No Beginning? How Did We Ever Arrive Here Then?

[ERayR]

Uh oh... that would have us agreeing on something vaguely scientific.

 

From my post #23:

 

My question then is what switched on self awareness?

[Ahab]

From my post #23:

My question then is what switched on self awareness?

I've been aware of myself for as long as I've lived, which is forever. I just don't remember everything about me and who else I was before I was born.

[ERayR]

I've been aware of myself for as long as I've lived, which is forever. I just don't remember everything about me and who else I was before I was born.

 

I agree with you but BC Space and Nofear seem to think differently so I was just asking.

[Sleeper Cell]

So we know from the scriptures that matter and intelligence had no beginning. We've always existed albeit in a different form than we do now. So the question is how did we ever arrive here? If we've "always" existed then that means we've "always" been traveling toward where we are now. If you are always traveling toward something then you are never arriving.

 

It's like that problem of moving toward the wall half way each time. If you are always moving toward the wall but you only go half the distance each time will you ever hit the wall? The answer is no...you won't. You can't ever hit it if you only go half way each time. Likewise, an entity with no beginning cannot say that "someday" he'll be organized into something different because someday cannot exist if you are always only heading toward that.

 

Thoughts?

 

Ah, the old “Achilles and the tortoise” paradox.  As Calmoriah pointed out,  we all know that, in reality, you do get to the wall. Sort of shows the “limits” of philosophy.  

 

The mathematical concept of “limits” solved this apparent paradox a long time ago.  In fact, this is essentially the basis of calculus.  If you are interested, I suggest that you look at  the first few sections of any elementary calculus text. 

[BCSpace]

My question then is what switched on self awareness?

 

 

Some xenomorphic black goo would be as good as any other hypothesis on the matter.

 

 

 

 

[thesometimesaint]

Obviously our finite minds can't grasp the concept of "always existing" in one state and then all of a sudden not existing in that state. Arguing about it is pointless but it makes for an interesting discussion.

 

Here's how I like to think of the universe in visual terms. Imagine a giant wall of creation. We think of the universe in 3D since we are right in the middle of it. We are in the middle of things that have been created and organized. But obviously there are areas where "there is space there" and unorganized matter exists. So imagine that if you zoomed WAY out from all of creation. God's domain obviously has an end. It's not infinite. We can't number his creations but they are numbered to him. He had a beginning as a God and therefore so did his creations. So if you zoom way out you would see all of God's creations on one clump. Then I like to imagine that next to his clump is another God's clump/universe of creation. And so on and so forth. All of these clumps are part of the big wall of creation. If you were zoomed way out as an observer into the "unorganized area" I like to imagine that you'd see this enormous wall of stars that goes up, down, left, right, and behind to infinity. And looking forward where the observer is standing is unorganized matter and intelligence floating around in the same fashion. Up, down, left, right, and forward to infinity. Then the Gods just keep marching forward creating more and more, adding to and expanding their clump.  And as they move forward they occupy more of the unorganized space and start filling it up.

 

Thinking of it that way makes a little more sense. The matter and intelligence has always existed UP until the Gods ran into it. Then things changed and time began for the matter/intelligences....

 

The estimated Universe is about 90 billion light years across. OTOH if this Universe is but one of an infinite number in a Multiverse. Then there is no wall.

[ERayR]

The estimated Universe is about 90 billion light years across. OTOH if this Universe is but one of an infinite number in a Multiverse. Then there is no wall.

 

What is on the other side of the universe?  And on the other side of that and on and on?

[thesometimesaint]

What is on the other side of the universe?  And on the other side of that and on and on?

 

There is no other side of the universe. Space itself is expanding at an increasing rate.

http://curious.astro.cornell.edu/question.php?number=575

[ERayR]

There is no other side of the universe. Space itself is expanding at an increasing rate.

http://curious.astro.cornell.edu/question.php?number=575

 

A rhetorical question for those who have trouble with infinity.

[thesometimesaint]

A rhetorical question for those who have trouble with infinity.

 

It's our mortality at fault. We all have a hard time with infinity. IE; Our brains are designed to visualize relatively small numbers. We readily visualize 5-10 individuals. Some can even do 30 in a crowd. Past about 40 it just becomes a crowd of 40 to "x" amount.

[Nofear]

From my post #23:

 

My question then is what switched on self awareness?

 

To me, it is only logically consistent for an object to be eternally uncreate to be simple. And by simple I mean indivisible and without component parts. My imagination does not allow for a simple object to effectively 1) acquire and 2) process significant amounts of information. For that 1), the simple/indivisible/uncreate entity would need something to assist in the data acquisition, an assist to sensory input. Something like a body would do that. To process information, well the simply entity could do that but it can't store any significant amount of data (data doesn't just magically appear from nowhere but would need material components to encode the data, but a simple object by definition doesn't have components to adjust). So, something also would be needed to help with the processing of data by allowing data storage. Something like a body would do that.

 

Note, that in LDS theology neither our spirit body nor our physical body are uncreate and eternally self-existent objects. They were created for us. Thus, God brought our intelligent matter from chaos and gave it the wherewithal to manifest its "intelligence". Without our bodies, any action by simple intelligent matter, uncoupled to a body, can at best only be random.

 

Long story short, our spirit body is what first switched on meaningful self awareness. Before that we were memory-less and random uncreate entities.

[MormonFreeThinker]

There is no other side of the universe. Space itself is expanding at an increasing rate.

http://curious.astro.cornell.edu/question.php?number=575

 

That depends on how you define the word "universe" 

But yes, our universe is expanding. 

[djones]

Regarding the wall...in the real world, yes you would eventually hit the wall on the atomic level. You'd get so close that the electrons in the atoms would be touching each other. However, if space could continue to be divided infinitely then you would never hit the wall. If you only go half way....well then you'll never get there. That's what I was referring to.

[djones]

I agree that the doctrine is that the materials that comprise us has always existed in some form or another.  Physics tells us that.  However, my quesiton would be, have we always been self aware?  My initial thinking is that the answer is no.

 

I like this. Never thought about it that way. Perhaps when we were created spiritually the light switch then turned on. Now for a really deep question....did we get a choice in the matter? The whole plan is based on agency so you would think so. Perhaps God invited us to be people, horses, dogs, rocks, or to just stay where we were and we got to choose.

[MormonFreeThinker]

if space could continue to be divided infinitely then you would never hit the wall. If you only go half way....well then you'll never get there. That's what I was referring to.

 

Perhaps God lives in a universe where time as we know it doesn't exist, perhaps in a universe where time is not linear. 

 

Here is an interesting video, even finite numbers are hard to understand, see Graham's number at 3:45. 

Edited July 20, 2014 by MormonFreeThinker

[Sleeper Cell]

Regarding the wall...in the real world, yes you would eventually hit the wall on the atomic level. You'd get so close that the electrons in the atoms would be touching each other. However, if space could continue to be divided infinitely then you would never hit the wall. If you only go half way....well then you'll never get there. That's what I was referring to.

 

Sigh.

 

With all due respect, you couldn’t be more wrong.  It has been proven to a mathematical certainty that you will get to the wall.  It has absolutely nothing to do with atoms or electrons.  This is purely a matter of mathematics, not of science or philosophy.  Again, I refer you to the mathematical concept of “limits” which is covered in the first few sections of any elementary calculus text.. 

 

 I don’t want to sound like a condescending jerk.  (I may be a condescending jerk, but I certainly don’t want to sound like one.) But this is pretty basic math and is even taught on the high school level. The problem is, of course, that many highly intelligent students never go beyond algebra and geometry  -- even though they are quite capable of mastering calculus if they were willing to put in the necessary time and effort.  .  

 

Speculating on the eternities is fun, and to some extent, beneficial.  But how can we really hope to understand the eternities -- beyond, what has actually been revealed -- when we still have trouble understanding our own world?   

[MormonFreeThinker]

 

With all due respect, you couldn’t be more wrong.  It has been proven to a mathematical certainty that you will get to the wall.  

 

I know Calculus, you can ask any Calculus professor, you will never get to the wall. If you take an infinite number of steps you do get to the wall, but that begs the question, when will you reach an infinite number of steps? If you type numbers 1,2,3... when will you reach infinity? There is a difference between potential infinities and actual infinities. 

 

An infinite past is an interesting problem, we don't have the solution yet, perhaps we lived in a universe where time is not linear, we can speculate a lot. 

 

See 5:45

[thesometimesaint]

That depends on how you define the word "universe" 

But yes, our universe is expanding. 

 

I tend to go with a Multiverse. An infinite number of universes that extends forwards and backwards in time.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiverse

[Sleeper Cell]

I know Calculus, you can ask any Calculus professor, you will never get to the wall. If you take an infinite number of steps you do get to the wall, but that begs the question, when will you reach an infinite number of steps? If you type numbers 1,2,3... when will you reach infinity? There is a difference between potential infinities and actual infinities. 

 

 

I have taught a number of math classes on the university level, including calculus and differential equations. 

 

… This is getting ridiculous.  Believe whatever you want. 

[thesometimesaint]

The discussion is as old as the hills. IE; If you were at the edge of the universe, and throw a spear where would it go?

[BookofMormonLuvr]

So this is how I understood the question...

If progression is eternal (never stops) are we in reality progressing? it seems there would be a never reachable goal always out in the distance.

[Calm]

About ready to get my daily allotment of sleep so doublecheck the link but with the level of focus I have currently it seems useful to the conversation:

http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/science/2014/03/zeno_s_paradox_how_to_explain_the_solution_to_achilles_and_the_tortoise.html

"Zeno devised this paradox to support the argument that change and motion weren’t real. Nick Huggett, a philosopher of physics at the University of Illinois at Chicago, says that Zeno’s point was “Sure it’s crazy to deny motion, but to accept it is worse.”

The paradox reveals a mismatch between the way we think about the world and the way the world actually is. (This seems obvious, but it’s hard to grapple with the paradox if you don’t articulate this point.) Joseph Mazur, a professor emeritus of mathematics at Marlboro College and author of the forthcoming book Enlightening Symbols, describes the paradox as “a trick in making you think about space, time, and motion the wrong way.”

The challenge then becomes how to identify what precisely is wrong with our thinking. Motion is possible, of course, and a fast human runner can beat a tortoise in a race. The problem has something to do with our conception of infinity.

Step 2: There’s more than one kind of infinity.

Achilles’ task seems impossible because he “would have to do an infinite number of ‘things’ in a finite amount of time,” notes Mazur, referring to the number of gaps the hero has to close. But not all infinities are created the same.

There are divergent series and convergent series. The most obvious divergent series is 1 + 2 + 3 + 4 ... There’s no answer to that equation. Or, more precisely, the answer is “infinity.” If Achilles had to cover these sorts of distances over the course of the race—in other words, if the tortoise were making progressively larger gaps rather than smaller ones—Achilles would never catch the tortoise.

Now consider the series 1/2 + 1/4 + 1/8 + 1/16 ... Although the numbers go on forever, the series converges, and the solution is 1. As long as Achilles is making the gaps smaller at a sufficiently fast rate, so that their distances look more or less like this equation, he will complete the series in a measurable amount of time and catch the tortoise.

There’s a little wrinkle here. It will muddy the waters, but intellectual honesty compels me to tell you that there is a scenario in which Achilles doesn’t catch the tortoise, even though he’s faster. “It is mathematically possible for a faster thing to pursue a slower thing forever and still never catch it,” notes Benjamin Allen, author of the forthcoming book Halfway to Zero, “so long as both the faster thing and the slower thing both keep slowing down in the right way.”

The secret again lies in convergent and divergent series. For example, the series 1/2 + 1/3 + 1/4 + 1/5 ... looks convergent, but is actually divergent. If Achilles runs the first part of the race at 1/2 mph, and the tortoise at 1/3 mph, then they slow to 1/3 mph and 1/4 mph, and so on, the tortoise will always remain ahead. But don’t tell your 11-year-old about this. It will be our little secret.

Step 3: It’s more than a theory.

If your 11-year-old is contrarian by nature, she will now ask a cutting question: How do we know that 1/2 + 1/4 + 1/8 + 1/16 ... adds up to 1? No one has ever completed, or could complete, the series, because it has no end. The conclusion that an infinite series can converge to a finite number is, in a sense, a theory, devised and perfected by people like Isaac Newton and Augustin-Louis Cauchy, who developed an easily applied mathematical formula to determine whether an infinite series converges or diverges. But thinking of it as only a theory is overly reductive.

“It's easy to say that a series of times adds to [a finite number],” says Huggett, “but until you can explain in general—in a consistent way—what it is to add any series of infinite numbers, then it's just words. Cauchy gave us the answer.”

The convergence of infinite series explains countless things we observe in the world. Not just the fact that a fast runner can overtake a tortoise in a race, either. Any distance, time, or force that exists in the world can be broken into an infinite number of pieces—just like the distance that Achilles has to cover—but centuries of physics and engineering work have proved that they can be treated as finite.

That answer might not fully satisfy ancient Greek philosophers, many of whom felt that their logic was more powerful than observed reality. But the way mathematicians and philosophers have answered Zeno’s challenge, using observation to reverse-engineer a durable theory, is a testament to the role that research and experimentation play in advancing understanding. It should give pause to anyone who questions the importance of research in any field. "

[Nofear]

The discussion is as old as the hills. IE; If you were at the edge of the universe, and throw a spear where would it go?

 

There is no edge of the universe. Even in cosmologies that are closed, it simply wraps around (kind of like walking around the globe East... what happens when you get to the "edge"...  well, you don't). As far as we know, however, the universe is infinitely expansive.

 

 

Anyway, cosmological horizons require a bit more care as to specifically what one is talking about. For example, our current particle horizon approaches some 50 Gly. But how does that work when the observable universe is only some 13.8 Gyr old? It does work, but one needs to know what is being talked about. My experience is most lay people really don't understand it.

[ERayR]

The discussion is as old as the hills. IE; If you were at the edge of the universe, and throw a spear where would it go?

 

Into the abyss?

[ERayR]

There is no edge of the universe. Even in cosmologies that are closed, it simply wraps around (kind of like walking around the globe East... what happens when you get to the "edge"...  well, you don't). As far as we know, however, the universe is infinitely expansive.

 

 

 

That still doesn't answer the question: What surrounds the globe?