An Infinite Time's Arrow is Impossible and Incompatible with Scientific Theoryby james.goetz Tags: arrow, impossible, incompatible, infinite, scientific, theory, time 

#19
Apr1612, 07:47 PM

P: 3

I guess in someways my view doesn't allow for infinity if the "time's arrow" ends, and a new big bang begins where the laws of physics have broken down, than it will not be infinite cycles, but a different event, where the previous event ceased to exist. :) Oh that is just so funny to think about.




#20
Apr1612, 08:21 PM

P: 45





#21
Apr1612, 09:11 PM

P: 1,262





#22
Apr1612, 09:16 PM

P: 1,262





#23
Apr1712, 03:34 AM

P: 50

If infinite past time is impossible, then why would infinite space at your left or right side be possible? The current model of the universe is a universe of infinite size. If you are going to argue that it would be impossible to arrive in the now if there is an infinite amount of preceding time, than I wonder why it would be possible to arrive in the here if there's an infinite amount of space left or right of us.
I've heard about the idea of the direction of time being defined by the direction in which entropy increases. If the universe truly is infinite in size, then there ought to be places in the universe where the entropy is steadily decreasing and the beings living there would consider it as a factor they could depend on. 



#24
Apr1712, 03:49 AM

Sci Advisor
PF Gold
P: 9,178

The observable universe is temporally finite, I trust we all agree on that point. We know nothing about the unobservable parts of the universe, and probably never will. This renders the argument unfalsifiable, which is a polite way of saying it is unscientific.




#25
Apr1712, 03:59 AM

P: 50

I'm fully aware of that, but I'm not trying to prove anything based on that. I'd like to carry the model of the universe which is based on the observable universe a little further and see what it implies about our universe beyond the borders which we are able to observe. It may lead to insights which might be testable and help us get a better understanding of the world we live in.
Whoever came up with the idea of a CalabiYau manifold must be fully aware of the fact that is, at least for the moment, absolutely unfalsifiable. Still it does not stop physicists from talking about the idea and wandering about what that means about the world we live in. 



#26
Apr2012, 08:25 AM

P: 45

One main problem that I see is that you could brush up on your informal logic and avoid fallacies. For example, we both provide anecdotal examples of surmountable infinities. However, it's a logical fallacy to insist that since some infinities are surmountable then all infinities must be surmountable. Also, my original post clearly described the observed universe with unlimited expansion. And here you tell me that the observed universe is flat with indefinite expansion as if I was unaware of that. And then you completely contradicted a previous statement of yours because you earlier agreed with me that the spacetime continuum will always expand and will always be finite. I'll clarify that I'm not objecting to the existence of infinite past and future time independent of sequential events. 



#27
Apr2012, 08:43 AM

P: 45





#28
Apr2012, 10:55 AM

P: 1,262

At no point did I even suggest that all infinities are 'surmountable'  presuming that you mean something about countability, or a finite range containing an infinite set... The fact is that, in theory, the span of time can be directly mapped to the realnumbers. The realnumbers are infinite in range. Thus time, can be infinite in range. Period. As I've said repeatedly, your fundamental point suggests that because every time is finite (i.e. every corresponding real number is finite), the full range of time (or real numbers) cannot be infinite. This is plainly false. And you have yet to offer a refutation, only redirections. This isn't a debate on the validity of your arguments. I'm explaining why they're wrong  and I've thoroughly lost interest. The purpose of PhysicsForums is to learn and educate; not to share one's personal theories on the universe. My FINAL comments on this thread: You're using the terms "unlimited" and "indefinite" yet claiming the same things are NOT "infinite". ?! Or from previous posts: #7 "[the spacetime continuum] will never have an infinitely long time's arrow" #8 "I'm specifically talking about time's arrow and that there could never be an infinite lapse of time's arrow, past or future." #11 "Could we please stick to the subject of my argument that is clearly stated in the title?" #13 "time's arrow will never be infinite." #15 The restated title of your post "An Infinite Lapse of Time is Impossible" #20 "my primary point that an infinitely long lapse of time can never pass" And with that, I unsubscribe. 



#29
Apr2012, 04:37 PM

P: 45

First, he says that my view of a finite universe is a personal view. I suppose that would be the case in the nineteenth century but not since the 1920s. Second, he possibly assumes that unlimited potential is equivalent to unlimited actualization. I definitely mean that "unlimited" potential is not "infinite" actualization. Third, I apparently originally missused the term "time's arrow" and thought that it meant the unidirectional passage/lapse of time. So my original title could look misleading. But in post #15, I responded to education from this forum and said the title should be "An Infinite Lapse of Time is Impossible and Incompatible with Scientific Theory." Fourth, he implies that "an infinite lapse in time" is exactly the same thing as "the existence of infinite past and future time independent of sequential events." For example, in post 14, he acknowledged that future events do not yet exist. And he always refers to infinite future time. But given infinite future time and the nonexistence of future events, then logically infinite future time is independent of sequential events. Fifth, I kept clarifying my argument, but he kept twisting my argument into a straw man and finally accused me of unwillingness to learn. 



#30
Apr2012, 05:16 PM

Sci Advisor
PF Gold
P: 9,178

James, Infinities of any kind in nature create problems and paradoxes. For example, most scientists consider the classical singularity of GR as unphysical and expect it will be resolved by a working version of quantum gravity. An infinite arrow of time is really not much different from a gravitational singularity which pretty much implies the same thing, just on a smaller scale. We know the observable universe is temporally finite, which appears to immunizes us residents against 'sins of the father' invoked by an infinite arrow of time. If we assume all other universes [if any] are temporally finite and causally disconnected, an infinite number of temporally finite universes does not appear to create a paradox.




#31
Apr2012, 06:37 PM

P: 45





#32
Apr2012, 11:40 PM

Sci Advisor
PF Gold
P: 9,178

I'm not partial to any vast / infinite number of 'universes' model, but, nearly all of them, AFAIK, at least imply they are causally disconnected  which means we can, at best, only infer any of them actually exist. I've always felt that places the whole idea on equal footing with creationism, which I find unappealing.
And yes, I agree you did not rule out the possibility of causally disconnected universes. What you assert, IMO, is a paradox that arises in any universe that is infinitely old. In my mind this has already been done  e.g., Olber's paradox. This problem does not arise in a temporally finite universe. 



#33
Apr2112, 09:50 AM

P: 45





#34
Apr2112, 03:05 PM

P: 45

I'm in no way opposed to inference in science, but any inference of an infinite past sequence of any type of events is impossible and likewise should be incompatible with scientific theory. Also, per your comment on creationism, we need to clarify that this in no way supports young earth creationism. And conjectures about theism are philosophical and I already got a warning about that in this forum, so I am sticking to the limits of science here. 



#35
Apr2112, 04:37 PM

P: 526





#36
Apr2112, 05:44 PM

P: 45




Register to reply 
Related Discussions  
Why is QM incompatible with GR and how does string theory solve this? Or MTheory?  Beyond the Standard Model  7  
Dashed arrow and solid arrow in category theory  Linear & Abstract Algebra  7  
the arrow of time  Classical Physics  0 