Is religious eternity infinite? Or merely protracted, but finite?

[Angel]

You seem to be implying that perhaps I take the position that in such specific matter a scientific definition can trump a religious definition, EVEN IN THE ART OF RELIGION.
1) I never asserted that.

And I didn't mean to imply that. The little I know of you (through your posts) makes you out a fair-minded inquirer.

Even in religion, "words mean things*".

Is there any absolute requirement that we hit the Cosmic Automatic Destruct button if a religious definition does not contradict a scientific definition?

...

Is that a reason to not even CONSIDER the religious definition of the word? In exclusively religious context?

If we prohibit defining such terms, a language composed of undefined terms is in the absolute most literal sense is meaningless; REGARDLESS of whether the words are religious, or scientific.

All I'm saying, sear, is that the spiritual or religious meaning of the word eternity is beyond -- or perhaps you'd prefer the word outside -- the scope of science. Science begins and ends with the existence of space-time. A timeless non-spatial state, if such a state exists in some sense, does not seem to me the stuff science can do anything with. I may be wrong, but this is the way it seems to me.

 

[Goshin]

I'll let you know later.

 

[sear]

A #26

Seems to me the conventional religious definition for eternity is: "time without end".

Time is the dimension within which events unfold.

Therefore genuine timelessness may indeed be possible. But it would be virtual death. No thought. No neural activity. No papers blown off the desk from the breeze coming in through the open window.

=========

There's a cheat common to religion purveyors, the:
- mere mortals aren't capable of comprehending the infinite wisdom of god. -

Bull
ogna !

The Holy Bible says god created us in his own image AND LIKENESS.
And he sired JC. So there would have to be some sort of compatibility there.

Bottom line: "you wouldn't understand" is unacceptable.

- If they don't know, they should say so.

- If they do know, then they should say so when asked.

Then I can tell them whether I understand or not.

 

[Angel]

Seems to me the conventional religious definition for eternity is: "time without end".

Where do you get this? There's a well-known "world without end" in the prayer, but your "time without end" I've never heard/

There's a cheat common to religion purveyors, the:
- mere mortals aren't capable of comprehending the infinite wisdom of god. -

Bull
ogna !

The Holy Bible says god created us in his own image AND LIKENESS.
And he sired JC. So there would have to be some sort of compatibility there.

Bottom line: "you wouldn't understand" is unacceptable.

- If they don't know, they should say so.

- If they do know, then they should say so when asked.

Then I can tell them whether I understand or not.

Socrates said that the beginning of wisdom is knowing that you know nothing. You might want to think about humility if you wish to understand religious faith.

 

[sear]

"Where do you get this?" A #29

I was born in Southern New York, and raised there.

"You might want to think about humility" A

Humble can apply to either explanation.

It would be a mistake to assume agnostics are arrogant. Skeptical, inquisitive is more likely.
There are some believers that are so gullible they'll believe in a talking serpent and a pregnant virgin simply because they're told.

But it is not a breach of humility to apply a sanity check, a rationality test.

 

[Angel]

I was born in Southern New York, and raised there.

Me too. But where did you get this "time without end" business?

Humble can apply to either explanation.

It would be a mistake to assume agnostics are arrogant. Skeptical, inquisitive is more likely.
There are some believers that are so gullible they'll believe in a talking serpent and a pregnant virgin simply because they're told.

But it is not a breach of humility to apply a sanity check, a rationality test.

You criticized the religious admission that some things are beyond our comprehension.
I'm criticizing your criticism by reminding you of what Socrates said.
I say nothing about skepticism or agnosticism, both of which I have high respect for.

 

[Slingshot Bob]

If eternity is reality, we have always been and always will. Birth and death are just a coming and going.

 

[sear]

Quote Originally Posted by sear View Post
I was born in Southern New York, and raised there.

"Me too. But where did you get this "time without end" business?" A #31

Sony.
I don't recall any other explanation.

"You criticized the religious admission that some things are beyond our comprehension.
I'm criticizing your criticism by reminding you of what Socrates said."

Such things can be misinterpreted.

Since this thread bears on religion, I'll cite a religious example:

"Spare the rod, spoil the child." Holy Bible

Some cite this quotation as an excuse to beat the %$#@ out of their children.
But a more enlightened understanding of it is that shepherds used to use a rod to tend their flocks.
When a lamb would go astray the shepherd would use his rod to return the errant lamb to the safety of the flock.
Thus: "Spare the rod, spil the child" doesn't mean beat your children.
Instead it means guide them. Give them benefit of your adult / parental wisdom.

If Socrates literally thought he knew nothing, then he was a fool.
Socrates was no fool. And he knew it.
Socrates is a name synonymous with wisdom, intelligence, insight.

The more likely, the more rational interpretation of what Socrates meant by that was:
- knowledge is infinite.
- any mortal portion of infinity is zero. Anyone that denies that does not understand infinity.

What Socrates was saying was that knowledge is infinite, not that he was an ignorant noramus.

"You criticized the religious admission that some things are beyond our comprehension.
I'm criticizing your criticism by reminding you of what Socrates said."

Yours is a conspicuous dodge.
You give me the explanation.
I'll tell you whether I comprehend it.

 

[Angel]

If eternity is reality, we have always been and always will. Birth and death are just a coming and going.

Yes, a very deep idea. The state before we were born is the state to which we return after death.

Sony.
I don't recall any other explanation.

I don't follow you here. How is being born and raised in southern NY an explanation of why you think eternity is a temporal concept?

If Socrates literally thought he knew nothing, then he was a fool.
Socrates was no fool. And he knew it.
Socrates is a name synonymous with wisdom, intelligence, insight.

The more likely, the more rational interpretation of what Socrates meant by that was:
- knowledge is infinite.
- any mortal portion of infinity is zero. Anyone that denies that does not understand infinity.

What Socrates was saying was that knowledge is infinite, not that he was an ignorant noramus.

Have you read any of Plato's early dialogues?

Yours is a conspicuous dodge.
You give me the explanation.
I'll tell you whether I comprehend it.

What am I doging? Better yet, what am I saying? Can you tell me what I've said that you call a "dodge"?

 

[Angel]

When I left him, I reasoned thus with myself: I am wiser than this man, for neither of us appears to know anything great and good; but he fancies he knows something, although he knows nothing; whereas I, as I do not know anything, so I do not fancy I do. In this trifling particular, then, I appear to be wiser than he, because I do not fancy I know what I do not know.

-- Socrates, in Plato's Apology

 

[Slingshot Bob]

Yes, a very deep idea. The state before we were born is the state to which we return after death.

If we are eternal, this must be true.

 

[sear]

" How is being born and raised in southern NY an explanation of why you think eternity is a temporal concept? " A #34

I'm more mystified than you.
YOU are the one that, in post #29 commented:

"Seems to me the conventional religious definition for eternity is: "time without end"." s

"Where do you get this?" A #29

So I answered the question. I never asserted the question was relevant.
There are some similar terms: "since time immemorial" for example (also a use not common to science).

"Have you read any of Plato's early dialogues?"

Whatever I read of Socrates & Plato was over half my life ago. I read The Last Days of Socrates cover to cover, but so long ago I don't remember much more than what the cover looked like (it's in paperback).
But I have a rudimentary understanding of Socratic dialogue.

 

[Russell797]

The religious concept of "afterlife" is often presented as a long, long time.

But is the religious concept of eternity intended to be infinite? Time without end?

Infinite time is a very long time, particularly for a sentient being.

And one in "Heaven" would be exposed to a billion trillion eons; and as a percentage of infinite time, it would not yet have begun. A billion trillion is zero% of infinity.

The Topic Question:
I "eternity" as religion presents it, intended as infinite?
Or is it merely an indefinitely long time, until ... ? Judgement Day?

And then what?

Meanwhile astrophysicists that used to expect "the big crunch", now know that our universe is not merely expanding.

BUT !!

The rate of the expansion is accelerating.
Thus any "big crunch" (the opposite end of the Big Bang) would seem unlikely.

Instead astrophysicists expect cosmic heat death, the state of the cosmos after the energy flux in the cosmos drops to zero; when there are no longer stars which can maintain an energy gradient to sustain life.

How will that affect those in Heaven & Hell?

- Not affect them at all?

- Coincide with Judgement Day, or some other religious stage?

- other?

The concept of infinity is irrational. Infinite time is a concept which can not logically exist. Time is a measurement of an interval between events, just like distance is an interval between points in the geometry of 3D space. If the points are not defined the interval loses all meaning.

When the universe has expanded so that all points of measure are beyond possible interaction the very meaning of space and time will no longer have meaning. Eternity is therefore not a measure of time.

 

[sear]

PS

"The concept of infinity is irrational. Infinite time is a concept which can not logically exist. Time is a measurement of an interval between events, just like distance is an interval between points in the geometry of 3D space. If the points are not defined the interval loses all meaning.

When the universe has expanded so that all points of measure are beyond possible interaction the very meaning of space and time will no longer have meaning. Eternity is therefore not a measure of time." R7 #38

Nice try.

What many humans think of "time" is more often thought of by astrophysicists as "space-time".

Astronomer / author / professor Bob Berman suggests space may be infinite.

I defer to him, as he is both much smarter, and much better educated than I am.

HOWEVER:

If space is infinite, then how could "space-time" be finite?

I respect & appreciate your attempt here R7. But if I were grading it as a school project I'd consider it generous to give it an incomplete.

 

[Russell797]

PS

Nice try.

What many humans think of "time" is more often thought of by astrophysicists as "space-time".

Astronomer / author / professor Bob Berman suggests space may be infinite.

I defer to him, as he is both much smarter, and much better educated than I am.

HOWEVER:

If space is infinite, then how could "space-time" be finite?

I respect & appreciate your attempt here R7. But if I were grading it as a school project I'd consider it generous to give it an incomplete.

Because our space-time had a beginning. That does not mean there was nothing however. It means our space-time is not causally connected to any other realm. That's what the evidence we have implies, in much the same way as our 4D space-time is disconnected from a black hole by it's event horizon. There are information barriers which are finite, such as the Planck Length, event horizons and our particular expanding cosmic horizon which speeds away from our position at the speed of light. All we can possibly know about resides within those boundaries.

Infinity may exist, but we can not define it. We can only define by establishing boundary conditions. Anything else is meaningless and irrational. Infinity is a meaningless concept to us and it can not therefore apply to our knowable universe. It may to some greater realm we are somehow part of yet totally unaware of.

 

[sear]

"our particular expanding cosmic horizon which speeds away from our position at the speed of light." R7

Or potentially faster.

The speed of light (SOL) isn't just a good idea. IT'S THE LAW !!

BUT !!

SOL is a Natural law that only applies to matter and energy, not necessarily to space.

Whether "space" is a boundaried entity is a separate debate.
But if space is not infinite, then it must have a boundary, even if space is expanding.

AND !!

If it is not infinite,
AND !! If it is expanding,
then that boundary is not restricted by any known physical law to not expand at any rate / speed god wishes.

"Infinity may exist, but we can not define it."

In ancient cultures, religion, or mysticism was often the criterion of truth: it's true because the shaman said so.

In our 3rd Millennium Western culture the criterion of truth is science.
And the language of science is mathematics.

SO !!

By the criterion of truth in our culture,
in the language of our criterion of truth, I will define infinity for you mathematically:

1/0

 

[Russell797]

Or potentially faster.

No, our particular cosmic horizon can only expand away from us at the speed of light. Now, galaxies will be carried beyond our cosmic horizon in an accelerating space-time expansion, but only from our perspective. Their "proper" motion will still not exceed the speed of light in their own frame of reference any more than we are from their perspective.

Given that being the case, our cosmic horizon is equal to the age of the universe measured in light years, or a radius of 13.8 billion light years. However, the portion expanding beyond the horizon is thought to be about 46 billion light years in radius from our perspective. That's where space-time is accelerating in it's expansion faster than light speed from our perspective.

The speed of light (SOL) isn't just a good idea. IT'S THE LAW !!

BUT !!

SOL is a Natural law that only applies to matter and energy, not necessarily to space.

Whether "space" is a boundaried entity is a separate debate.
But if space is not infinite, then it must have a boundary, even if space is expanding.

AND !!

If it is not infinite,
AND !! If it is expanding,
then that boundary is not restricted by any known physical law to not expand at any rate / speed god wishes.

In ancient cultures, religion, or mysticism was often the criterion of truth: it's true because the shaman said so.

In our 3rd Millennium Western culture the criterion of truth is science.
And the language of science is mathematics.

SO !!

By the criterion of truth in our culture,
in the language of our criterion of truth, I will define infinity for you mathematically:

1/0

Correct....which is irrational and lacking in meaning.

The only way to describe something meaningfully is to assign boundary conditions.

 

[sear]

"No, our particular cosmic horizon can only expand away from us at the speed of light." R7 #42

Jiggle & dance about it all you like.
I'm not an astrophysicist. I'm guessing you aren't also.
I'm simply recounting the lesson I got from one that is.

Now:
It may be true that we cannot OBSERVE via electromagnetic observation (which must obey the SOL law).
It may be true that OBJECTS, MATTER WITHIN that space is also limited to SOL.

BUT !!

Space itself, according to the astrophysicist I heard commenting on it, I apologize for not being able to recall his name, space expansion is not limited to SOL.

"1/0
Correct....which is irrational and lacking in meaning."

I'm sympathetic.
But I suspect you of making a technical error.

Is the definition nutty? OK. Whatever. Call it whatever you wish.
Is the CONCEPT nutty? Same deal! Call it whatever you wish.

BUT !!

What I was refuting was:

"Infinity may exist, but we can not define it."

I disagree.

Is the definition nutty? SURE !!
Is the definition any nuttier than the entity it defines ("infinity")? In my opinion, no.
Nutty things have nutty definitions. What else would you expect of a definition of something nutty?

"The only way to describe something meaningfully is to assign boundary conditions."

Ah!
Like the final exam. question: "Define "cosmos". Cite 3 examples."

"The only way to describe something meaningfully is to assign boundary conditions."

Italo Benin PhD said:
to define means to limit the meaning of ...

BUT !!

That doesn't mean we can't define infinity conceptually. Infinity is by definition unbounded.

Call it an exception to the rule if you like.
You want a word that isn't defined?
No problemo!
Ywoeironvaqzjjsliisnlsl

But "infinity"? It's meaning is quite easily grasped, even if its essence never can be.

BTW:
When my Dad turned 70 his grandson asked him how old he was.
Dad turned to him (perhaps 10 years old t the time) and asked: "What's the biggest number you know?"
Grandson's reply? "Infinity."

 

[Russell797]

Jiggle & dance about it all you like.
I'm not an astrophysicist. I'm guessing you aren't also.
I'm simply recounting the lesson I got from one that is.

Now:
It may be true that we cannot OBSERVE via electromagnetic observation (which must obey the SOL law).
It may be true that OBJECTS, MATTER WITHIN that space is also limited to SOL.

BUT !!

Space itself, according to the astrophysicist I heard commenting on it, I apologize for not being able to recall his name, space expansion is not limited to SOL.

I'm sympathetic.
But I suspect you of making a technical error.

Is the definition nutty? OK. Whatever. Call it whatever you wish.
Is the CONCEPT nutty? Same deal! Call it whatever you wish.

BUT !!

What I was refuting was:

I disagree.

Is the definition nutty? SURE !!
Is the definition any nuttier than the entity it defines ("infinity")? In my opinion, no.
Nutty things have nutty definitions. What else would you expect of a definition of something nutty?

Ah!
Like the final exam. question: "Define "cosmos". Cite 3 examples."

Italo Benin PhD said:
to define means to limit the meaning of ...

BUT !!

That doesn't mean we can't define infinity conceptually. Infinity is by definition unbounded.

Call it an exception to the rule if you like.
You want a word that isn't defined?
No problemo!
Ywoeironvaqzjjsliisnlsl

But "infinity"? It's meaning is quite easily grasped, even if its essence never can be.

BTW:
When my Dad turned 70 his grandson asked him how old he was.
Dad turned to him (perhaps 10 years old t the time) and asked: "What's the biggest number you know?"
Grandson's reply? "Infinity."

Except that infinity can not be described by a number. Infinity is not a number. That's why infinity is an irrational idea and therefore the grandson was incorrect.

No matter how you conceptualize infinity you are wrong and grossly wrong. Not even close to being correct. Infinity is an idea, it is not a concept because we can not conceptualize it. We can't imagine it. Not even close.

Your astrophysicist mentor is correct and thus so are you that space-time expansion is not limited to the speed of light. Cosmic inflation demands faster than light speed expansion. It is thought that the dark energy is what drives expansion and that the expansion rate can ultimately be any arbitrary value.

That's a different phenomenon than the cosmic horizon which is defined by the distance light has travelled since the Big Bang. Our cosmic horizon, beyond which we can not see, is 13.8 billion light years distant from us in all directions. It continues to extend outward, away from us at the speed of light. In 200 million years it will be 14 billion light years distant from our location in space-time. Because the fabric of space-time itself can expand at greater than light speed, the current size of the Big Bang is much, much greater than that, but we don't have access to it beyond 13.8 billion light years of distance.

 

[sear]

"Except that infinity can not be described by a number. Infinity is not a number." R7 #44

OK
Scissor is a tool for dress makers and office workers. You pick up scissors, it's not a word that's in your hand, it's a tool.
And yet there is a word for that tool.

Quite similarly, there is a word for infinity.

AND !!

There's at least one way to express infinity mathematically.

Here's another way: ∞

"That's why infinity is an irrational idea and therefore the grandson was incorrect."

Technically incorrect perhaps. But he hasn't served a day in Sing Sing because of it.
EVEN if incorrect, infinity is allied to the cosmos of integers in that infinity defines the region of the positive number line opposite the zero. BTW, whatever argument you make against ∞ may equally well apply to zero. Do you consider zero a number?

"Infinity is an idea, it is not a concept" R7

There are some steamers I simply step over.

"That's a different phenomenon than the cosmic horizon which is defined by the distance light has travelled since the Big Bang. Our cosmic horizon, beyond which we can not see, is 13.8 billion light years distant from us in all directions."

I gather the farthest observable objects in the universe are extremely red-shifted, exceeding 90% SOL.
I can imagine a gradient that's continuous.
Not that the edge of the cosmos ends where we can see;
but that the edge of the OBSERVABLE cosmos ends there, but there's more there that we can't see, perhaps because of velocity.

I'm not disinterested in astrophysics.
But apart from global warming and Earth-killing asteroids, its level of importance to me is below the stock-market.
I'm more concerned about tonight's dinner menu than cosmic radius, etc.

 

[Russell797]

OK
Scissor is a tool for dress makers and office workers. You pick up scissors, it's not a word that's in your hand, it's a tool.
And yet there is a word for that tool.

Quite similarly, there is a word for infinity.

AND !!

There's at least one way to express infinity mathematically.

Here's another way: ∞

Technically incorrect perhaps. But he hasn't served a day in Sing Sing because of it.
EVEN if incorrect, infinity is allied to the cosmos of integers in that infinity defines the region of the positive number line opposite the zero. BTW, whatever argument you make against ∞ may equally well apply to zero. Do you consider zero a number?

There are some steamers I simply step over.

I gather the farthest observable objects in the universe are extremely red-shifted, exceeding 90% SOL.
I can imagine a gradient that's continuous.
Not that the edge of the cosmos ends where we can see;
but that the edge of the OBSERVABLE cosmos ends there, but there's more there that we can't see, perhaps because of velocity.

I'm not disinterested in astrophysics.
But apart from global warming and Earth-killing asteroids, its level of importance to me is below the stock-market.
I'm more concerned about tonight's dinner menu than cosmic radius, etc.

Zero as a number or symbol is an abstraction. It represents a total lack of something. It has a definite, precise meaning. The number 1 has a definite meaning. Infinity has no definite meaning. It's irrational. The sequence 3.1416 ~+++ or the value for pi is also irrational.

Symbols are just that. The symbol is real, what it represents need not be. In the case of zero in an absolute sense, the abstraction or symbol does not refer to something which actually is. We exist therefore absolute zero does not exist. Why? No one knows.

You are correct, the edge of the cosmos does not coincide with the limits of our vision as defined by our unique cosmic horizon. Someone near our horizon would be able to see us and also an equal distance into the region in the opposite direction which we can not yet see.

This stuff may not have any practical application for you, but it enriches you with knowledge which satisfies a curiosity. Have fun with it!

 

[d0gbreath]

Steven Hawkins has stated that he could solve the puzzle of the known universe if he could solve the sq.rt. of -1 to a rational number.

So I tried it for a few months. No such luck. I'm still working on it.

As an elder statesman, i know that the Lord will call to me on one fine day. I will die for an infinite eternity.

 

[faithful_servant]

The religious concept of "afterlife" is often presented as a long, long time.

But is the religious concept of eternity intended to be infinite? Time without end?

Infinite time is a very long time, particularly for a sentient being.

And one in "Heaven" would be exposed to a billion trillion eons; and as a percentage of infinite time, it would not yet have begun. A billion trillion is zero% of infinity.

The Topic Question:
I "eternity" as religion presents it, intended as infinite?
Or is it merely an indefinitely long time, until ... ? Judgement Day?

And then what?

Meanwhile astrophysicists that used to expect "the big crunch", now know that our universe is not merely expanding.

BUT !!

The rate of the expansion is accelerating.
Thus any "big crunch" (the opposite end of the Big Bang) would seem unlikely.

Instead astrophysicists expect cosmic heat death, the state of the cosmos after the energy flux in the cosmos drops to zero; when there are no longer stars which can maintain an energy gradient to sustain life.

How will that affect those in Heaven & Hell?

- Not affect them at all?

- Coincide with Judgement Day, or some other religious stage?

- other?

...or outside of time. That's what I've always been taught. The Biblical term for "eternity" is one that uses a fourth tense (seen in Greek and Aramaic and some other languages). It's tense that reflects "is now, will always be, has always been", it's the idea that something isn't dependent on time, but rather exists independent of time. Our "eternity" is that of time not existing, not of time extended.

 

[faithful_servant]

Look around at the insufferable bigots and prudes masquerading as Christians today. If they get to an afterlife, then sharing it with them would seem like eternity even if it wasn't!

Most of the insufferable bigots are those who are intolerant of Christians. The projection of bigotry by those people is vastly more intolerant than anything I've ever seen from any Christian I've EVER known.

 

[Dittohead not!]

In our 3rd Millennium Western culture the criterion of truth is science.

That idea is beginning to catch on, but there is still a lot of resistance to it yet. Sometimes, science tells people that things they believe aren't so, which tends to create an atmosphere of belief in nonsense rather than in empirical evidence and mathematics. It took humans 190,000 years, after all, to just begin to put aside a hunter/gatherer lifestyle and start to experiment with agriculture, animal husbandry, written language, and mathematics. Science only took hold in the Mid East about a thousand years ago, and was soon replaced with superstition. It only arose in Europe half that long ago, so it's no wonder it hasn't completely taken hold as yet. Give it time.