This has been bugging me for a very long time. I posed this on another message board and was told it was a fallacy to think this way. What really bothers me is that I was given not an explanation why.
My argument was that if something has an eternal and unchanging past it would continue forever as it is because something would've happened to it in the span of its past eternity.
Is this really such a baseless assumption? I want a second opinion. If I'm wrong I would like to know why.
This is all likely just semantic nonsense. Why does it concern you anyway?
One thing to note is that infinite time doesn't imply that 'everything' will happen; it doesn't imply anything, really. I don't see that it is inconsistent that an object could exist forever without anything ever 'happening' to it... for example, if it were the only object in a 'universe', and the laws of the universe say that nothing else ever comes into being.
The other thing to consider is if your definitions make sense, and if they actually apply to anything in existence. Could something really exist forever, and 'then' something happen to it? What I mean is, wouldn't this event occur 'after' infinite time had elapsed? Isn't that a contradiction? Does the circumstance you're conceptualising even make sense?
A very good point, if something has a infinite unchanged future, then it must not interact with anything, hence it is almost pointless to consider its existence?Quote:
Originally Posted by Xei
I looked out an saw every life I had lived. It seemed to span eternity.Quote:
Originally Posted by NeoSioType
I saw all my lives as a sphere.
I was on the edge of the sphere existing in one time. I moved to the right into the future. the past was to the left on the edge. Somehow if I kept going I would eventually come back around to the same place.
I entered the center of this sphere.
I could feel and know every life I had lived and will live. Yet they all already existed and nothing could be changed.
They seemed infinite.
Then I was spiralling upwards around this golden cord.
Then there was a tree.
Its roots were growing into the ground.
I was a leaf at the top a tree. A part of a leaf.
This tree was a group of souls.
Then I saw the planet. It was covered in trees. a planet of trees. All groups of souls. But each one was its own organism.
I saw from the perspective of the planet.
I was every tree as one being. and it felt no different from what I perceived as my own soul earlier.
There were many planets. There was a galaxy of planets.
It was disk shaped, spiralling. golden in color.
It was stacked on top of other disks just like it. These extended out creating a living organism.
There is an ocean. The organism lives in the ocean.
The entire planet is liquid.
Its a drop of rain falling.
But it never hits the ground.
There are what seems to be an infinite number of rain drops falling along side it.
It is a storm.
But nothing truly moves as there is no up or down. Yet they are falling.
There is no storm.
Nothing exists.
This is a dream I had a couple days ago. I was hesitant to post it.
How can you break the concept of eternity in half like that? If something is eternal, then how is it meaningful in any way to talk about its past or future? You can't separate the two. Because if it has an eternal "past" but not an eternal "future", then it truly isn't eternal. In order for something to be called eternal in the first place, it needs to be eternal in "both directions".
If you would like to know. I've been writing a short story that features a few philosophical ideas.Quote:
Originally Posted by Xei
After reading though the comments I realized that I was basically saying "Something that is eternal is eternal." And that I was questioning whether or not something could be eternal judging from it's past.
As you said and from another comment there is a problem with semantics. Eternity implies an infinite past and future, which I believe is the source of my problem. I've been focusing on this the wrong way.
What I'm really want to ask is that if something could be eternal and not at the same time based on the perception of individuals from separate realities. It's quite hard for me to make sense of this. The best I can do is speculate.
I think something can theoretically have existed infinitely in the past, unchanged in a certain way, and then be changed. It does not necessarily have to continue unchanged into the future.
Here's a simple mathematical example. The numbers can correspond to points in space.
An object is speeding up along a number line. We can arbitrarily call the event of the object reaching number 8 a 'change'. Let's say it's reached number 8, and the change is happening now. 1 second ago, it was at 4.
2 seconds ago, it was at 2.
3 seconds ago, it was at 1.
4 seconds ago, it was at 1/2.
And it continues... 1/4, 1/8, 1/16, 1/32, 1/64, 1/128, etc.
If you continue infinitely into the past, the object never reaches space 0. The object has always existed and been moving (more and more slowly the further in time you go back). It's existed infinitely in the past, yet there was no change until now.
I think your problem is saying something is unchanged. There isn't really anything that never changes. Even the universe is changing and stuff. So you are basically talking about some eternal object outside our universe and probably outside all known information. In other words your just making shit up, and while it is okay to have a philosophical discussion on things that don't exist and can't possibly exist, during the course of that discussion you need to admit that you are talking about an entirely fictional object that can't exist, and so you shouldn't get to stressed over the answer you get.
It's actually a little silly. You're saying that if something hasn't changed in the past, why shouldn't it change in the future? You can't determine whether or not something is eternal based on its past.
Furthermore, eternity has nothing to do with the past or future. If something cannot be changed, there's nothing more to it.
Err I actually have no idea what your saying dude...but if it makes you feel better...the multi-verse probably the answer your looking for.
Unchanging is a bad word to describe something that has eternally existed.
But the contemplation of infinity is a worthy topic, all the same.