Did the Universe Begin?

In this video, I take a look at a variety of philosophical arguments for the view that the universe had a beginning.

00:00 - Overview
01:38 - Preliminary remarks
03:48 - Grim Reaper argument
12:56 - Hilbert's Hotel
18:30 - Traversing an infinite
21:55 - Successive addition
29:11 - Counting arguments
33:12 - Other claims
34:37 - Conclusion

[allisonsutherland]

Please make more videos in this format. I found this to be an exceptional video.

[DigitalGnosis]

Great video, very clear delivery thanks

[dannyfiltalk]

Very nice video. keep up the good work!

[enigmaconjecture]

There are three types of infinity: mathematical, the physical, and the metaphysical. In physics one might look for infinities in space, time, divisibility, or dimensionality. Although some have speculated that three-dimensional space is infinite, cosmologists generally believe that the universe is curved in such a way as to make it finite but unbounded—akin to the surface of a sphere. Some theories of cosmology view the universe as being embedded in a higher-dimensional super-space, which could perhaps be infinite in extent. In the light of the big-bang model of the origin of the universe, cosmologists generally believe that the universe has a finitely long past; whether it might have an endless future is an open question. Under the “infinite future” view, space may continue much as it is now, with the galaxies drifting farther and farther apart, the stars burning to dust, and the remaining particles possibly decaying into radiation. Alternatively, in the “finite future” view, a cosmic catastrophe at some definite time in the future may destroy the universe: space may collapse to a point, or perhaps a parallel sheet of space (a “brane”) will collide with our universe, annihilating everything.

Time ultimately is a measure of being or the way we perceive existing. This metaphysical concept of time is a search for an underlying ontology. In the end we are left with the question : What is necessary being (not a necessary being i.e. a god, but necessary being as in being itself), and what necessitates being itself or is nothing possible if space, time, and matter collapse?
The argument focuses on the mathematical properties of eternity–a universe with no beginning and no end. Such a universe must contain trajectories that stretch infinitely into the past.

However, Mithani and Vilenkin point to a proof dating from 2003 that these kind of past trajectories cannot be infinite if they are part of a universe that expands in a specific way.
They go on to show that cyclical universes and universes of eternal inflation both expand in this way. So they cannot be eternal in the past and must therefore have had a beginning. “Although inflation may be eternal in the future, it cannot be extended indefinitely to the past, ” they say.

They treat the emergent model of the universe differently, showing that although it may seem stable from a classical point of view, it is unstable from a quantum mechanical point of view. “A simple emergent universe model…cannot escape quantum collapse, ” they say.
The conclusion is inescapable. “None of these scenarios can actually be past-eternal, ” say Mithani and Vilenkin.

So it is possible that the other models could be true, however until there is scientific evidence and observations to support their claims – the scientific position to hold is that the universe began to exist, any other position is a faith position held against the scientific evidence, or in hope of future evidence. Moreover owing to the impossibility of the existence of an actual infinity logically it also follows that the universe must have an absolute beginning.

I think Alexander Vilenkin’s words are worth repeating:” "It is said that an argument is what convinces reasonable men and a proof is what it takes to convince even an unreasonable man. With the proof now in place, cosmologists can no longer hide behind the possibility of a past-eternal universe. There is no escape: they have to face the problem of a cosmic beginning."

[whatsinaname]

I found this very informative and persuasive.
One question on Successive Addition-
Isn’t the set of negative integers already an actual infinite? In my mind, your analogy wouldn’t result in the creation of an actual infinite from a potential infinite, but from an already actual infinite. I don’t think that gets around the problem of creating an actual infinite

[anflas]

Really great summary of the current discussion about infinitism.

I want your take on the scientific aspect since the models that support a beginning of the universe are built on general relativity which is hard to squire (to say the least) with presentism
Can a Kalamist relay on those models to make a scientific objection against a beginning less universe?

[veganworldorder]

Really interesting. I definitely think that an infinite past is possible.

[Toxstxr]

As far as I’m concerned, you haven’t provided a reasonable explanation for why an infinite series of causes can be elapsed. An infinite is never ending by definition and cannot be elapsed. Therefore you have 1 remaining option:

1) the universe began to exist but might continue to exist infinitely. In which case you concede the universe began to exist, necessitating it had a cause.

[TheRealisticNihilist]

You said at 34:17 that "You can have have sequences with first and last members that are infinite in size, " but I wonder then how first and last are defined. With positive integers, for example, we can define the "first" as an integer that has no lesser positive integer that's greater than 0. You could, ostensibly, define the "last" member of this set as a positive integer that has no successor, and that simply doesn't exist. I don't really see how you can have a conceptual parity to these conditions that's not merely semantic (I could, for example) call the number 2 the "last" member of the set. What did you have in mind as a set that has a first and last member but is nevertheless infinite?

[محمدعبدالله-بعض]

I’ve recently read the paper you mentioned by Alex Malpass and totally agree with your assessment. Thank you very much for the great channel!

[maggot]

Really interesting. I get your point about the Lightbulb case - the infinitely sized object with such criterion is logically impossible, but it doesn’t follow that the quality of being infinitely sized is logically impossible.

Would enjoy the technical discussion of the patchwork principle.

Couldn’t you just stick the dilemma into the construction of the object? I mean, make the “positing of each individual Grim Reaper” entail the larger structure.

In the “Grim Messenger” case, A “Grim Reaper” is just an entity enough with causal power to look at/write on the paper, right? Since we’re already saying each “Grim Reaper” hands off the sheet of paper to the next, we can say each Grim Reaper has a reference to the Grim Reaper from the prior year (N has a reference to N + 1)

So, each Grim Reaper is like a node in a linked list. Assume there is a Grim Reaper N = 1 (for the current year).

By mathematical induction, either the linked list goes on forever, or there is some node N such that the reference to node N + 1 is null (there is no N + 1 Grim Reaper for some reason)

If you grant the conclusion of the Grim Reaper argument, then the linked list does not go on forever, because that would induce the paradox (infinite sequence of Grim Reapers, etc).

But, given that there's a Grim Reaper N, what would stop there from being a Grim Reaper N + 1 other than time being finite? Isn’t that peculiar? It’s true that there’s no paradox yet, though, given only the 'past-eternal' hypothesis.

[zeke]

Cool best part is no wired wireless earbuds

[TheRealisticNihilist]

"The patchwork principle is that any possible state of affairs is compossible." - DE-rezzed

e.g. If it's possible that A, and it's possible that ~A, then it's possible that A and ~A. Read a fucking book.

[dharmadefender]

I tend to leave cosmology to the cosmologists. As much as I like philosophical arguments, I don't think philosophers have the qualification to speak on cosmology.

[erTalhaKhan]

Thats the price of atheism. You have to do mental gymnastics to refute basic reasonable explanation. And then atheists claim that atheism is natural- thats the biggest crap.

Let me pose 4 most basic & essential questions for human nature that atheism fails to address by long short and in absence of these answers life becomes meaningless.

1- The purpose of our existence: there is no purpose on atheistic worldview.

2- The concept of justice: what is justice and how can justice be served to Nazis or many other injustices that we come across in our daily lives. Worldly system of justice is only done to satisfy the collective conscience of society and the victim can never be recompensed for the wrong done to them.

Moreover there are many things in our daily lives which can not be accounted for and justice can not be served for those things- such as hurting someone's sentiments, mocking someone, abusing someone, disrespecting parents, not caring for the ill, hungry and there can be umpteen such examples that are experiences in our daily lives that are beyond the justice system.

And lastly we all know how easily the justice system can be corrupted, manipulated etc.

So justice is almost impossible on atheism.

3- Concept of Morality: all attempts have failed & can be critiqued to death. Also morality i.e. code of conduct come from the purpose and since atheism fails to establish an objective purpose in life hence there can be no morality at all.

4- Problem of evil: why there is so much suffering, some people are born with diseases, poor, some healthy, rich bla bla.

These 4 basic questions are the most important questions for human existence and are way more important than any philosophical gymnastics that people do to establish atheism.

And only Islam is the religion that addresses these questions directly and in a very direct, logical manner.

I challenge any atheist to come up with an answer and have a debate with me on clubhouse or twitter spaces.