Some "Eternal" Nonsense

[n9newunsixx5150]

The following is a response I made on another messageboard. The topic is about this idea of an eternal soul that has a beginning but no end. One person responded about how a ray in mathematics starts from a point and continues forever. Below is my response:


I understand how an infinity concept like this may be a useful tool in mathematics, but practically speaking it goes to say that whereas that which has a beginning also has an end, that which has no beginning similarly has no end. The 'has beginning but no end' idea hasn't even a practical basis in reality. We all have experience of things that begin and each of these things we understand to also have an end. No matter how many trillions of years some cosmic body exists (for example), we can understand that there is some rate of decay, i.e. even the sun is understood to be temporal. So the other side of this logic goes to say that if something were to have no beginning, then it would also have no end.

A discourse on this peculiar "eternity" would go something like this:

"I am eternal."

"Ok. So what were you doing on September 16th, 1829?"

"Oh, I didn't exist."

*smacks forehead* "So which is it, are you eternal or do you not exist? How can time be applicable to a concept that, by definition, transcends time? What about someone who never began, but died in 1829? I guess he is eternal too. One can say, "he is eternal, but he doesn't exist anymore," but how incredibly nonsensical is that? "My friend Bob was eternal until 1829. I guess time caught up with him" (enter rim-shot)"

Does anyone else see the absurdity of this pseudo-eternal concept?

"I feel like I'm taking crazy pills!!" -Will Ferrell as Mugatu (Zoolander)

 

[Mr. Nice Guy]

First, the idea of an eternal soul with a beginning but no end is oxymoronic as the definition of eternal is having no beginning and no end.

Second, anything is possible, but logically speaking there seems only two possibilities. Either the soul is temporary and is created at birth and extinguished at death, or it is eternal and therefore is not created but rather has no beginning or end.

This assumption is based on logic and concepts of religion and the soul often do not fit into the boundaries of logic, ie if you believe God created the universe, what created God, and what created that which created God. That cannot be answered logical, IMO.

 

[n9newunsixx5150]

First, the idea of an eternal soul with a beginning but no end is oxymoronic as the definition of eternal is having no beginning and no end.

Second, anything is possible, but logically speaking there seems only two possibilities. Either the soul is temporary and is created at birth and extinguished at death, or it is eternal and therefore is not created but rather has no beginning or end.

This assumption is based on logic and concepts of religion and the soul often do not fit into the boundaries of logic, ie if you believe God created the universe, what created God, and what created that which created God. That cannot be answered logical, IMO.

We agree on what constitutes "eternal".

The religious concept of an eternal soul that begins is based not on direct words given in these religious texts, but is an interpretation due to lack of explanation.

The concept of the soul is based on our experience and does follow in such logic. It is just that this understanding has been adulterated by faulty interpretation.

 

[HERESY]

We agree on what constitutes "eternal".

The religious concept of an eternal soul that begins is based not on direct words given in these religious texts, but is an interpretation due to lack of explanation.

The concept of the soul is based on our experience and does follow in such logic. It is just that this understanding has been adulterated by faulty interpretation.

In another thread didn't you state that God created souls?

 

[n9newunsixx5150]

In another thread didn't you state that God created souls?

No.

 

[TROLL]

everything is cyclic..

the cycle is eternal..

 

[Hutch]

The current paradigm regarding the cyclic nature of the universe does not support the view that the universe is 'eternal'. Some astronomers have stated that the universe constantly expands, retracts and 'bounces' into an expanding state again. However, calculations supporting this view show that at each successive 'bounce', the force at which the universe expands and hence the time it takes before it's next retraction is reduced. Thus, if the universe is cyclic, it is not eternal (unless there is a significant paradigm shift among cosmologists).

I agree that something which has a beginning must have an end. The statement 'that which has no beginning has no end' is pointless, it is an experiment in philosophy which has no answer. If it does not have a beginning, then it has never existed and hence has no end. However, if time itself is not eternal (and because time is closely linked to space, which may not be eternal), then even if something has never existed (in time or space), it will inherently have an end. Thus, if something has a beginning, it has an end, and if something doesn't have a beginning, it must also have an end.

I would say that all things go back to dust, but not even dust remains when physical laws have their way.

 

[HERESY]

Is time a dimension? If so whats to stop a soul or a god from operating outside of it?

 

[n9newunsixx5150]

I agree that something which has a beginning must have an end. The statement 'that which has no beginning has no end' is pointless, it is an experiment in philosophy which has no answer. If it does not have a beginning, then it has never existed and hence has no end. However, if time itself is not eternal (and because time is closely linked to space, which may not be eternal), then even if something has never existed (in time or space), it will inherently have an end. Thus, if something has a beginning, it has an end, and if something doesn't have a beginning, it must also have an end.

I would say that all things go back to dust, but not even dust remains when physical laws have their way.

If it does not have a beginning then it does not exist if we define existence as that which manifests from a state of nonexistence. But certainly, energy is neither created nor destroyed. Temporal existence pertains to the forms manifest from this eternal energy. Time as is commonly defined in relation to moving bodies, is definitely not eternal, but that does not go to say that existence ceases at that point. I don't define existence as a product of nonexistence. I understand that fundamentally everything is eternal and this eternity is the actual substance, or existence. So even if there were no manifest universe by which we have our relative time perceptions, eternal existence and eternal time would remain.

 

[TROLL]

The current paradigm regarding the cyclic nature of the universe does not support the view that the universe is 'eternal'. Some astronomers have stated that the universe constantly expands, retracts and 'bounces' into an expanding state again. However, calculations supporting this view show that at each successive 'bounce', the force at which the universe expands and hence the time it takes before it's next retraction is reduced. Thus, if the universe is cyclic, it is not eternal (unless there is a significant paradigm shift among cosmologists).

I agree that something which has a beginning must have an end. The statement 'that which has no beginning has no end' is pointless, it is an experiment in philosophy which has no answer. If it does not have a beginning, then it has never existed and hence has no end. However, if time itself is not eternal (and because time is closely linked to space, which may not be eternal), then even if something has never existed (in time or space), it will inherently have an end. Thus, if something has a beginning, it has an end, and if something doesn't have a beginning, it must also have an end.

I would say that all things go back to dust, but not even dust remains when physical laws have their way.

good answer..

im responding to what i underlined: does the reduced state of "bounce"/expansion/retraction" in the universe show that it eventually will stop expanding and retracting?? and if so would the cycle of life and death stop?? would things cease to grow and wither?? thats what i meant by "cycle is eternal". not just the physical end or beginning of something but the cycle it goes thru is eternal..

 

[Hutch]

Yes, the equations suggest that, after x amount of contractions and expansions, the universe will decrease in size to a singularity - a planck-sized point which can contract no further. However, who is to say that the energy accumulated within this singularity might one day result in another massive explosion - another BIG BANG of sorts. Perhaps this might be the cycle which you describe - the contractions and expansions may just be a stage within an individual cycle. Who knows?

I agree n9ne - energy can neither be created nor destroyed - the first law of thermodynamics. However, the second law of thermodynamics states that entropy ('negative information', or hence disorder) constantly increases. Particles decay, turning to pure energy, and although this occurs over an immense time frame (billions of years or more), it is inevidible.

Humans, planets and all structures in the universe are small pockets of 'negative entropy' (or order). But, as the years tick by, at about 500 billion years, all of the protons, neutrons and electrons will decay to heat, leaving no stars and planets and certainly no people. When all of this matter is converted to heat (the lowest state of energy), then no order can be established because there is no more entropy that can be produced.

For example - our fridge works by compressing air and cooling it. You could say that the refrigerator is creating order by converting 'heat' to 'cold'. However, the amount of heat generated by the fridge outweighs the cold produced, thus resulting in a higher state of disorder. The phrase 'theres no such thing as a free lunch' describes this phenomena very well.

Thus, everything in the universe will be converted to heat eventually and nothing can 'pop out of existence' from this state. Game over.

 

[n9newunsixx5150]

Yes, the equations suggest that, after x amount of contractions and expansions, the universe will decrease in size to a singularity - a planck-sized point which can contract no further. However, who is to say that the energy accumulated within this singularity might one day result in another massive explosion - another BIG BANG of sorts. Perhaps this might be the cycle which you describe - the contractions and expansions may just be a stage within an individual cycle. Who knows?

I agree n9ne - energy can neither be created nor destroyed - the first law of thermodynamics. However, the second law of thermodynamics states that entropy ('negative information', or hence disorder) constantly increases. Particles decay, turning to pure energy, and although this occurs over an immense time frame (billions of years or more), it is inevidible.

Humans, planets and all structures in the universe are small pockets of 'negative entropy' (or order). But, as the years tick by, at about 500 billion years, all of the protons, neutrons and electrons will decay to heat, leaving no stars and planets and certainly no people. When all of this matter is converted to heat (the lowest state of energy), then no order can be established because there is no more entropy that can be produced.

For example - our fridge works by compressing air and cooling it. You could say that the refrigerator is creating order by converting 'heat' to 'cold'. However, the amount of heat generated by the fridge outweighs the cold produced, thus resulting in a higher state of disorder. The phrase 'theres no such thing as a free lunch' describes this phenomena very well.

Thus, everything in the universe will be converted to heat eventually and nothing can 'pop out of existence' from this state. Game over.

You are just stating the same thing I was but with more scientific explanation.

The term, "however" means "in spite of". I have yet to see your points here in spite of what I wrote. That everything in the universe will eventually convert to heat energy is fine. What does it have to say in spite of anything?

 

[Hutch]

I apologise, I didn't fully read your post (or rather I read it too quickly and misinterpreted your point) - yes, you are right. I'm not sure about eternal time though, but that is more a philosophical question than a scientific one (atleast with our current understanding).

Another question in general - you guys know how scientists aren't sure as to whether the expansion of the universe is slowing down or speeding up - what if it is speeding up and the outer galaxies continue to speed up until they are travelling at the speed of light. Does that mean that time would stop still or even reverse, and thus the faster it expands the further back in time it goes? It's a silly question but it's rather paradoxial IMO.

Also, what is space? If there were no matter and no energy, would 'space' exist? Is it literally a mass-less ether or just a canvas onto which energy is 'painted'? I say this with regards to the creation of the universe - I found it strange that physicists suggest that 'nothing can move faster than the speed of light', whereas cosmologists show that after the big bang, the universe would have expanded at an immense rate (several light years in the first billionth of a second). They solve this little paradox by suggesting that it is not the matter itself that is moving faster than the speed of light, but rather it is the space itself which is expanding (and because it has no mass or energy, it is not technically moving faster than the speed of light). It just sounds strange to me. Without acceleration and a suitable reference point, if you are moving away from me, is it you who are moving or the air between us expanding?