numbers in mathematics, and completely logically possible. You don’t have to start at a number and actually count one after the other in order to have a completed infinite set of numbers in mathematics. You couldn’t; isn’t that the point? Similarly, you don’t have to start at ‘event one’ in time and wait for the next one to happen in order to have a completed set of infinite time. All the points are already there.
My understanding is that B theory of time is an active competing hypothesis under serious consideration by the scientific community, and not without evidential support. If that is the case, then I have to agree with Poly and Grand that there is no logical contradiction here.
(I’m a dunce in the corner compared to the rest of you, so if I got something wrong above, please jump in and course-correct. Thanks!)
You are not a dunce. I observed not too long ago that I didn't know anything about this subject and read quite a few articles. Even the process of this discussion fills in some things for me.
First, you don't need time to "flow". You still have causal connections from one time slice to another that are countable. A rotting apple has very predictable steps that are easy to plot. You still need a baby horse in a prior time slice to get an adult horse in another. These causal connections are what the whole enterprise of science is about. To say that the theory dismisses this fundamental aspect of reality is to not understand the theory.
Second, I think it is quite a leap to say that every and all universes ever exist simultaneously in a giant spacetime manifold like the one that we experience in our universe. That just seems to be a convenient assertion. However, as we have been discussing, the B theory of time does not eliminate the aspect of reality that each event is inextricably linked in prior-to and after than relationships/connections.
Third, the idea that all events that will ever happen are equally real simultaneously is NOT the same as infinite set theory in mathematics. The first is an actual infinite and the second is a potential infinite. To be clear, mathematicians are talking about potential infinities when the talk about sets. This is because one side is bounded and only the open side is potentially infinite. These two terms have very different definitions and cannot be used interchangeably or use one to prove the other.