Maimonides and eternity of world

[Jim_Baur]

What are Maimonides arguments concerning the eternity of the worlds?

Thanks!

 

[reggieM]

A summary of one of his arguments:

The world cannot be eternal because in an eternal string of events, everything that is possible to happen must actually happen. Since it is possible that everything could cease to exist, then in an eternal world, it would have already ceased to exist – and then nothing would ever exist (because no thing can ever come from nothing).

 

[Nooj]

in an eternal string of events, everything that is possible to happen must actually happen.

Why?

 

[The_Exodus]

Why?

Because if it is possible, then, presumably it is possible. Given an infinite series of events, that possibility, if it is truly possible, will be actualized. If it is not actualized, then it is not properly possible, but impossible.

 

[awatkins69]

Because if it is possible, then, presumably it is possible. Given an infinite series of events, that possibility, if it is truly possible, will be actualized. If it is not actualized, then it is not properly possible, but impossible.

I’d never heard this argument from “The Rabbi” before.

 

[Nooj]

Because if it is possible, then, presumably it is possible. Given an infinite series of events, that possibility, if it is truly possible, will be actualized. If it is not actualized, then it is not properly possible, but impossible.

I don’t think I agree with this at all.

If I was a Christian philosopher, I would ask why Maimonides doesn’t take God into account. God would have to grant the actualisation for a possibility to take place, and if God did not want to do this, it wouldn’t happen. But it would still remain possible, because at any point, God could decide to actualise it. For example, the Universe is eternal and it is possible for the Earth to be created. It does not follow that given an infinite series of events, the Earth will be created if God actively works against that happening.

Aquinas argued that the creation of the world was something to be taken on faith. He didn’t agree with the philosophical arguments that attempted to prove the world wasn’t eternal.

A summary of one of his arguments:

The world cannot be eternal because in an eternal string of events, everything that is possible to happen must actually happen. Since it is possible that everything could cease to exist, then in an eternal world, it would have already ceased to exist – and then nothing would ever exist (because no thing can ever come from nothing).

I’m sure Maimonides goes into this a lot more, but it needs to be shown that it is possible that everything could cease to exist.

There are different ways this argument could be tackled depending on the definition of eternal. If eternal is understood to be ‘without beginning’, then even if I accept that everything could cease to exist, it doesn’t follow that it would have already ceased to exist. Perhaps it will cease to exist in the future.

 

[Gallowglasser]

A summary of one of his arguments:

The world cannot be eternal because in an eternal string of events, everything that is possible to happen must actually happen. Since it is possible that everything could cease to exist, then in an eternal world, it would have already ceased to exist – and then nothing would ever exist (because no thing can ever come from nothing).

But there’s the rub; is it possible for matter to stop existing in the first place, like at an atomic or sub atomic level? Can an atom be removed from existence absoloutely?

Regardless, it is an interesting theory.

 

[JohnDamian]

Because if it is possible, then, presumably it is possible. Given an infinite series of events, that possibility, if it is truly possible, will be actualized. If it is not actualized, then it is not properly possible, but impossible.

I am afraid this is incorrect.

One could flip a coin ad infinitum and never get heads.

 

[reggieM]

I am afraid this is incorrect.

One could flip a coin ad infinitum and never get heads.

One could start flipping a coin and then do so ad infinitum. It would still be possible to get heads, even though it had never happened yet.

However, if one had, from eternity, been flipping a coin, then every possibility would have had to be realized by now.

To say something is possible means that one has to accept that it could happen at some time.
To say something is impossible means that it could never happen.

If someone had been flipping a coin forever (eternally) and had never gotten heads, then we would rightly conclude that it “could never happen”. Thus, it would be impossible.

To be possible means that it could happen at some time. An eternal amount of time is the maximum amount of time one could have – so, every possiblity would have to be fulfilled – or else it would be impossible.

 

[reggieM]

I’m not a physicist (by a long shot) but if matter could never disappear, how could it have ever been created (or originated)? What finite thing could create an infinite substance?

 

[JohnDamian]

One could start flipping a coin and then do so ad infinitum. It would still be possible to get heads, even though it had never happened yet.

However, if one had, from eternity, been flipping a coin, then every possibility would have had to be realized by now.

To say something is possible means that one has to accept that it could happen at some time.
To say something is impossible means that it could never happen.

If someone had been flipping a coin forever (eternally) and had never gotten heads, then we would rightly conclude that it “could never happen”. Thus, it would be impossible.

To be possible means that it could happen at some time. An eternal amount of time is the maximum amount of time one could have – so, every possiblity would have to be fulfilled – or else it would be impossible.

Firstly;

Whenever the occurrance of an event has a probability less than 100%; it is possible for that event to not be realised.

This possibility is reduces by multiplication.

Secondly;

An infinity is not a number per se; an ad infinitum sequence must always be finite;

A finite multiplication of a possibility less than 100% may always lead to a potential that that event is never realised.

Thirdly;

Even taking an infinity as a number; there is no reason to believe that flipping a coin infinitly would have any qualatatively greater chance of arriving ata heads; than flipping a coin a billion times – even if there is a quantatative increment.

From another angle;–

Posit an infinity of worlds; all which contain a coin being flipped an infinite number of times;-- it is plausible in one world; that the (slight) possibility of an infinite number of tails is actualised.

According to the (false) notion that an infinity actualises all potentials; we would then have to believe it is both possible and impossible for an infinite number of tails to be produced by a coin tossing; because we would have to produce a universe where the only product was tails; and where (at least) one heads has occurred. This is a voilation of the law of noncontradiction.

 

[Nooj]

I’m not a physicist (by a long shot) but if matter could never disappear, how could it have ever been created (or originated)? What finite thing could create an infinite substance?

There is a possibility that you’re not thinking of here, and that is that the prime matter or the cosmos or the world or what have you, was never created.

 

[reggieM]

If I was a Christian philosopher, I would ask why Maimonides doesn’t take God into account.

Yes, but he is just using natural philosophy here and not theology. It’s an argument just looking at the physical world alone.

God would have to grant the actualisation for a possibility to take place, and if God did not want to do this, it wouldn’t happen. But it would still remain possible, because at any point, God could decide to actualise it.

True, but this argument assumes that the laws of probability and logic are constant. If one accepts that God can create anything at all out of nothing (as every Catholic must) then this argument doesn’t add anything. It only shows that at the natural level, an eternal world is not possible.

For example, the Universe is eternal and it is possible for the Earth to be created. It does not follow that given an infinite series of events, the Earth will be created if God actively works against that happening.

Yes, but there are more problems with an eternal created substance co-existing with God.

I’m sure Maimonides goes into this a lot more, but it needs to be shown that it is possible that everything could cease to exist.

This would conflict with your prior concerns though. Since God created from nothing, then He could return matter back to nothing.

In an atheistic universe, how could something come from nothing? Then, if it did so somehow, why couldn’t it simply return to nothing?

There are different ways this argument could be tackled depending on the definition of eternal. If eternal is understood to be ‘without beginning’, then even if I accept that everything could cease to exist, it doesn’t follow that it would have already ceased to exist. Perhaps it will cease to exist in the future.

Ok, if you accept that it was “without beginning” and that it could cease to exist – then it necessarily would not exist now.

When we say “could”, that indicates some probability. If there are zero chances that something could happen, then that is impossible. If there is one chance out of two, then in a million tries, one and the other need to appear.

 

[reggieM]

From another angle;–

Posit an infinity of worlds; all which contain a coin being flipped an infinite number of times;-- it is plausible in one world; that the (slight) possibility of an infinite number of tails is actualised.

According to the (false) notion that an infinity actualises all potentials; we would then have to believe it is both possible and impossible for an infinite number of tails to be produced by a coin tossing; because we would have to produce a universe where the only product was tails; and where (at least) one heads has occurred. This is a voilation of the law of noncontradiction.

An actual infinite causes many paradoxes and contradictions like this.

One cannot have any future events in an actual infinite. One cannot add new events to a beginningless string. There are no possibilities to realize in the future, therefore. There can be no present-today if there was no beginning.

So, with an eternal string of events, the law of contradiction really doesn’t apply.

Measures of probability assume that the string of events had a beginning. That’s the only way to measure chances. If the string was eternal, one could not even observe whether a heads or tails had occurred at some time in the past.

Logic itself is a measurement and comparison and in order to measure or compare, one needs a beginning point, and this is impossible with an eternal string of events.

 

[JohnDamian]

reggieM:

An actual infinite causes many paradoxes and contradictions like this.

One cannot have any future events in an actual infinite. One cannot add new events to a beginningless string. There are no possibilities to realize in the future, therefore. There can be no present-today if there was no beginning.

So, with an eternal string of events, the law of contradiction really doesn’t apply.

I can’t see how the law of noncontradiction ceases to apply in an instantiated infinite.

To quote an example from De Esse Dei “If one of two contraries were actually infinite, then nothing contrary to it would exist in nature, and therefore if some good werea ctually infinite, nothing evil would exist;” therefore etc.

The law of noncontradiction still applies to infinite quantities (which can only exist in concept; and not in reality; as infinite-quantity is a contradiction in terms).

reggieM:

Logic itself is a measurement and comparison and in order to measure or compare, one needs a beginning point, and this is impossible with an eternal string of events.

One can arbitrarily apply a beginning for the purposes of argument.

 

[Nooj]

This would conflict with your prior concerns though. Since God created from nothing, then He could return matter back to nothing.

Yes. But in that point I was making, I was speaking from that ‘natural philosophy’ perspective and ignoring God.

In an atheistic universe, how could something come from nothing? Then, if it did so somehow, why couldn’t it simply return to nothing?

Something from nothing is not the only cosmological viewpoint that you can find held by atheists (something from nothing is of course a theistic argument too). There is the alternative of an eternal universe. Personally I have no idea.

Ok, if you accept that it was “without beginning” and that it could cease to exist – then it necessarily would not exist now.

When we say “could”, that indicates some probability. If there are zero chances that something could happen, then that is impossible. If there is one chance out of two, then in a million tries, one and the other need to appear.

I don’t understand. It is possible but it hasn’t happened yet seems sensible to me…for example, if it is possible only under certain circumstances that has not happened yet. An eternal world doesn’t mean that everything that will happen has happened before - at least, I don’t see how that follows. I don’t think an eternal world necessitates some sort of cyclical history.

 

[reggieM]

I don’t understand. It is possible but it hasn’t happened yet seems sensible to me…for example, if it is possible only under certain circumstances that has not happened yet. An eternal world doesn’t mean that everything that will happen has happened before - at least, I don’t see how that follows. I don’t think an eternal world necessitates some sort of cyclical history.

Maybe it’s an argument where definitions could help.

The phrase: “could never possibly happen” could mean that “in every possible circumstance, this event will not happen”. So, that means “impossible”.

How would one know that something was possible? How could one actualize “every possible event”? An eternally active string of events really is “every event”. It cannot increase in number since it is already infinite in size.

This is another problem with an infinite number of universes. Could they have different laws? Different logic? Could every imaginary thought be made real? It depends on “possiblity” and how we could know that.

We can only talk about possibility within a universe of laws or rules that we know.
We can only have rational and logical discussions within that universe also. Philosophy and reason itself requires a basis in consistency, laws, cause and effect, predictable outcomes, etc.

 

[Nooj]

Hm…I don’t know what to say to that! I’ll have a good think about it.

 

[reggieM]

I can’t see how the law of noncontradiction ceases to apply in an instantiated infinite.

To quote an example from De Esse Dei “If one of two contraries were actually infinite, then nothing contrary to it would exist in nature, and therefore if some good werea ctually infinite, nothing evil would exist;” therefore etc.

I’d just select the phrase “in nature” above. The ideas of good and evil actually transcend nature. If some evil was actually infinite, then no good could exist and therefore nothing could exist since Being itself is a good. But this is a question of the nature of good vs evil, and if evil could be infinite (since it is a corruption of good).

One can arbitrarily apply a beginning for the purposes of argument.

I’ll have to think about how that could work. I can’t follow it at the moment.

 

[reggieM]

The law of noncontradiction still applies to infinite quantities (which can only exist in concept; and not in reality; as infinite-quantity is a contradiction in terms).

I think the argument is relates to this also – that infinite quantities cannot exist in reality.
Perhaps something like:

If the universe is a quantity, then it cannot be infinite in reality.