The Extremis of Rationality

[Mudhammam]

There are points at which rational thought must break down and admit the fundamentally absurd. One such paradox is found in the origin of change, or time. Either time began or it is eternal, both of which seem impossible to swallow. The problem with a beginning of time is that it requires there to have been a time in which there was no time. This is absurd. That is, to say that time began to exist is to say that its non-existence preceded the moment at which it began. What else can "began to exist" mean other than that time was non-existent, and then - voila! - it existed? Furthermore, if time did not - at one time - exist, there was always the potentiality for time to come into existence, and so time always existed potentially before it existed in actuality. So, time was actually non-existent but not potentially non-existent (in other words, the existence of time was not an impossibility). If actual time had a beginning, then prior to actual time there was an eternity of potentially existent time. This is absurd. So, either the actuality or potentiality of time must be eternal. This amounts to nothing other than the observation that there has always been change, either actually or potentially. If there was a state in which change did not occur, then such a state could not but remain in stasis. For, if change did occur, then the conditions upon which the prior inactivity [of the state in stasis] were necessitated must have changed. But if those conditions were unmoved prior to moving, or unchanged prior to changing, then they must have begun to move or change as a result of those very conditions which necessitated stasis - a contradiction in terms - or as a result of an external force or mover. But the same reasoning applies to the external force or mover. Either that moved as a result of the conditions upon which its prior inactivity were necessitated, and in that case, the original problem surfaces, or it must have begun to move or change as a result of another external force or mover, ad infinitum. So, change then must either be eternal, à la an infinite regress of change, i.e. there has never been a state which was not preceded by another, or change does not exist. But an infinite regress of change means that a series of infinite changes have reached the completion of their set, as the present is its end term for which no future time has yet come into existence, and that amounts to saying that it is possible to traverse the whole of an infinite series. But an infinite series cannot have an end term because that is the very definition of infinitude - it has no end or final term. Again, this is absurd. And if we accept that change exists, this is the bullet we must bite when it comes to the question of origins: Either the universe (or multiverse) is eternal, and there is an infinite amount of past time, or the beginning - the something for which we ask ourselves "Why?"- arose from nothing, and there is no time preceding the first cause - the first cause being neither temporal nor eternal, but self-actualization from non-existent potentiality. THIS IS ABSURD. Of course, positing God as an uncaused cause does not allow one to escape the paradox for the reasons suggested in blue. Three options: No change exists, there is an infinite regress of past change, or change spontaneously arose from nothing. With respect to the latter two choices, the same dilemma, in a slightly different context (where change is substituted for cause) that faces the macrocosm (the universe) confronts the microcosm (man) when it comes to the issue of free will. That, however, is a different topic. This, I contend, is the extremis of rationality: it refutes itself.

[vorlon13]

Empty universes don't experience time, as there is nothing for it to impinge upon, and that makes empty universes unstable, and they tend to decay immediately into universes that are not empty.

[Faith No More]

A minor quibble. It should be "The Extremis of Human Rationality." Sure, it all seems absurd when you try to wrap your head around it, but clearly the answer to time is either absurd or something we can't even possibly fathom. Whatever the answer, the universe cares not for our inability to understand, and to say rationality itself fails to understand this isn't really true. It could be understood using rationality by a hyper-intelligent being, so really it is human rationality that has its limitations.

[Mudhammam]

Empty universes don't experience time, as there is nothing for it to impinge upon, and that makes empty universes unstable, and they tend to decay immediately into universes that are not empty.

There's quite a bit of confusing language in there (universes don't experience, period). You're still using the language of change - empty to not empty, "tend to decay," which implies before/after - that is precisely what I understand by time.

[I_am_not_mafia]

When your logic ends in a paradox it is a good sign that you have missed some vital clue or have misunderstood something fundamentally important in what you are reasoning about.

For example, people assume that time is a strict progression of cause to affect, but actually, from a non-linier, non subjective point of view it is more like a big ball of wibbily wobbly timey wimey...stuff spacetime is expanding and the speed of light is constant therefore the general theory of relativity needs to be taken into account.

[Mudhammam]

A minor quibble.  It should be "The Extremis of Human Rationality."  Sure, it all seems absurd when you try to wrap your head around it, but clearly the answer to time is either absurd or something we can't even possibly fathom.  Whatever the answer, the universe cares not for our inability to understand, and to say rationality itself fails to understand this isn't really true.  It could be understood using rationality by a hyper-intelligent being, so really it is human rationality that has its limitations.

Sure, but that sounds to me like those who say God's thoughts are nothing like human thoughts. What then is it that allows us to identify that supra-rationality to be rational at all?

[Alex K]

You lost me here

Furthermore, if time did not - at one time - exist,

- you assume the nonexistence of time, yet you seem to simply keep using the concept as if a timeline were still there in the background.

There are also some other things I don't exactly agree with - you might have a false dichotomy here, with time being eternal or not; You assume that time is this continuous line which either runs on or ends. The nature of time could change completely around the edges in the past, for example.

[Chad32]

Time begins when things happen with which to measure time. You can't have a day or a year without planets spinning around suns. If there are no events taking place, time has no meaning. So to say time has a beginning doesn't sound absurd to me. You just have to think what do we measure time by. If those things aren't there, time is meaningless.

[jenny1972]

A minor quibble.  It should be "The Extremis of Human Rationality."  Sure, it all seems absurd when you try to wrap your head around it, but clearly the answer to time is either absurd or something we can't even possibly fathom.  Whatever the answer, the universe cares not for our inability to understand, and to say rationality itself fails to understand this isn't really true.  It could be understood using rationality by a hyper-intelligent being, so really it is human rationality that has its limitations.

Sure, but that sounds to me like those who say God's thoughts are nothing like human thoughts. What then is it that allows us to identify that supra-rationality to be rational at all?

"rational" is as subjective as any other descriptive word . what is beyond the human ability to understand we label with the word " irrational " and for humans who incorrectly believe that if it is irrational it cannot exist , if it is beyond our understanding it cannot exist , this is a result of the belief that human intelligence is supreme and if it doesnt make sense to us and is irrational then it cannot possibly exist . If you believe in the existence of intelligence that is more supreme than human intelligence its logical to think that rationality could be subjective dependent on intellectual ability to understand a concept and rationality can exist beyond our human ability to understand.

[robvalue]

Absurdity and paradoxes tend to arise from incomplete understandings, and applying simple rules and principles to unknown territory. I feel confident our understanding of time is woefully incomplete, and is already indicated to not be a simple parameter. So all we can do is model how things seem to be; that's all science can ever do.

When philosophy tries to go beyond the limits of science, it's always going to end up strangling itself. So I wouldn't call this kind of extrapolation rational, because it goes beyond what evidence can support. It just shows we are unequipped, perhaps permanently, to totally understand what is going on.