Eternal reality or not?

SelfSim said:

PS: Its also hard to get around time being considered as real, when we also have a memory for events, I might add.

Click to expand...

When you dig into it, it becomes a question of what we mean by 'time', and this seems to vary with the context...

FrumiousBandersnatch said:

When you dig into it, it becomes a question of what we mean by 'time', and this seems to vary with the context...

Click to expand...

The older one gets, the more meaningless it becomes.

Chriliman said:

I’ve heard it argued that if reality is eternal then now would never come, but couldn’t it be the opposite? If reality is eternal then now is inevitable.

If you support either position, please explain why you think it’s plausible.

Click to expand...

I don’t think anyone would support either position. Now is simple the point in time you are currently experiencing (to a close approximation taking into account our brain needs to process the sensory data first: and that take time).

timothyu said:

The older one gets, the more meaningless it becomes.

Click to expand...

It certainly seems to go faster...

I've always been fascinated by the way time passes when you're bored - slowly at the time but quickly in hindsight; and when you're active and involved it passes quickly at the time but more slowly in hindsight. Subjectively, the speed of time passing is proportional to the amount of stimulation, and in retrospect, it's inversely proportional to the number of event memories.

FrumiousBandersnatch said:

When you dig into it, it becomes a question of what we mean by 'time', and this seems to vary with the context...

Click to expand...

Precisely ... Just like everything else we regard as being real.

Chriliman said:

I’ve heard it argued that if reality is eternal then now would never come, but couldn’t it be the opposite? If reality is eternal then now is inevitable.

If you support either position, please explain why you think it’s plausible.

Click to expand...

I think that reality, the universe, is eternal. I think it's always now. By eternal, I mean outside of time. I think that time presupposes existence so that speaking of a time without existence is non-sensical. How would one demonstrate that it's even possible that nothing could exist? The concept of possibility presupposes existence. It's just stolen concepts.

Chriliman said:

I’ve heard it argued that if reality is eternal then now would never come, but couldn’t it be the opposite? If reality is eternal then now is inevitable.

If you support either position, please explain why you think it’s plausible.

Click to expand...

I presume that (1) you are talking about physical reality, and (2) by "eternal" you mean "extending infinitely into the past."

The problem with that is that you can't wait an infinite amount of time and then do something. Such a universe must be static or cyclic. In both cases, "now" must repeat itself infinitely often, in every microscopic detail.

The happy Objectivist said:

I think that reality, the universe, is eternal. I think it's always now. By eternal, I mean outside of time.

Click to expand...

The fact that things happen disproves the obvious meaning of that sentence. So I'd appreciate you unpacking that a little.

Radagast said:

In both cases, "now" must repeat itself infinitely often, in every microscopic detail.

Click to expand...

Hence the symbol for eternity. A closed system.

Radagast said:

The fact that things happen disproves the obvious meaning of that sentence. So I'd appreciate you unpacking that a little.

Click to expand...

Yes Radagast, I can see how you could draw that conclusion from what I wrote and I do want to clarify. I was trying not to be long winded and I anticipated this and planned on clarifying if asked. I'll clarify it later today when I have more time and I'll try not to be long winded about it. So, more clarification will probably be necessary.

timothyu said:

Hence the symbol for eternity. A closed system.

Click to expand...

You mean this? That only applies to eternity understood as time extended infinitely far into the past (which is not the Christian understanding).

Radagast said:

You mean this?

Click to expand...

That is more cycle of life. I was thinking more the symbol for infinity

timothyu said:

That is more cycle of life. I was thinking more the symbol for infinity

Click to expand...

Well, (1) that's not the same as eternity, and (2) it is unclear what John Wallis had in mind when he introduced it.

True... eternity is ironically limited to time.

timothyu said:

True... eternity is ironically limited to time.

Click to expand...

No.

In Christianity, "eternity" is used in two quite different senses.

Radagast said:

The fact that things happen disproves the obvious meaning of that sentence. So I'd appreciate you unpacking that a little.

Click to expand...

Hi again Radagast,

I should have said that from our point of view it is always now. The past is gone now and we only have awareness through our memory. The future hasn't happened yet. The present moment is a continuation of the past and the future will be a continuation of the present. Time is essentially a measurement. What does it measure? It is a measurement of motion or of change. The difference between the past and the present is the changes that have occurred between then and now. The way we measure time is in terms of motion in relation to some objective standard. One movement of the second hand measures a fraction of the rotation of the Earth on its axis. One year measures one orbit of the Earth around the Sun. In the past, I was younger than I am now. In the future, I'll be older than I am now. A few minutes ago I was bringing in groceries and now I'm typing on the computer and in a half hour I'll be getting my hair cut. In one half of one 24th of one rotation of the Earth on its axis, I'll be getting a haircut. So time presupposes motion or change. And motion or change presupposes the answer to the question: motion or change of what? It would be nonsensical to say that time is a measurement of change of nothing, just change. Therefore time presupposes existence. So to speak of a time when nothing existed is incoherent. It commits a fallacy known as the fallacy of the stolen concept. Are you familiar with that fallacy?

I want to stress here that we do not need to know everything about time in order to conclude that the universe or existence is eternal. We need only know one thing: that time presupposes existence. Even if it were possible for nothing to exist except time, time would still exist and therefore something would exist. And, if something exists then the universe* exists.

* About my definition of the universe. I take it to mean the sum total of what exists. The word universe comes from the Latin Uni, meaning one, and versus, meaning turning. Universus means turning into one or a whole. If something exists, it is part of the total and therefore it is part of the universe. I do not define an axiomatic concept such as existence or universe in terms of more fundamental concepts because there are no concepts more fundamental than existence.

Hopefully, this clarifies my position.

The happy Objectivist said:

Hi again Radagast

Click to expand...

Thanks for responding.

The happy Objectivist said:

The way we measure time is in terms of motion in relation to some objective standard.

Click to expand...

Fair enough, although relativity rules out any universe-wide objective standard.

The happy Objectivist said:

Therefore time presupposes existence.

Click to expand...

Which is one reason why, centuries ago, St Augustine argued that time began when the universe began.

The happy Objectivist said:

I want to stress here that we do not need to know everything about time in order to conclude that the universe or existence is eternal.

Click to expand...

That doesn't follow, however.

And indeed, there are problems with time extending infinitely far into the past. It implies a static or cyclic universe, for example.