Infinite Existence

Some time ago, I posted a topic asking if non-existence was a concept that we could really understand. My position was it was so riddled with self-contradiction that it was in the abstract not sensible.

Now, after reviewing some Greek philosophers like Anaximander and Euripides and I am beginning to consider the idea of existence as being eternal. That is, that existence has always been and never has it not been so. Let me explain.

By infinite existence I am going beyond the Standard Model of quantum mechanics that affirms a point of non-existence in the form of space and time emerging. But I am talking about something that is immaterial as eternal. Before space and time there was always the possibility of those very concepts. And that’s enough for me to say: some form (sounds like Aristotle here) was eternal. The idea of eternal existence at first thought is as paradoxical something coming from nothing a la the Big Bang theory. But if we accept this, my own philosophic view is augmented: existentialism. If space-time pops into existence from a non-existent density or singularity isn’t it just a cyclic form of an eternal concept that has always existed? I mean the concept. Don’t tell me concepts exist only in the human mind, please! And if the concept has always existed, then it’s clear there is no meaning to existence. You avoid the theologic questions of who made it and why. You dispense with it. So, I want to believe like those ancients that some FORM has always existed.

There are problems, of course. We need to know a start and end. All of reality tells us there is a start and end. If there is something that has none then there is no artificer and leaves us cold. Without a point of reference or a way to reason about it. If there has always been some something then no anything made it, right? But, mathematicians are used to this. We know that there are sets that are infinite and have strange behaviors in the large, like being bigger than themselves. We know, (if we’re not non-platonists that is) nobody need discover this for it to be true. So, why I thought can’t existence itself be subjected to this idea?

Of course, physicist don’t like this idea at its heart. If BB is just one cycle in an eternal stream of existential forms, then all that they are discovering now could be wrong. But, hey I’m not trying to tear away at the body subject of QM or even Gen Rel. I am trying to find a way to believe w/o that awful God concept.

If I believe that some form has always existed, then it seems to me like at first sight like being a religionist, argghh! They are faced with a problem, then they point some scared text or that Word of the Supreme Being to explains it. So, if I believe there is a form of eternal existence, I am too saying don’t explain how space and time started? But no, no, no and no again I am not. I am saying existences are within an external form. This form has always been. It maybe just the concept itself, but it is. I am working on logically formulating this. A form of eternity, I think it would cut thru some much misconception about reality.

Well that’s my 1st draft. Comments welcomed.

I don’t really grasp what you are trying to say.

Before space and time there was the concept of infinity?

I think he is saying:

Premise:
Ex nihilo is false and illogical

Premise:
The only boundary for existence is non-existence

Premise:
Non-existence does not exist

Conclusion:
Existence does not have boundaries
Existence is eternal/infinite

What I am saying is blindingly simple.

If we start with the assumption that some form of existence is eternal then there is no need for it to emerge. I’m proposing this in opposition to BB, which posits that existence began spontaneously at the quantum level or even smaller. The assumption behind this physics concept is this: existence is spatial and temporal and all the matter within these boundaries. Anything outside this doesn’t exist. From this assumption a theory is developed along the lines that the instability of non-existence lead to a unique event of an infinitesimal point of density coming into being and expanding and then since the universe is closed and a 3-sphere it will go back out of existence when gravitational forces slow and stop the expansion. And this cycle will repeat.

Well, considering that spatial-temporal existence is eternal with a 3-sphere a dimension within it. It may be a larger dimension (say a 4th) but it doesn’t non-existent itself or create itself. It always has been. If this much is accepted we need no creation myths about how the universe came to be. Clearer is that? I also wanna get around religious fanatics need for God. But, I am already beginning to see this idea could be use to justify God and simply saying see: He’s that eternal existence you’re seeking…oh boy…I shouda seen that one.

The Big Bang is actually neutral in respect to ex nihilo. The Big Bang does not offer evidence either way. Scientists are only able to “see” some fraction of a millisecond after the big bang… after cosmic expansion began. The scientists who claim that there was non-existence “before” the Big Bang are clearly jumping to conclusions.

Also, the idea that existence is eternal is not proof of God. The idea that existence is eternal reinforces the logic framework which created that statement. o.o

Okay then.

I assume you believe that there was some form of existance before the Big Bang. I agree (although nobody knows for sure). Time and space expanded with the Big Bang, and it eventually slows to a stop before going backwards. The Big Bang Occurs again when all matter is rejoined.

Would eternity still exist in this model? I think so unless you wish to start it and end it with one cycle. Also, do all other dimensions end or start a cycle at this exact moment? Probably not, but only if all of them were co-plannar. It would be very interesting to know what if anything links one dimension with another, or if they have any such linkage. I think in the grand scheme of all dimensions, there is always something going on.

Here’s a thought- can dimensions shrink into non-existance? Of course nobody knows, but maybe dimensions evolve and ‘grow’ in a sense.

Well, I am not trying to start a logical argument with you, but, I must differ, and say firmly proponents of BB do very clearly posit a start and end to its 3-sphere model of the universe. In fact, they argue that there must have been a point when there was no spatial-temporal existence at all by necessity. I emphatically agree that they admit to not knowing what this non-existence was, because of the lack of the wave equations giving answers at a certain dimensional size. But to see this, consider if we assume that existence (even one below the Planck constant H level) or some form thereof has always been. Then we couldn’t by definition ever conclude that it will one day not exist. Since its always been it’s a tautology that in the future it can’t stop existing, because by assumption it has always existed. And ‘always’ means for all time. A truth-functional deductive argument put forth by many ancients. Zeno comes to mind as one. This is precisely why cosmologists and physicists don’t rely on this argument. It precludes what they believe is empirical evidence that the universe (which IS all existence for them) has not always been a real existing thing.

Theoreticians like string theorists have started to propose something like what I’m conjecturing. That is we have many dimensions or membranes as they term them. And our universe is just ‘embedded’ within it in 3-D. They are trying of course to explain real physics problems like GUT (Grand Unified Theory) with this construct. But, it has far-reaching philosophic implications too. Murrex I’m conjecturing about eternal existence thus your deductive construction above is a little premature.

Another killer reason why BB proponents are really positing that the universe didn’t exist at some point (notice I’m avoiding the word ‘time’) is if they are just saying the space-time is oscillating between expansive periods and contracting to a point of density, then they are affirming what I’m conjecturing, i.e. existence is eternal!

As a last comment, I don’t think that accepting the idea of eternal existence is repugnant to our conceptual minds, after all, Georg Cantor proved sets conceptual ‘exist’ that are bigger than infinity and we got used to that. It’s that it seems anti-scientific. Or better put, it’s anti-rationalism. It will duly imply we can’t know everything. the possiblity of knowing everything is a cornerstone of Rationalism. if all that is has always been, then again by simple logical deduction we must conclude there is a point when our knowledge is eclipsed because we’re finite, and that’s a real jaw-tightener to Rationalists, like me! It smells of religion and we don’t like that.