An Infinite Lapse of Time is Impossible and Unscientific

In summary, the conversation discusses the concept of an infinite lapse of time and concludes that it is impossible based on modern day observations and scientific theories. The idea of a cyclic universe or a multiverse with infinite time is deemed unscientific. Some scholars propose the concept of eternalism to explain the infinite time paradox, but this is not compatible with scientific theories. The argument also touches on Zeno's paradoxes of infinity and the difference between actual and potential infinity. Overall, the conversation emphasizes the importance of scientific observation in the study of cosmology and the rejection of impossible concepts like infinitely lapsed time.
  • #1
james.goetz
45
0
Take two:

This post evaluates the concept of an infinite lapse/passage of time and concludes that an infinite lapse of time is impossible, which was proposed in the sixth century AD by John Philoponus. Likewise, models of cosmology that require infinitely lapsed time such as models of a genuinely cyclic universe or a multiverse with past eternal vacuum energy are impossible and unscientific.

Modern day observation of a flat universe indicates that a flat universe endlessly ages and always has a finite age. For example, a flat universe has a potential infinite age and a continuously increasing finite age. Nothing ever stops the aging of the universe while the universe endlessly has a finite age. Despite a potential infinite age, an actual infinite age never occurs.

The observed impossibility of an infinite lapse of time indicates the impossibility of infinitely lapsed time. Likewise, all scientific hypotheses of cosmology should exclude the possibility of infinitely lapsed time. For example, the technical definition of a "cyclic universe" implies an infinite number of past cycles. This indicates that the concept of a cyclic universe is unscientific, regardless of widely published papers in scientific journals about cyclic models. Other concepts widely published in scientific journals that require an unscientific infinitely lapsed time include "eternal inflation" with no beginning.

Some scholars skirt around the impossibility of infinitely lapsed time and propose the philosophical concept of eternalism, which holds that future phenomena already exist. For example, the universe is uncaused with absolutely no distinction between the past, present, and future while all appearance of lapsed time and sequential events are an illusion. This concept of radical simultaneousness for all supposedly past, present, and future events disputes the impossibility of an apparent infinite lapse of time but at the expense of rejecting the concept of lapsed time. Also, rejecting the concept of lapsed time disputes every theory involving cause and effect, which includes the concept of scientific theory. In this case, perhaps nobody can disprove eternalism while the appearance of lapsed time is merely an illusion, but such philosophical theories are incompatible with the concept of science.

My argument about the impossibility of infinitely lapsed time sometimes prompts debate about Zeno's fifth century BC paradoxes of infinity. Zeno pointed out problems with the concept of infinity while attempting to support the nonexistence of motion and change, which is still in vogue today with the philosophical eternalism mentioned above. For example, Zeno said that all apparently finite lengths such as a cubit are infinitely divisible and likewise nothing has actually traveled the length of a cubit. But this amusing paradox never explains observations of objects that travel a cubit.

In sum, this post holds that the science of cosmology excludes impossible concepts such as infinitely lapsed time and limits itself to inference based on scientific observation.
 
Space news on Phys.org
  • #2
james.goetz said:
In sum, this post holds that the science of cosmology excludes impossible concepts such as infinitely lapsed time and limits itself to inference based on scientific observation.

I thought this was addressed already that the universe as per current observations will continue to expand infinitely that means infinite time.
 
  • #3
james.goetz said:
In sum, this post holds that the science of cosmology excludes impossible concepts such as infinitely lapsed time and limits itself to inference based on scientific observation.
Except it doesn't. It all depends upon the model. There is a time before which we can't say what occurred. But that doesn't mean that nothing occurred before then.
 
  • #4
Originally Posted by james.goetz:
In sum, this post holds that the science of cosmology excludes impossible concepts such as infinitely lapsed time and limits itself to inference based on scientific observation
Chalnoth said:
Except it doesn't. It all depends upon the model. There is a time before which we can't say what occurred. But that doesn't mean that nothing occurred before then.
Hi Chalnoth, I never said that nothing happened before the big bang, but that there is no infinitely lapsed time. Likewise, models that require infinitely lapsed time such as eternal inflation with no beginning, a cyclic universe, [or] a non-zero Hamiltonian should not be considered scientific hypotheses. For example, this does not refute the concept of a multiverse with a beginning, which my original post never excluded.
 
Last edited:
  • #5
James, I don't think I see the point of your argument. Just because an individual clock will never record an infinite time, does not mean an infinite past/future is impossible.

For example, the concept of a spatially infinite universe is one that is considered, and I doubt too many people would say it is 'unscientific' or impossible. In an infinite universe, no measuring tape would be able to ever reach an infinite length, but that does not change the fact that the universe would be spatially infinite. So, if you want to totally reject the possibility of an infinite past/future on the basis that clocks always measure a finite time, you would also need to reject a spatially infinite universe.

Also, if I began to count off numbers, I will always have counted a finite amount of numbers. But, this does not change the fact that there is an infinite amount of real numbers.
 
Last edited:
  • #6
If you replaced "infinite" with "unbounded" how would your argument change?
 
  • #7
Mark M said:
James, I don't think I see the point of your argument. Just because an individual clock will never record an infinite time, does not mean an infinite past/future is impossible.
Hi Mark,

A key to understanding this is to understand the difference of "actual" and "potential" that I noted in the third paragraph of the original post. For example, you understand that an individual clock will never tick and infinite number of ticks in a case where nothing ever bounds the ticking process.
For example, the concept of a spatially infinite universe is one that is considered, and I doubt too many people would say it is 'unscientific' or impossible. In an infinite universe, no measuring tape would be able to ever reach an infinite length, but that does not change the fact that the universe would be spatially infinite. So, if you want to totally reject the possibility of an infinite past/future on the basis that clocks always measure a finite time, you would also need to reject a spatially infinite universe.
I understand that a flat universe will always expand and always be a finite universe, except for the possibility of a Big Rip that would keep the age of the universe finite but make the space infinite. My argument has no objection to a Big Rip making space infinite, but my argument objects to continuous expansion turning into infinite space.
Also, if I began to count off numbers, I will always have counted a finite amount of numbers. But, this does not change the fact that there is an infinite amount of real numbers.
We agree on this. I never challenged the concept that there is an infinite amount of real numbers.
 
  • #8
HallsofIvy said:
If you replaced "infinite" with "unbounded" how would your argument change?
Hi HallsofIvy,

I rarely if ever use the adjective "unbounded" in a mathematical sentence, but that might work. However, I used the adverb "infinitely" and I see no adverb for "unbounded." I guess since I have not used "unbounded" in many sentences I needed to consider it in a few. For example, Are the two following phrases the same?

1. "an infinite number of ticks on a clock?
2. "an unbounded number of ticks on a clock"
 
  • #9
James,
I understand that a flat universe will always expand and always be a finite universe, except for the possibility of a Big Rip that would keep the age of the universe finite but make the space infinite. My argument has no objection to a Big Rip making space infinite, but my argument objects to continuous expansion turning into infinite space.
A flat universe does not necessarily have to finite, it can go either way. I wasn't trying to argue about the size of the universe - I was trying to make the point that since you state that the fact a clock will never measure an infinite amount of seconds is an argument against a universe with an infinite past, we also apply this to say 'Since a measuring device will never measure an infinite amount of feet, an infinite distance is impossible, and hence a spatially infinite universe is impossible'. So, your argument requires you to reject the possibility of an infinite universe, too.
We agree on this. I never challenged the concept that there is an infinite amount of real numbers.
I wasn't trying to prove there is an infinite amount of real numbers - that is obvious. The point I am trying to show is that even though only a finite quantity of numbers can be counted, there is truly an infinite amount of numbers. Similarly, although an infinite amount of time can never be elapsed by a clock, an infinite time can exist.

I understand the basis of your argument - since no observer can measure an infinite amount of time, there can not exist an infinite past. But here's my problem with that reasoning - a clock must beging ticking at some point - but in a universe with an infinite past, there is no beginning to count from. If we had a clock that ticked off time in reverse (it traveled back through time) it would coninue to measure more and more time, and similar to the way you said that an infinite future is possible via 'potential infinity', we could say the universe is 'potentially infinite' in the past.
 
  • #10
Mark M said:
James,

A flat universe does not necessarily have to finite, it can go either way. I wasn't trying to argue about the size of the universe - I was trying to make the point that since you state that the fact a clock will never measure an infinite amount of seconds is an argument against a universe with an infinite past, we also apply this to say 'Since a measuring device will never measure an infinite amount of feet, an infinite distance is impossible, and hence a spatially infinite universe is impossible'. So, your argument requires you to reject the possibility of an infinite universe, too.I wasn't trying to prove there is an infinite amount of real numbers - that is obvious. The point I am trying to show is that even though only a finite quantity of numbers can be counted, there is truly an infinite amount of numbers. Similarly, although an infinite amount of time can never be elapsed by a clock, an infinite time can exist.
Hi Mark,

This analogy is problematic. For example, I do not object to an infinite number of time coordinates or an infinite number of space coordinates. But I am specifically referring to elapsed time and I unsure of what in space compares to elapsed time. The closest comparison that I can think of is gradually expanding space. If that is the comparison, then finite space will never gradually grow into infinite space. But an instantaneous Big Rip into infinite space sounds interesting to explore.

I understand the basis of your argument - since no observer can measure an infinite amount of time, there can not exist an infinite past. But here's my problem with that reasoning - a clock must begin ticking at some point - but in a universe with an infinite past, there is no beginning to count from. If we had a clock that ticked off time in reverse (it traveled back through time) it would coninue to measure more and more time, and similar to the way you said that an infinite future is possible via 'potential infinity', we could say the universe is 'potentially infinite' in the past.
I agree that if a clock could tick in reverse then "the universe is 'potentially infinite' in the past just as elapsed time in the observed universe is potentially infinite in the future.

I also understand your problem that an actual infinite past chronology would have no starting point, but that is part of my point. If that were the case, then no matter how far back we would go in that time, then there always would be infinite past chronology. You apparently indicate that if time travel were possible then a time traveler could never travel an infinite chronology of time.

I suppose that such time could exist only if the entire infinite timeline always existed, which would mean that all future phenomena has always existed and makes observation of cause and effect meaningless.
 
  • #11
So, your opposition is to an infinitely long chain of causality, because it would require that time always existed. Correct?
 
  • #12
Mark M said:
So, your opposition is to an infinitely long chain of causality, because it would require that time always existed. Correct?
Hi Mark,

No, I never argued against an infinite chain of causality in the case of a finite elapse of time in a continuum, if that were possible. My argument refutes the possibility of an infinite chain of causality in a time lattice but possibly not in a finite time continuum. Zeno would never let me get away with that one.
 
  • #13
It sounds to me that all you have established james is that a universe infinite/unbounded in time must be cyclical and their will be a time 'horizon' in the past beyond which nothing can be known to inhabitants of that universe. While I agree this has many of the outward appearances of finite time it is not quite the same thing.

Again changing to a spatial infinity is a useful analogy, in infinite space their must inevitably be an infinite number of exact copies of ourselves as all possible configurations of matter and energy are repeated. Move far enough and space appears to loop back like the Arcade game Asteroids, but you might also describe it as repeating forever like wall-paper both interpretations are equally valid and in truth are BOTH correct as nothing could ever distinguish between them.
 
Last edited:
  • #14
Impaler said:
It sounds to me that all you have established james is that a universe infinite/unbounded in time must be cyclical and their will be a time 'horizon' in the past beyond which nothing can be known to inhabitants of that universe. While I agree this has many of the outward appearances of finite time it is not quite the same thing.

Again changing to a spatial infinity is a useful analogy, in infinite space their must inevitably be an infinite number of exact copies of ourselves as all possible configurations of matter and energy are repeated. Move far enough and space appears to loop back like the Arcade game Asteroids, but you might also describe it as repeating forever like wall-paper both interpretations are equally valid and in truth are BOTH correct as nothing could ever distinguish between them.
Hi Impaler, I am not looking at merely time coordinates but elapsed time. These are two different things. I agree with you that there are no limits to time coordinates that are independent of phenomena.
 
  • #15
james.goetz said:
Hi Impaler, I am not looking at merely time coordinates but elapsed time. These are two different things. I agree with you that there are no limits to time coordinates that are independent of phenomena.
And what qualifies time as "elapsed"? Because I'm pretty sure that even if the current elapsed time is finite, the indefinite future of our universe would lead to an infinite elapsed time.
 
  • #16
The OP does not contain an argument at all, instead each sentence basically asserts using different words, that 'the universe can't be past eternal'.
Not very convincing! Now, there is a debate in academic circles whether this is true or not (see recent papers by Vilenkin and Susskind), but its actually a relatively nontrivial question to answer.
 
  • #17
Please elaborate on the distinction between time coordinates and elapsed time. It sounds to me like your making a distinction between 'ticks' on a clock (time coordinates) and some kind of more 'true' time that can be said to have an elapsed period greater then what the clock can measure?

If this is the case then I disagree with the existence of the latter. Time is what we can measure with a clock (mechanical or biological) and a clock has a finite number of degrees-of-freedom aka bits of data it can hold which means it can only measure a finite amount of time before it rolls over establishing a finite past time-horizon measurement/history.

This change in the degrees-of-freedom of a system IS time in my interpretation, and if done in such a way as to create a history of that change then by definition we have a clock. Their can't be any view of time from outside of time, just as their can be no view of space from outside of space.
 
  • #18
Chalnoth said:
And what qualifies time as "elapsed"? Because I'm pretty sure that even if the current elapsed time is finite, the indefinite future of our universe would lead to an infinite elapsed time.

Hi Chalnoth, you do not understand infinity. For example, a flat universe with an incomplete past will never age an infinite number of Planck times. For example, after the elapse of a googolplex raised to the googolplexth power of Planck times, then the universe would not be close to an age of an infinite number of Planck times.
 
  • #19
james.goetz said:
Hi Chalnoth, you do not understand infinity. For example, a flat universe with an incomplete past will never age an infinite number of Planck times. For example, after the elapse of a googolplex raised to the googolplexth power of Planck times, then the universe would not be close to an age of an infinite number of Planck times.
I understand infinity just fine. If there's an infinite future, then there will be an infinite elapsed time. End of story. It will take an infinite amount of time to get there, but that is of no consequence. It still destroys your argument, even if no observer within our universe can be around to witness it.
 
  • #20
james.goetz said:
For example, a flat universe with an incomplete past will never age an infinite number of Planck times.
I'll have a try at it.

elapsed time = t1 - t0

If t1 is +∞, then elapsed time is also +∞, even if t0 is an actual value instead of -∞.
 
  • #21
Haelfix said:
The OP does not contain an argument at all, instead each sentence basically asserts using different words, that 'the universe can't be past eternal'.
Not very convincing! Now, there is a debate in academic circles whether this is true or not (see recent papers by Vilenkin and Susskind), but its actually a relatively nontrivial question to answer.
Hi Haelfix,

You appear to have missed a major point in my original point or neglected to mention it above. I start with an example of observation. A flat universe with an incomplete will infinitely expand and never have an infinite age. For example, the observed universe will have an age of an infinite number of Planck times. Then I apply the observation on elapsed time in a flat universe to past elapsed.

And yes, I read the interesting papers by Vilenkin and Susskink. I wrote a response at PhilPapers http://philpapers.org/archive/GOETIO-3.1.pdf:

Note
Observation indicates that a flat universe begins, endlessly expands, and forever develops a finite age. Nothing ever stops the aging of a flat universe while it endlessly develops a finite age. Despite an infinite number of time coordinates independent of phenomena, an infinite number of Planck times will never elapse in a single lineage. Likewise, an infinite number of Planck times have never elapsed in a single lineage. The universe could not have been past-eternal.

Imagining a scenario of apparently unlimited time travel in a universe with an eternal past also helps to explain the impossibility of infinitely elapsed time. For example, if a time traveler could survive in a scenario where a two-minute journey in a wormhole could travel to any event in the past, then the time traveler would find that an infinite number of Planck times precede all past events. The time traveler with no apparent limits could never travel an infinite number of Planck times.

This observation excludes the possibility of all cosmology models with a past infinite elapse of Planck time. For example, Mithani and Vilenkin [1] recently refuted three categories of models with an eternal past: (1) past eternal inflation, (2) cyclic evolution, and (3) emergence from static seed. Apart from all reasons supported by Mithani and Vilenkin, those models also fail on the grounds that infinitely elapsed time is impossible.

However, Leonard Susskind [2] replied to Mithani and Vilenkin in a note and argued that the universe is past-eternal. Susskind concluded his argument with saying, "we may conclude that there is a beginning, but in any kind of inflating cosmology the odds strongly (infinitely) favor the beginning to be so far in the past that it is effectively at minus infinity." This expresses a major misunderstanding of infinity. For example, any finite number of Planck times such as googolplex raised to the googolplexth power is infinitely smaller than an infinite number on Planck times. Nothing is remotely close to an infinite number of Planck times except an infinite number Planck times.

In sum, any scientific model of cosmology must have an incomplete past: that is, a beginning. And all apparent merits in cosmology models that include an infinite elapse of time are futile unless the merits are transferable to models with an incomplete past.

References
[1] A. Mithani and A. Vilenkin, "Did the universe have a beginning?," arXiv:1204.4658 [hep-th]
[2] Leonard Susskind, "Was there a beginning?," arXiv:1204.5385 [hep-th].
 
  • #22
Chalnoth said:
I understand infinity just fine. If there's an infinite future, then there will be an infinite elapsed time. End of story. It will take an infinite amount of time to get there, but that is of no consequence. It still destroys your argument, even if no observer within our universe can be around to witness it.
An infinite expansion never ends and there is no final time coordinate. You possibly sound as if you treat infinity as if it were a real number that could be used as a coordinate. For example, there is a countable set with an infinite number of positive integers and infinity is not a real number.
 
  • #23
jobigoud said:
I'll have a try at it.

elapsed time = t1 - t0

If t1 is +∞, then elapsed time is also +∞, even if t0 is an actual value instead of -∞.
Hi jobigoud,
+∞ and -∞ are not real numbers and time coordinates are real numbers.
 
  • #24
Impaler said:
Please elaborate on the distinction between time coordinates and elapsed time. It sounds to me like your making a distinction between 'ticks' on a clock (time coordinates) and some kind of more 'true' time that can be said to have an elapsed period greater then what the clock can measure?

If this is the case then I disagree with the existence of the latter. Time is what we can measure with a clock (mechanical or biological) and a clock has a finite number of degrees-of-freedom aka bits of data it can hold which means it can only measure a finite amount of time before it rolls over establishing a finite past time-horizon measurement/history.

This change in the degrees-of-freedom of a system IS time in my interpretation, and if done in such a way as to create a history of that change then by definition we have a clock. Their can't be any view of time from outside of time, just as their can be no view of space from outside of space.
Hi Impaler:

I am not making any suggestions of some ultimate time. But ticks on a clock are not geometric time coordinates. Here are time coordinates t1 and t2:
t1 = 2012/05/02 23:59:00 GMT and t2 = 2012/05/03 00:00:00 GMT

As of the time of this post, t1 and t2 have no phenomena. The time coordinates exist in a geometric sense while those periods of time do not exist. When those periods of time exist, then they will be associated with phenomena. And a clock ticking from t1 to t2 will represent the elapse of time from t1 to t2. And before t1, there will be no elapse of time from t1 to t2.
 
  • #25
Can I suggest that instead of using the word "time" you use the word "change". Then you need not concern yourself about infinite time (which is irrelevant as time is merely a measurement of change), instead you can consider infinite change. What causes change...
 
  • #26
Jack Smart said:
Can I suggest that instead of using the word "time" you use the word "change". Then you need not concern yourself about infinite time (which is irrelevant as time is merely a measurement of change), instead you can consider infinite change. What causes change...
I think that just makes it worse, because change is even more nebulous than time. The goal should be to nail down the definition, make it specific. Not make it more nebulous.
 
  • #27
Time measures (including calibrating & indexing) change (which means events, duration, interval ). That is it. It might be that change is nebulous (though I'm not sure that's necessarily so), but that doesn't alter time being a very simple concept ... though its simplicity is usually missed.

www.thisistime.co.uk
 
  • #28
James, you're still playing a restated version of Zeno's paradox. By your logic, the Planck clock should never have started ticking in the first place.
 
  • #29
Chronos said:
James, you're still playing a restated version of Zeno's paradox. By your logic, the Planck clock should never have started ticking in the first place.

Chronos, You're still playing a false analogy.
james.goetz said:
Hi Chronos,

I see a huge difference. Zeno looked at a finite length such as a cubit and said that it is infinitely divisible and therefore nobody can travel a cubit, while in fact observation clearly indicates that uncountable animals have traveled a cubit. In my case, I observe the expansion of a flat universe and say that it will always expand and always have a finite size and age. Your comparison of Zeno's paradox and my observation is a false analogy.
Apr28-12, 11:06 AM
https://www.physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=3888197&postcount=55
 
  • #30
Surely, infinity is purely a concept ?

If infinity and dimensionality are mutually exclusive within the same domain, then infinity cannot exist within our dimensional universe ... ergo, infinity is simply a human construct.

If there is a limit to the divisibility of matter and to the size of the universe, then the physical universe is composed of a finite number of indivisible particles, which means that any calculation involving quantities greater than that totality of particles cannot be applied to the physical universe.
 
  • #31
James, can I ask if you are saying that a future time slice (please forgive the clumsy language) does not currently exist, or that because a future time slice does not currently exist, one can not have infinite time?

Also, in relation to Zeno's cubit, would you agree that there is no limit to the length of road that I can measure (past), and that there is no limit to the length of road that I can plan to measure (future)? If I think of a clock in the same fashion, then there is no limit to the amount of time (past or future) that I could measure (and so can be infinite), but anything that I do measure is constrained witin a physical start/end point (and so can not be infinite). Therefore the difference, just like infinity, is a philosophical one between 'could' and 'can'. I'm not sure that this agrues for or against what you are saying, but I'm also not sure that the difference is material.

(By the way, personally, I like Jack Smart's description and agree with his comments on simplisity.)

Regards,

Noel.
 
  • #32
To James Goetz.
In this thread you repeatedly refer to your argument that an 'infinite elapsed time' is impossible but as haelfix pointed out on pages 1, you have not presented an argument. All you have done is restate the same assertion in different ways and dance around the issue.

An argument consists of premises and conclusions connected by logically valid steps. You have not presented any premises, nor any logical steps.

You will also need to define what you mean by an 'infinite elapsed time'.

Note to the moderators: This thread should be moved to the philosophy subforum because it is not physics.
 
  • #33
james.goetz said:
...The time traveler with no apparent limits could never travel an infinite number of Planck times.

This observation excludes the possibility of all cosmology models with a past infinite elapse of Planck time.
Follow-on to my previous post. I see you made this reply to haelfix. Yet you still did not present an argument, only a thought experiment. Even assuming this thought experiment enables you to conclude that your first sentence quoted above is true, the second sentence is a non sequiteur, an utterly unfounded leap. There is no reason at all to suppose that it follows from the first sentence. But, as noted above, it requires definition of what is a cosmology model 'with a past infinite elapse of Planck time'. Without such a definition, the leap is not even wrong.
 
  • #34
james.goetz said:
In sum, this post holds that the science of cosmology excludes impossible concepts such as infinitely lapsed time and limits itself to inference based on scientific observation.

I'd say the point is largely irrelevant to the scientific process, since any of the current cosmological models could simply turn out to be local approximations. Even if the models formally project to infinity, there is no way we could distinguish between a universe that is truly infinite in time and one that very slowly transitions into something else at very late times. A similar argument could be made for just about any infinity you find in scientific models.

It's really more of a philosophical debate, I think. As long as a model continues to fit the data, there's no scientific benefit to introducing an ad hoc tweak to make it finite.
 
  • #35
I believe that time has gone on forever and it will do that forever in the future. You say it is impossible, i think different.
 
<h2>What is the concept of an infinite lapse of time?</h2><p>An infinite lapse of time refers to the idea that time has no beginning or end, and therefore has been continuously ongoing for an infinite amount of time. This concept is often discussed in philosophy and cosmology.</p><h2>Why is an infinite lapse of time considered impossible?</h2><p>An infinite lapse of time is considered impossible because it goes against the laws of physics. The second law of thermodynamics states that the entropy (or disorder) of a closed system will always increase over time. If time were truly infinite, the entropy would have reached its maximum level, making it impossible for any further changes or events to occur.</p><h2>Is there any scientific evidence to support the idea of an infinite lapse of time?</h2><p>No, there is no scientific evidence to support the idea of an infinite lapse of time. In fact, many scientific theories, such as the Big Bang theory, suggest that time had a beginning and will have an end. Additionally, scientific experiments and observations have consistently shown that the entropy of the universe is increasing, further contradicting the concept of an infinite lapse of time.</p><h2>What are some philosophical arguments against an infinite lapse of time?</h2><p>One of the main philosophical arguments against an infinite lapse of time is the concept of a "first cause." If time has been continuously ongoing, then there must have been a first cause or event that initiated this infinite lapse of time. However, it is difficult to explain what this first cause could be, leading many to reject the idea of an infinite lapse of time.</p><h2>How does the concept of an infinite lapse of time impact our understanding of the universe?</h2><p>The concept of an infinite lapse of time challenges our understanding of the universe and our place in it. It raises questions about the origins of the universe, the existence of a higher power, and the ultimate fate of the universe. It also forces us to consider the limitations of our scientific knowledge and the possibility of events and phenomena that may lie beyond our understanding.</p>

What is the concept of an infinite lapse of time?

An infinite lapse of time refers to the idea that time has no beginning or end, and therefore has been continuously ongoing for an infinite amount of time. This concept is often discussed in philosophy and cosmology.

Why is an infinite lapse of time considered impossible?

An infinite lapse of time is considered impossible because it goes against the laws of physics. The second law of thermodynamics states that the entropy (or disorder) of a closed system will always increase over time. If time were truly infinite, the entropy would have reached its maximum level, making it impossible for any further changes or events to occur.

Is there any scientific evidence to support the idea of an infinite lapse of time?

No, there is no scientific evidence to support the idea of an infinite lapse of time. In fact, many scientific theories, such as the Big Bang theory, suggest that time had a beginning and will have an end. Additionally, scientific experiments and observations have consistently shown that the entropy of the universe is increasing, further contradicting the concept of an infinite lapse of time.

What are some philosophical arguments against an infinite lapse of time?

One of the main philosophical arguments against an infinite lapse of time is the concept of a "first cause." If time has been continuously ongoing, then there must have been a first cause or event that initiated this infinite lapse of time. However, it is difficult to explain what this first cause could be, leading many to reject the idea of an infinite lapse of time.

How does the concept of an infinite lapse of time impact our understanding of the universe?

The concept of an infinite lapse of time challenges our understanding of the universe and our place in it. It raises questions about the origins of the universe, the existence of a higher power, and the ultimate fate of the universe. It also forces us to consider the limitations of our scientific knowledge and the possibility of events and phenomena that may lie beyond our understanding.

Similar threads

  • Cosmology
Replies
9
Views
2K
  • Cosmology
Replies
10
Views
2K
Replies
20
Views
1K
Replies
25
Views
1K
  • Cosmology
Replies
28
Views
2K
  • Sci-Fi Writing and World Building
Replies
2
Views
946
  • Cosmology
2
Replies
38
Views
4K
Replies
27
Views
2K
Back
Top