A universe with no beginning or end

[Eh]

The problem of infinite regress has been around for a while, as the idea of an infinite past seems to lead to absurdities. While the big bang model seemed to have removed the idea of an eternal universe, certain inflation models bring it back.

Eternal inflation is one example. The evidence we have for the big bang is explained in terms of a local inflation event, which occured some 13.7 billion years ago. While our universe was created and had a beginning, the creation took place in a pre-existing space-time, which itself may have existed forever. While this seems to solve the need for a beginning of our universe, the pre-existing space-time it emerged from would also be expanding, and if finite could be traced back to a beginning itself. So for an eternal inflationary universe, it seems one would need an infinite volume of space. So space and time would be infinite.

There seem to be other problems with the idea of an infinite past, which this thread hopefully will cover. Thoughts?

[wuliheron]

Essentially an infinite existence must get around the Liar's Paradox as must whatever logic you care to use. The most inclusive and broadly applicable version of the Liar’s Paradox might be said to be the assertion that Existence is a lie. This paradox includes not only the Liar’s Paradox, but also any logic or reason used to define it as a paradox. Note that it also applies under any context and expresses a quality rather than a quantity. However, what may remain the same no matter what is our own personal experience and feelings about existence.

That said, what matters from a purely physical and logical viewpoint then is the physical evidence to date, the specific kind of logic you care to apply, and the reliability you can assertain for each. Under the circumstances, it seems no matter what kind of logic or findings you care to draw upon there are several other equally likely rudamentary explanations that are equally likely. That is apparently why there are still several possible explanations of Quantum Mechanics.

Is that clear? I hope not. :0)

[Lifegazer]

Originally posted by Eh
Eternal inflation is one example. The evidence we have for the big bang is explained in terms of a local inflation event, which occured some 13.7 billion years ago. While our universe was created and had a beginning, the creation took place in a pre-existing space-time, which itself may have existed forever. While this seems to solve the need for a beginning of our universe, the pre-existing space-time it emerged from would also be expanding, and if finite could be traced back to a beginning itself. So for an eternal inflationary universe, it seems one would need an infinite volume of space. So space and time would be infinite.

There seem to be other problems with the idea of an infinite past, which this thread hopefully will cover. Thoughts?
Infinite-space renders space as a singularity. Or it renders the essence/backdrop of that space as a singularity.
And infinite time can be discarded; for no tangible-yield of an infinite causality-chain exists. Therefore, it is impossible for any infinite causality-chain to have produced any thing.
The set of infinite-time is an open-ended set. Not a closed set. Thus, Cantor's mathematics of infinities are irrelevant. A set with no beginning, can have no tangible-end. Any entity which is infinite is essentially uniform, or conceptual.

[wuliheron]

The set of infinite-time is an open-ended set. Not a closed set. Thus, Cantor's mathematics of infinities are irrelevant. A set with no beginning, can have no tangible-end. Any entity which is infinite is essentially uniform, or conceptual.

Note Eh, that this is according to a paraconsistent logical analysis of Relativity which remains unproven. Without physical evidence it remains wholly speculative. In fact, it remains one of the speculations on the subject I already mentioned.

Well done Mentat.

[Lifegazer]

Originally posted by wuliheron
Note Eh, that this is according to a paraconsistent logical analysis of Relativity which remains unproven.

Unproven? My argument is founded upon Einstein's work. And his equations are correct for the universe which we 'sense'. They have been proven. They are my evidence. My proof.
My topic about Relativity is about 'Relativity', and I use the axioms of that theory to promote the reality of Mind, thus bringing-about the demise of materialism (if accepted, of course)... as opposed to the demise of Einstein's work. But how is this relevant to the logic I have presented in this thread?
If it makes sense here, then it makes sense here. Forget what I said about something else, yesterday (so to speak.). Don't judge it by something else. Judge it by itself, without reference to any other argument.

Without physical evidence it remains wholly speculative.

But I have physical evidence that Einstein's Laws are true. Or at least, science does. So; what other sort of evidence would you like?

In fact, it remains one of the speculations on the subject I already mentioned.

Only for you.

[Mentat]

Originally posted by wuliheron

Well done Mentat. [/B]

Well, I haven't said anything yet, but...

Eh, if the "backdrop" of space-time were finite (and expanding), what would it be expanding into? Also, if the "backdrop" is infinite, but the "sub-universe" is tiny, the time dimension corresponds to all of the dimensions in the whole cosmos, right?

[heusdens]

Originally posted by Eh
The problem of infinite regress has been around for a while, as the idea of an infinite past seems to lead to absurdities. While the big bang model seemed to have removed the idea of an eternal universe, certain inflation models bring it back.


One should read the writings of Immanuel Kant on this ("kritik der reiner Vernunft" who wrote about this dilemma first. In this book he explained that a universe that existed infinitely was as provable as a universe that had a definite beginning in time. Now, from logic we know that only one of this options can be true, and one of them must be true. But whatever position we take, this will all lead us into abduridities or contradictions, and no way to go around it.
This situation is a central thema to dialectical-materialism, as it states that the world can not be conceived of without contradiction.


Eternal inflation is one example. The evidence we have for the big bang is explained in terms of a local inflation event, which occured some 13.7 billion years ago. While our universe was created and had a beginning, the creation took place in a pre-existing space-time, which itself may have existed forever. While this seems to solve the need for a beginning of our universe, the pre-existing space-time it emerged from would also be expanding, and if finite could be traced back to a beginning itself. So for an eternal inflationary universe, it seems one would need an infinite volume of space. So space and time would be infinite.

There seem to be other problems with the idea of an infinite past, which this thread hopefully will cover. Thoughts?

What is the exact problem here? To accept the idea of infinite space and time?

[wuliheron]

What is the exact problem here? To accept the idea of infinite space and time?

To see a world in a grain of sand
And a heaven in a wildflower
Hold infinity in the palm of your hand
And eternity in an hour


Accepting infinity can be as easy or as difficult as anything ever gets. Infinitely easy and infinitely difficult. :0)

[heusdens]

Originally posted by Lifegazer
Infinite-space renders space as a singularity. Or it renders the essence/backdrop of that space as a singularity.
And infinite time can be discarded; for no tangible-yield of an infinite causality-chain exists. Therefore, it is impossible for any infinite causality-chain to have produced any thing.
The set of infinite-time is an open-ended set. Not a closed set. Thus, Cantor's mathematics of infinities are irrelevant. A set with no beginning, can have no tangible-end. Any entity which is infinite is essentially uniform, or conceptual.

I see you still are convinced of the idea that the infinity of time is impossible. Yet, the beginning of time is equally impossible and absurd.
In another post you somehow seem to agree that something cannot come from nothing, and that if the material world is the effect of something, then there must be a cause, and that exisence at least must be preceded by the potentially for something to exist. This potentially is not nothing. Instead, we must call this potentially existence too. That what in primary instance causes the world to form, shape and take form is the fact that material existence is in contradiction with itself, causing it to move, change, take form and shape in a dialectical way.

The dialectical process can be schematized as follows:

Thesis -> Anti-Thesis -> Synthesis

which repeats itself eternally. The synthesis is just the new thesis on a higher level. Like for instance the growth of a seed (Thesis), becoming a plant, which consumes the seed (Anti-Thesis, negation of the Thesis) and producing many new seeds (Synthesis, negation of the negation of the Thesis). This reproduces the seed, but in the process the seed is altered in a quantitative (one seed producing many new seeds) and in a qualitative way (natural processes cause slight change in the seed). Which means that this process is progressing, otherwise if the synthesis would just reproduce the thesis, this wouild cause an infinite closed circle, without progress, which is clearly not the case.

The position hold by materialist in this respect is more understandable, it just claims that there isn't a begin or end to the causal chain. Your problem seems to be that then existence and the now, have been formed by an infinite chain of causal effects, which you believe, can't be true. There is no question that infinity itself is a contradictionary concept. But you aren't able of removing this infinity, without running into equal or more absurdity (like accepting the material existence was popping out of nothing).

I suggest you once more to read about this dilemma, and how it is solved in the text of Friedrich Engels Anti-Duhring Philosophy of Nature. Space and Time (http://csf.colorado.edu/psn/marx/Archive/1877-AD/p1.htm#c5) in case you haven't done that yet. I didn't see anywhere you referred to this text, so probably you didn't even read it.

[Lifegazer]

Originally posted by heusdens
I see you still are convinced of the idea that the infinity of time is impossible. Yet, the beginning of time is equally impossible and absurd.

No it's not. I'll see if I can explain...
Firstly; the beginning of time = the beginning of change. Hence, you are in error by assuming that the beginning of time = the beginning of existence. Existence doesn't necessarily imply 'change'. And there is no logical-reason to label the idea of unchanging-Existence as an absurdity.
There is no logical-contradiction in stating that existence is eternal, but that time/change has an origin.

[heusdens]

Originally posted by Lifegazer
No it's not. I'll see if I can explain...
Firstly; the beginning of time = the beginning of change. Hence, you are in error by assuming that the beginning of time = the beginning of existence. Existence doesn't necessarily imply 'change'. And there is no logical-reason to label the idea of unchanging-Existence as an absurdity.
There is no logical-contradiction in stating that existence is eternal, but that time/change has an origin.

Well, what you state here is simply nonsens, cause material existence which does not implie motion and/or change, and thus requires time and space and time to exist, is a gross absurdity.

Change can not start from nothing, there is always a previous change. If there was at some time no change or motion at all, then where would that initial change/motion come from?

Your reasoning become very absurd. Time/change popping up from nowhere is as absurd as existence popping up from nowhere.
If time or change is said to have a beginning, then that itself was a change, at a time where it is said, there was no change. Which can for obvious reasons, not have been the case.
Because existence implies change and motion, there can't have been a state of existence in which there was no change or no motion. it would be an endless state of existence in which nothing whatsoever changes. What kind of existence would that be?

But with your stubborn kind of reasoning I guess you will never get at it.

[Tom Mattson]

Originally posted by Lifegazer
Firstly; the beginning of time = the beginning of change.


OK so far.


Hence, you are in error by assuming that the beginning of time = the beginning of existence. Existence doesn't necessarily imply 'change'. And there is no logical-reason to label the idea of unchanging-Existence as an absurdity.


This can't be right.

While I am completely ignorant of the Kant arguments, I know two things that flatly refute this.

1. If the universe were ever static (unchanging), then it must always be so.
2. According to general relativity, the absence of matter and radiation implies the absence of space and time.

Existence and change are inseperable.

[heusdens]

Originally posted by Tom
OK so far.



This can't be right.

While I am completely ignorant of the Kant arguments, I know two things that flatly refute this.

1. If the universe were ever static (unchanging), then it must always be so.
2. According to general relativity, the absence of matter and radiation implies the absence of space and time.

Existence and change are inseperable.

Yeah, Tom, right, but I doubt if Mr Lifegazer will ever accept this fact, cause in his mind the universe's origin, fate and future lie in Divine hands, so this makes it impossible for him to understand this.

There must be something left for his deity to do, if only switching Time on.

[zk4586]

Change can not start from nothing, there is always a previous change.

why?

If there was at some time no change or motion at all, then where would that initial change/motion come from?

Isn't this what the early universe would have been: A point of infinite mass and density, and the first change is the 'big bang'?

[heusdens]

Originally posted by zk4586
why?

If the world is in a state of no change and no motion, then the world would remain in that state forever.



Isn't this what the early universe would have been: A point of infinite mass and density, and the first change is the 'big bang'?

Definately not. Firstly, where did that mass/energy come from?
Secondly: every material form and sunstances we know of, in whatever form (particles, energy, fields) are not static things, but are in motion/change themselves always.

For a mor detailed discussion on these issues, read the following text: Philosophy of Nature. Space and Time (http://csf.colorado.edu/psn/marx/Archive/1877-AD/p1.htm#c5)

[Lifegazer]

Originally posted by Tom
This can't be right.

While I am completely ignorant of the Kant arguments, I know two things that flatly refute this.

1. If the universe were ever static (unchanging), then it must always be so.

Your error here is that you, like heusdens, are assuming that existence is fundamentally material. From this, you deduce that a static material-existence (with static forces too) would be unable to change itself. Hence you conclude that such a state would have to remain eternal - thus negating the onset of time. And since time has happened and is still happening, you conclude that there could not have been such an original-state as unchanging-Existence.
Your reasoning is correct - except that your premise needs to be proven to validate that conclusion.
However; I took the non-assumed route towards making my conclusion of reason. And if you subtract your asserted-premise from a re-reading of my post, then you'll see that there's nothing wrong with my reasoning.
The real problem which several of you might now have with my post, is that the conclusion also proves that there needs to be more than just matter & forces-of-matter for such a change to occur (as you rightly-imply Tom). For such a body of existence to change from a state of changelessness, would also require will and direction of
mind.

2. According to general relativity, the absence of matter and radiation implies the absence of space and time.

And?
There is bound to be a state of zero-space & zero-time, in a state of changeless existence. GR is consistent with a changeless-origin.

[zk4586]

Firstly, where did that mass/energy come from?

Maybe it was always there.

Secondly: every material form and sunstances we know of, in whatever form (particles, energy, fields) are not static things, but are in motion/change themselves always.

That doesn't imply deviation from a particular state, in this case, the point of infinite mass and density.

[Eh]

Originally posted by Mentat
Well, I haven't said anything yet, but...

Eh, if the "backdrop" of space-time were finite (and expanding), what would it be expanding into? Also, if the "backdrop" is infinite, but the "sub-universe" is tiny, the time dimension corresponds to all of the dimensions in the whole cosmos, right?

The problem is, the backdrop of space-time must be expanding and if finite, it to would have a beginning. An infinite expanding space might not necessarily have a beginning. But the self reproducing universe and eternal inflation models aren't really multiverse theories. They just concern a universe that continuously produce regions of inflation.

[Eh]

Originally posted by heusdens
What is the exact problem here? To accept the idea of infinite space and time?

I actually had in mind something alone the lines of Kant's anti-thesis of a finite time. I'm not looking to defend a position, but just get some opinions on the matter here.

[drag]

Greetings !

Great thread Eh !

First to adress the problem discussed here:
In my opinion, there is no problem.

If time is not infinite then the cause of
it is the paradox of existence.
If it is then you can avoid the apparent
absurdity of it by simply sticking to
existence itself. Existence is all, including
infinities, and the PoE is part of it either
way. (Although, there is no absolute way
to prove the PoE.)

Second, to adress some other opinions expressed here:

LG,
The part about Universe with no time is good.
You really spend a lot of time thinking about
philosophical issues to surprise us with
continuosly don't you...[:))]
(Say, did you invent the Mind hypothesys so
that everyone would argue with you and you could
really learn some stuff in the proccess ?
Very good ! [:D])

Tom,
You disagreed with LG's argument about the
possibility that there was existence without time
before there was one with time.

Your first argument can not be proven as absolute,
the Universe can allow for ANYTHING to be true.
There is nothing beyond doubt except exitence.
( I understood that after I tried to show the
PoE is absolute and realized it's not - it's
just the most certain thing ever so far.
A Universe without time comes close to that
though. [;)] )
(Your second argument is very limmited in it's scope
of accepted possibilities, but the counter-argument
is basicly the same, though stronger.)

heusdens,
Almost the same thing basicly. You do recognize that
both un/limmited time is absurd and since one of them
must be the case then you basicly recognize the
PoE. However, you do not recognize another
possibility for this absurdity - a Universe
without time.

zk4586,
Isn't this what the early universe would have been: A point of infinite mass and density, and the first change is the 'big bang'?

Nice "bite"...[:D]

"Simplicity is the ultimate sophistication." Leonardo Da Vinci

Live long and prosper.

[wuliheron]

There is nothing beyond doubt except exitence.
( I understood that after I tried to show the
PoE is absolute and realized it's not - it's
just the most certain thing ever so far.



LOLOLOLOL, a Zen master might hit you on the head for such a statement. LOLOLOLOLOL

[heusdens]

Originally posted by Lifegazer
Your error here is that you, like heusdens, are assuming that existence is fundamentally material. From this, you deduce that a static material-existence (with static forces too) would be unable to change itself. Hence you conclude that such a state would have to remain eternal - thus negating the onset of time. And since time has happened and is still happening, you conclude that there could not have been such an original-state as unchanging-Existence.
Your reasoning is correct - except that your premise needs to be proven to validate that conclusion.
However; I took the non-assumed route towards making my conclusion of reason. And if you subtract your asserted-premise from a re-reading of my post, then you'll see that there's nothing wrong with my reasoning.
The real problem which several of you might now have with my post, is that the conclusion also proves that there needs to be more than just matter & forces-of-matter for such a change to occur (as you rightly-imply Tom). For such a body of existence to change from a state of changelessness, would also require will and direction of
mind.

... and hence your Divine Creator comes in play again!

There is no other reason for all of your arguments then that.


And?
There is bound to be a state of zero-space & zero-time, in a state of changeless existence. GR is consistent with a changeless-origin.

GR is not a Bible, Lifegazer, if GR claims that an empty void is consistent with GR, it does not mean that such a state of the world is realy actual. You need other parts of knowledge to see the fact that that is not the case.

[drag]

Originally posted by wuliheron
LOLOLOLOL, a Zen master might hit you on the head for such a statement. LOLOLOLOLOL
And why is that, my master ? [:D]
(I thought you shared my opinion on this when,
after I told you I was formulating an
ultimate proof and then realized it is
impossible, you told me in the first place that
you "didn't need such allies" - if I recall correctly.)

[heusdens]

Originally posted by drag
heusdens,
Almost the same thing basicly. You do recognize that
both un/limmited time is absurd and since one of them
must be the case then you basicly recognize the
PoE. However, you do not recognize another
possibility for this absurdity - a Universe
without time.[/B]

That means a universe that doesn't change. It doesn't appear to be that way though.

[drag]

Greetings !
Originally posted by heusdens
That means a universe that doesn't change. It doesn't appear to be that way though.
Not now indeed. But, maybe the PoE "stepped in"
earlier.

You see, in my opinion, if one recognizes the PoE
then one must also be prepared to recognize
the possibility that it manifests itself in
multiple ways in the Universe.

For example: Maybe the "basic" particles are
really "basic". And if we suppose it is so - they
are absurd - they are the basic elements of reality
that end any reasoning "chain" no matter what
reasoning system you use.

Of course, we can never absolutely prove they are
really "basic", nor can we ever absolutely prove
they are paradoxical.

In short, you can't throw away ANY possibilities
for stuff in the Universe. No proof is absolute.

Live long and prosper.

[Lifegazer]

Originally posted by drag
LG,
The part about Universe with no time is good.

Do you mean it is logically-sound?[;)]

You really spend a lot of time thinking about
philosophical issues to surprise us with
continuosly don't you...[:))]

Yes I do. That's why you should take me seriously. :)~

(Say, did you invent the Mind hypothesys so
that everyone would argue with you and you could
really learn some stuff in the proccess ?
Very good ! [:D])

How can I invent an hypothesis good-enough to trouble your beliefs, without having sufficient-knowledge of many things, myself? ;)~

[wuliheron]

And why is that, my master ?
(I thought you shared my opinion on this when,
after I told you I was formulating an
ultimate proof and then realized it is
impossible, you told me in the first place that
you "didn't need such allies" - if I recall correctly.)

I'd never join a club that would have me as a member.

Groucho Marx

Existence may be the ultimate mystery, but I certainly can't prove it! I doubt my own doubt, and never settle for certainty. Not even the certainty of my doubt. :0)

[heusdens]

Originally posted by zk4586
Maybe it was always there.

So, this mass/energy or better said Matter was there all the time, without change or motion, and then suddenly it changes it mind and starts to expand....

Change like motion does not originate from nothing.

You did not give a cause for the first change, so I cannot accept that viewpoint.


That doesn't imply deviation from a particular state, in this case, the point of infinite mass and density.

Your point of view however lead to either a mystical way of coming into existence of all that mass and matter, either of a mystical way in which from no motion and/or change, this mass/energy started to change/move.

Both are inacceptable, and in flagrant contradiction with Materialism.

[heusdens]

Originally posted by drag
Greetings !

Not now indeed. But, maybe the PoE "stepped in"
earlier.

You see, in my opinion, if one recognizes the PoE
then one must also be prepared to recognize
the possibility that it manifests itself in
multiple ways in the Universe.

This is like opening up a box of tricks, that can fill in any gap in our reasoning. I think you have the wrong conception of material existence anyway. What you call the "paradox of existence" is not a box of tricks you can use at will to fill gaps of understanding.


For example: Maybe the "basic" particles are
really "basic". And if we suppose it is so - they
are absurd - they are the basic elements of reality
that end any reasoning "chain" no matter what
reasoning system you use.

Of course, we can never absolutely prove they are
really "basic", nor can we ever absolutely prove
they are paradoxical.

In short, you can't throw away ANY possibilities
for stuff in the Universe.

For sure we can know if the elementary particles are elementary. At least when we discover that they can be divided up into more elementary forms of matter, a counterfact has been proven.

No proof is absolute.

Can you proof that?

[heusdens]

Originally posted by Lifegazer
Your error here is that you, like heusdens, are assuming that existence is fundamentally material.

Can you point me to any arguments or proof that this is not a reasonable assumption (except from plain ignorance)?

Don't you think that science has shown us this to be the case?

[Mentat]

Originally posted by wuliheron
I'd never join a club that would have me as a member.

Groucho Marx

Existence may be the ultimate mystery, but I certainly can't prove it! I doubt my own doubt, and never settle for certainty. Not even the certainty of my doubt. :0)

Bull! You wouldn't have stated that you have this doubt, unless you are certain of having this doubt. It is not impossible to be uncertain of everything; but one who is uncertain of everything cannot be certain that he/she is so, and thus cannot state it.

[Mentat]

Originally posted by Eh
The problem is, the backdrop of space-time must be expanding and if finite, it to would have a beginning. An infinite expanding space might not necessarily have a beginning. But the self reproducing universe and eternal inflation models aren't really multiverse theories. They just concern a universe that continuously produce regions of inflation.

"An infinite expanding space"? This is not possible. I've already shown (in other thread) that infinite (physical) things cannot get any bigger. Expansion = "getting bigger", and thus an infinite spacetime cannot expand.

[heusdens]

Originally posted by Mentat
"An infinite expanding space"? This is not possible. I've already shown (in other thread) that infinite (physical) things cannot get any bigger. Expansion = "getting bigger", and thus an infinite spacetime cannot expand.

This is clearly nonsense.

[Eh]

No, because an expanding universe does not get bigger. Expansion seems to be misleading in this case.

[Mentat]

Originally posted by heusdens
This is clearly nonsense.

It is clearly not as clear as you think, otherwise I wouldn't have convinced a good few members in the old PFs of my view. Please, enlighten me.

[wuliheron]

Originally posted by wuliheron
I'd never join a club that would have me as a member.

Groucho Marx

Existence may be the ultimate mystery, but I certainly can't prove it! I doubt my own doubt, and never settle for certainty. Not even the certainty of my doubt. :0)
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Bull! You wouldn't have stated that you have this doubt, unless you are certain of having this doubt. It is not impossible to be uncertain of everything; but one who is uncertain of everything cannot be certain that he/she is so, and thus cannot state it.

In a rational universe filled with rational human beings it isn't possible, but I've never claimed to be rational much less that the universe is rational. Go ahead, prove me wrong. LOLOLOLOLOL

[Mentat]

Originally posted by wuliheron
In a rational universe filled with rational human beings it isn't possible, but I've never claimed to be rational much less that the universe is rational. Go ahead, prove me wrong. LOLOLOLOLOL

What's the point, you aren't rational. The claim that you (and the universe) are irrational creates paradox, and is thus not worth discussing (that's right, there is not point in discussing paradox in a thread about a rational universe. *sticks out tongue*).

[Mentat]

Originally posted by Eh
No, because an expanding universe does not get bigger. Expansion seems to be misleading in this case.

Expansion is getting bigger, isn't it? If not, explain what it is.

[wuliheron]

What's the point, you aren't rational. The claim that you (and the universe) are irrational creates paradox, and is thus not worth discussing (that's right, there is not point in discussing paradox in a thread about a rational universe. *sticks out tongue*).

Yuk!! If I had something that ugly in my mouth I'd stick it out too!!

Paradox, as many here have been quick to point out, is not well defined. As I have repeatedly pointed out in innumerable ways, this is precisely what makes it valuable. Logic and mathematics themselves are based on the concept of the absurd and to deny this is, in its own rite, absurd.

[Mentat]

Originally posted by wuliheron
Yuk!! If I had something that ugly in my mouth I'd stick it out too!!

Paradox, as many here have been quick to point out, is not well defined. As I have repeatedly pointed out in innumerable ways, this is precisely what makes it valuable. Logic and mathematics themselves are based on the concept of the absurd and to deny this is, in its own rite, absurd.

Is this something that you believe for a certainty, Wuliheron?

Besides, a discussion of paradox could easily bring an end to the discussion that is the theme of this thread, but that doesn't mean that it answers it (no matter if you think it does, it doesn't). It just makes the subject irrationality, and this could leave Eh - and the rest of us - without a constructive argument (which we could have had).

[heusdens]

Originally posted by Mentat
It is clearly not as clear as you think, otherwise I wouldn't have convinced a good few members in the old PFs of my view. Please, enlighten me.

Well let us try to make the situation more clear.
Suppose we have a grid, representing 3D space. It has lines on it, defining the current metrics. Now the anlogy with space expansion is that the size of the grid gets bigger. This is also the case when the grid is infinite in size.

Your argument supposedly comes from the fact that Infinity + Any number is still Infinity, and even Infinity * Any number is still Infinity, so in a mathematical sense you cannot say that the size of the space is getting bigger. You CAN however claim that the size of the metrics gets bigger, and that is what is being meant when we say that space expands.

[Lifegazer]

Originally posted by heusdens
Can you point me to any arguments or proof that this is not a reasonable assumption (except from plain ignorance)?

Don't you think that science has shown us this to be the case?
Science hasn't shown us anything, other than that our perceptions of mind are orderly and predictable. There's not one scientific-fact which favours materialism over idealism.

[wuliheron]

Is this something that you believe for a certainty, Wuliheron?

Besides, a discussion of paradox could easily bring an end to the discussion that is the theme of this thread, but that doesn't mean that it answers it (no matter if you think it does, it doesn't). It just makes the subject irrationality, and this could leave Eh - and the rest of us - without a constructive argument (which we could have had).

Paradox is not the end of discussion, au contrair, the beginning of discussion. No paradox, nothing to discuss. Likewise, paradox is not the end of rationality, but its origin as I already stated.

Do you honestly believe westerners are the only people to ever contemplate infinity? How absurd. Infinity is just another aspect of paradox. Acknowledging this simple fact of life brings rigor and a grounding effect to your debate, which is infinitely complex.

[heusdens]

Originally posted by Lifegazer
Science hasn't shown us anything, other than that our perceptions of mind are orderly and predictable.

Perceptions of mind? That what we perceive of is the 'outer reality' (which is not just out of us, but also in us).
Can the mind perceive of itself?


There's not one scientific-fact which favours materialism over idealism.

Most of the scientific facts in physics, chemics and biology do favour materialism. Materialism has been proven to be a more workable assumption then Idealism.

[wuliheron]

Most of the scientific facts in physics, chemics and biology do favour materialism. Materialism has been proven to be a more workable assumption then Idealism.

I agree a hundred percent with this statement. Like Aristotlelian logic, materialism has proven to be the more brute force approach that quickly goes to the heart of the matter. That's not to say idealism does not have its value though, only that like a lot of liberal ideas it often not very expedient. Fortunately, the two are not mutually exclusive any more than the concept of paradox is. :0)

[drag]

Greetings !
Originally posted by heusdens
This is like opening up a box of tricks, that can fill in any gap in our reasoning. I think you have the wrong conception of material existence anyway. What you call the "paradox of existence" is not a box of tricks you can use at will to fill gaps of understanding.

Why not ?
Or would you rather think that the paradox
centers "around" a single thing. ( Maybe
a super-string in 26 dimensions ? [:D] )
You are trying to limmit paradox, by definition
it can have no limmit.
Originally posted by heusdens
For sure we can know if the elementary particles are elementary. At least when we discover that they can be divided up into more elementary forms of matter, a counterfact has been proven.

And we don't ? Can you ever be certain of anything
except existence ?
Originally posted by heusdens
Can you prove that?
Nope. [:D]

Live long and prosper.

[drag]

Originally posted by Mentat
Bull! You wouldn't have stated that you have this doubt, unless you are certain of having this doubt. It is not impossible to be uncertain of everything; but one who is uncertain of everything cannot be certain that he/she is so, and thus cannot state it.
That's why we have a wonderful thing called
estimate of probability(through science =
all knowledge + all experience).
(Not that you can ever calculate and be certain of
the exact probability - but as long as science
appears to "work" your estimates based on it could
work too.)

Live long and prosper.

[drag]

Originally posted by Lifegazer
Science hasn't shown us anything, other than that our perceptions of mind are orderly and predictable. There's not one scientific-fact which favours materialism over idealism.]
Of course there is LG - science can predict.

"Simplicity is the ultimate sophistication." Leonardo Da Vinci

Live long and prosper.

[wuliheron]

You are trying to limmit paradox, by definition
it can have no limmit.


The sentiment is good, but the literal statement is not. Paradox does have a definition and, thus, it is not a meaningless word or a purely sentimental one. Logic alone cannot describe paradox, that is why it is useful.

[Lifegazer]

Originally posted by drag
Of course there is LG - science can predict.

The prediction of orderly-perceptions does not prove that what we 'see' is real unto itself. It just proves that what we see is orderly and predictable. Your point is irrelevant.

[heusdens]

Originally posted by Lifegazer
The prediction of orderly-perceptions does not prove that what we 'see' is real unto itself. It just proves that what we see is orderly and predictable. Your point is irrelevant.

A statement like 'there is not one jot of proof for material existence' which is stated as if that would have some absolute truth, is rather relative and subjective vision on material reality, which only portrays the will and intent of a subjective mind, which intends at leaving us with a 'reality gap' to be fitted in with what he sees as 'Divine intervention' 'Divine source' or 'Divine origin' of and to existence.

But most people know better then that.

They will see that the materialist claim, though it cannot be established with 100 % certainty, is true, and which is backed up with lots of scientific evidence in all fields of science, while the opposite position (the 'divine' nature of reality) has indeed not one bit of evidence, but is entirely based on the subjective mind, and lacks objective proof, and proof based on empirical knowledge.

[Mentat]

Originally posted by heusdens
Well let us try to make the situation more clear.
Suppose we have a grid, representing 3D space. It has lines on it, defining the current metrics. Now the anlogy with space expansion is that the size of the grid gets bigger. This is also the case when the grid is infinite in size.

Your argument supposedly comes from the fact that Infinity + Any number is still Infinity, and even Infinity * Any number is still Infinity, so in a mathematical sense you cannot say that the size of the space is getting bigger. You CAN however claim that the size of the metrics gets bigger, and that is what is being meant when we say that space expands.

This can't be right. Think physically. If a dimension of space is infinite, then it goes on forever. How much bigger than "forever" can you get? (this is a rhetorical question, btw).

[heusdens]

Originally posted by Mentat
This can't be right. Think physically. If a dimension of space is infinite, then it goes on forever. How much bigger than "forever" can you get? (this is a rhetorical question, btw).

Something of infinite size that gets bigger still remains infinite size. But this does not contradict the idea that it DOES get bigger.
Even while it is infinite, it is made up of parts, and all it's parts grow. I would certainly call that getting bigger (at least you get that perception when measuring around within a finite portion of the space).

Capito?

[Eh]

Originally posted by Mentat
Expansion is getting bigger, isn't it? If not, explain what it is.

Expansion is a local event. Asymptotically flat space between the galaxies expands. That is, the distance between point A and B expands, but when this happens in a universe of infinite volume the size remains constant. Expansion does not necessarily mean the universe is growing like in the balloon analogy.

[Tom Mattson]

Originally posted by Lifegazer
Your error here is that you, like heusdens, are assuming that existence is fundamentally material.


I did assume that in the second point (on GR), but not in the first one.


From this, you deduce that a static material-existence (with static forces too) would be unable to change itself. Hence you conclude that such a state would have to remain eternal - thus negating the onset of time. And since time has happened and is still happening, you conclude that there could not have been such an original-state as unchanging-Existence.
Your reasoning is correct - except that your premise needs to be proven to validate that conclusion.


Let the set of all processes be represented by the function of time P(t). P(t) is static iff, for all n in Z+, d(n)P/dt(n)=0. If all the time derivatives are zero, then it is logically impossible for P to evolve in time, unless you assume something else. That is what you do, despite denying it here...


However; I took the non-assumed route towards making my conclusion of reason.


Hardly! You have to assume that there is some supernatural being to reach in from outside the universe and set all these things in motion. Once you open the floodgates for assuming figments of the imagination like that, you can not get anywhere, because anything goes.


And if you subtract your asserted-premise from a re-reading of my post, then you'll see that there's nothing wrong with my reasoning.


There is plenty wrong with it. Aside from the needless assumption above, the argument is not even deductively valid. Look at it again:

"Firstly; the beginning of time = the beginning of change.

Hence, you are in error by assuming that the beginning of time = the beginning of existence. Existence doesn't necessarily imply 'change'. And there is no logical-reason to label the idea of unchanging-Existence as an absurdity."

You say "hence" as though the second part follows from the first, when it obviously does not. This is a simple non-sequitir whose acceptance demands that we assume the existence of one of an infinite number of possible gods.


Hence, you are in error by assuming that the beginning of time = the beginning of existence. Existence doesn't necessarily imply 'change'. And there is no logical-reason to label the idea of unchanging-Existence as an absurdity.


What makes more sense:

1. To assume that the statements of GR and QFT (which make a strong inductive argument) are on the right track?

or...

2. To open the door for all manner of deities for which there is no evidence?

If you want to argue that The Mind existed in a changeless state, then I can just as well argue that the Easter Bunny always existed, hiding eggs for The Mind's children. Hey, you know what? That just might rescue your idea, because the Easter Bunny moves very fast, I hear. That's it! We have found the original source of motion for everything!

[drag]

Originally posted by Lifegazer
The prediction of orderly-perceptions does not prove that what we 'see' is real unto itself. It just proves that what we see is orderly and predictable. Your point is irrelevant.
Stop ! If you'll "listen" to yourself for just
a moment you'll see that you didn't say
CHOOSE - you said FAVOR. The ability of
science to predict clearly makes it favorable.
In this light my point is relevant.

Live long and prosper.

[Mentat]

Originally posted by heusdens
Something of infinite size that gets bigger still remains infinite size. But this does not contradict the idea that it DOES get bigger.
Even while it is infinite, it is made up of parts, and all it's parts grow. I would certainly call that getting bigger (at least you get that perception when measuring around within a finite portion of the space).



How much bigger is 1 than 1? If I were to add something to 1 and still get 1, I would have to be adding zero, because otherwise the result would be bigger than 1. This means that I can't add anything to 1, without getting a bigger number. There is no "bigger number" than infinity. You cannot add something to infinity at all, it makes no sense (because of previous reasoning on the number 1). It is as though all numbers are as 0 compared to infinity.

So, if I add zero (which = any finite number) to infinity, I have exactly the same amount of space left, and thus no expansion has taken place (obviously - since I'm adding zero).

[drag]

Originally posted by Tom
1. To assume that the statements of GR and QFT (which make a strong inductive argument) are on the right track?

How DO the statements of GR, QFT or "you name it"
actually EXPLAIN the Universe ?
(The easter bunny is just as good...[;)])

" The story so far:
In the beginning the Universe was created.
This has made a lot of people very angry and been
widely regarded as a bad move.
Many races believe that it was created by some sort
of God, though the Jatravartid people of Viltvodle VI
believe that the entire Universe was in fact sneezed
out of the nose of a being called the Great Green
Arkleseizure.
The Jatravartids, who live in perpetual fear of the
time they call The Coming of The Great White
Handkerchief, are small blue creatures with more than
fifty arms each, who are therefore unique in being the
only race in history to have invented the aerosol
deodorant before the wheel.
However, the Great Green Arkleseizure Theory is not
widely accepted outside Viltvodle VI and so, the
Universe being the puzzling place it is, other
explanations are constantly being sought. "
Douglas Adams

Live long and prosper.

[Tom Mattson]

Originally posted by drag
[B]How DO the statements of GR, QFT or "you name it"
actually EXPLAIN the Universe ?


They don't explain the universe, they describe it. The description is such that there is no such thing as motionlessness.

[heusdens]

Originally posted by Mentat
How much bigger is 1 than 1? If I were to add something to 1 and still get 1, I would have to be adding zero, because otherwise the result would be bigger than 1. This means that I can't add anything to 1, without getting a bigger number. There is no "bigger number" than infinity. You cannot add something to infinity at all, it makes no sense (because of previous reasoning on the number 1). It is as though all numbers are as 0 compared to infinity.

So, if I add zero (which = any finite number) to infinity, I have exactly the same amount of space left, and thus no expansion has taken place (obviously - since I'm adding zero).

Well I already accepted that point of view, but it is besides the point since infinity can't be measured anyway.

The only thing we CAN and DO measure however is the size of the metrics of the grid which is of finite propertions, which gives us the impression it is getting bigger.

[drag]

Originally posted by Tom
They don't explain the universe, they describe it.
The description is such that there is no such thing
as motionlessness.
Aah... But, if they only describe it - how
can they be a reason against other options
(you can always add one more discription) ?
To be such a reason they need to be more than
mere discriptions - they need to be explanations.
And them being explanations is not something you
can prove...[;)]

Live long and prosper.

[Mentat]

Originally posted by drag
That's why we have a wonderful thing called
estimate of probability(through science =
all knowledge + all experience).
(Not that you can ever calculate and be certain of
the exact probability - but as long as science
appears to "work" your estimates based on it could
work too.)

Live long and prosper.

Please explain your reasoning here, I entirely missed it's relavence/practicality.

[Tom Mattson]

Originally posted by drag
Aah... But, if they only describe it - how
can they be a reason against other options
(you can always add one more discription) ?


You don't change the description on a whim; it is dictated to you by data. I don't understand what you're getting at. Could you be less suggestive and more explicit?


To be such a reason they need to be more than
mere discriptions - they need to be explanations.
And them being explanations is not something you
can prove...[;)]


Of course, arguments from science are inductive in nature, and thus the premises do not absolutely support the conclusion. When someone wants to sieze upon the small uncertainty, then we have to look at what they want to replace it with.

In this case, it is proposed that the natural workings of the universe be replaced with an omnicient, omnipotent, omnipresent Mind that once existed in a changeless state, and has left no evidence of its existence except one fanatic who calls himself lifegazer.

[heusdens]

Originally posted by Tom
In this case, it is proposed that the natural workings of the universe be replaced with an omnicient, omnipotent, omnipresent Mind that once existed in a changeless state, and has left no evidence of its existence except one fanatic who calls himself lifegazer.

One? We might be happy if it was only one. The reality is that it is leaving and spreading around viruses in different flavours, that spread and copy themselves around, making people think they can act in the name of God. Sometimes in the forms of people flying with airplanes into buildings, others commanding airplanes to drop bombs on innocent people, etc. etc. The world is still full of it!

[Mentat]

Originally posted by Tom
You don't change the description on a whim; it is dictated to you by data. I don't understand what you're getting at. Could you be less suggestive and more explicit?



Of course, arguments from science are inductive in nature, and thus the premises do not absolutely support the conclusion. When someone wants to sieze upon the small uncertainty, then we have to look at what they want to replace it with.

In this case, it is proposed that the natural workings of the universe be replaced with an omnicient, omnipotent, omnipresent Mind that once existed in a changeless state, and has left no evidence of its existence except one fanatic who calls himself lifegazer.

If you think that Lifegazer is a fanatic, then your experience with fanaticism is very limited. Lifegazer is just dedicated to his idea (even if he/she did "take a break from it", earlier [:((] ).

[Lifegazer]

Originally posted by heusdens
They will see that the materialist claim, though it cannot be established with 100 % certainty, is true, and which is backed up with lots of scientific evidence in all fields of science,

Why is it so difficult to understand that science only confirms the order & predictability of our perceived-universe, and that this knowledge of order does not confirm anything about reality?
Here's your argument:-
1. The universe is ordered.
2. Therefore, the universe exists unto itself, beyond our perceptions.

I think you'll find that your conclusion is definitely a non-sequitor.
'Order' can equally-apply within images & thoughts (i.e., an ordered-mind). That's why you cannot say that science confirms reality. It does not. It just confirms order of perception.

[Mentat]

Originally posted by Lifegazer
Why is it so difficult to understand that science [B]only confirms the order & predictability of our perceived-universe, and that this knowledge of order does not confirm anything about reality?


So "percieved-universe" is entirely seperate from "reality"?

[Lifegazer]

Originally posted by Mentat
So "percieved-universe" is entirely seperate from "reality"?
The point is that you don't know what sort of reality you are perceiving. And just because our perceptions are ordered so that we can understand them, does not confirm the external nature of that reality - not in the slightest.
I thought that would be obvious considering that most of my arguments are founded upon the same existing-order of those perceptions. However, please note that my conclusion (about the mind) is built upon knowledge of this order also. And it is not just assumed, as is the case with any materialist you might encounter.

[heusdens]

Originally posted by Lifegazer
Why is it so difficult to understand that science only confirms the order & predictability of our perceived-universe, and that this knowledge of order does not confirm anything about reality?
Here's your argument:-
1. The universe is ordered.
2. Therefore, the universe exists unto itself, beyond our perceptions.

I think you'll find that your conclusion is definitely a non-sequitor.
'Order' can equally-apply within images & thoughts (i.e., an ordered-mind). That's why you cannot say that science confirms reality. It does not. It just confirms order of perception.

Perceptions are part of the reality, the mind is part of the reality, the source of perception is part of the reality.

[Lifegazer]

Originally posted by Tom
I did assume that in the second point, but not in the first one.

I have to disagree since you assumed that a static-unchanging existence would be without power to effect self-change.
By the way, don't you see the big-bang as an origin?

Let the set of all processes be represented by the function of time P(t). P(t) is static iff, for all n in Z+, d(n)P/dt(n)=0. If all the time derivatives are zero, then it is logically impossible for P to evolve in time, unless you assume something else. That is what you do, despite denying it here...

I do not just assume an origin for time. I argue that an origin is definite...
I think you once agreed with my argument that "existence is eternal", because you also agreed that 'absolutely-nothing' cannot be the cause of, or the abode of any proceeding existence.
However, when we discuss existence as a whole, we are not necessarily saying that it has also been in a state of eternal-motion (eternal change). Such a conclusion as that would require reasoned-support, for it is equally-possible that existence had/has a singular form, which means that fundamentally, existence was/is unchanging. In other words, the statement "existence is eternal" does not imply that existence has always been fragmented and changing. It may once have been (and in some sense, might still be) singular... indivisible... unchanging.
Thus, any philosophical argument about time must proceed to analyse the logic of causality and its effects, in order to ponder the nature of that time. In the argument I hinted-at above, I can show that no effect of time can claim to be the end of a specific causality-chain and also claim that the causality-chain is infinite. I argue that all effects must proceed from an original-cause, and that all causality-chains must be finite. I'll give a full explanation if anyone's interested.

It should also be pointed-out that your statement is actually irrelevant. You kind-of infer that there can be no processes of change, until change exists. That's all you're basically saying. And it's correct. However, your statement does little to address the issue of whether a state of changeless-existence was responsible for such a change. You just assume that it is impossible.
This appears to be short-sighted, especially when considering the fact that all change is self-imposed (comes from within existence). Time is self-change - of existence.

"Firstly; the beginning of time = the beginning of change.
Hence, you are in error by assuming that the beginning of time = the beginning of existence. Existence doesn't necessarily imply 'change'. And there is no logical-reason to label the idea of unchanging-Existence as an absurdity."

You say "hence" as though the second part follows from the first, when it obviously does not.

"it is equally-possible that existence had/has a singular form, which means that fundamentally, existence was/is unchanging."
It is a mistake to assume that existence = change.

This is a simple non-sequitir whose acceptance demands that we assume the existence of one of an infinite number of possible gods.

Actually, by reason, there is only one possible God. The omni-God.
The non-finite God.

[drag]

Originally posted by Tom
When someone wants to sieze upon the small
uncertainty, then we have to look at what
they want to replace it with.

In this case, it is proposed that the natural
workings of the universe be replaced with an
omnicient, omnipotent, omnipresent Mind that
once existed in a changeless state, and has
left no evidence of its existence except one
fanatic who calls himself lifegazer.
[:D]
I was kin'na talking about the timeless Universe
part, but this is funny.[:D] (No offense LG ! [;)])

Nevertheless, although it is correct to deny
the "apparent" evidence LG often presents without
a real basis, I think that you should always
remember that "small uncertainty" you yourself
mentioned. That "small uncertainty" is very useful
(I'm starting to sound like Wu Li [:D]) because
it commands respect towards any idea.

Besides, you have no way of quantifying it -
so maybe it's really very large...[;)]

Live long and prosper.

[Lifegazer]

Originally posted by drag
but this is funny.[:D] (No offense LG ! [;)])

None taken. I do need to work on getting a life beyond these
issues.[;)]

[drag]

Greetings !

LG,
How can existence be singular ?
The fact that we think/feel ANYTHING seems
indication enough that the Universe must be
a system of two or more components, in
addition to the inescapable conclusion
of existence itself of course. I would
even venture as far as to say that it
is an absolute fact that the Universe
is NOT singular.

Live long and prosper.

[Tom Mattson]

Originally posted by Lifegazer
I have to disagree since you assumed that a static-unchanging existence would be without power to effect self-change.


That's right, I assumed that lifeless matter does not make decisions. I assumed it because it is better than the opposite, namely that subatomic particles think for themselves.


By the way, don't you see the big-bang as an origin?


Sure, but certainly not a static origin.


I do not just assume an origin for time. I argue that an origin is definite...


You didn't even argue it: you just assumed it.


I think you once agreed with my argument that "existence is eternal", because you also agreed that 'absolutely-nothing' cannot be the cause of, or the abode of any proceeding existence.


Yes, I think that existence is eternal.


However, when we discuss existence as a whole, we are not necessarily saying that it has also been in a state of eternal-motion (eternal change). Such a conclusion as that would require reasoned-support, for it is equally-possible that existence had/has a singular form, which means that fundamentally, existence was/is unchanging.


The conclusion is reasoned. The time evolution of the state of a system is logically impossible from a static state, without some external impetus. But what is external to the universe? Nothing.


Thus, any philosophical argument about time must proceed to analyse the logic of causality and its effects, in order to ponder the nature of that time. In the argument I hinted-at above, I can show that no effect of time can claim to be the end of a specific causality-chain and also claim that the causality-chain is infinite.
I argue that all effects must proceed from an original-cause, and that all causality-chains must be finite. I'll give a full explanation if anyone's interested.


I suppose that will be your next thread then?


It should also be pointed-out that your statement is actually irrelevant.


Since my statement is the negation your statement, it is hardly irrelevant.


You kind-of infer that there can be no processes of change, until change exists. That's all you're basically saying. And it's correct. However, your statement does little to address the issue of whether a state of changeless-existence was responsible for such a change. You just assume that it is impossible.


Not at all. The time evolution of a system is described by a differential equation. It most certainly is not possible for a system to evolve in time if all its time derivatives vanish, and there is no source term.


This appears to be short-sighted, especially when considering the fact that all change is self-imposed (comes from within existence). Time is self-change - of existence.


Why is all change "self-imposed"?


"it is equally-possible that existence had/has a singular form, which means that fundamentally, existence was/is unchanging."
It is a mistake to assume that existence = change.


Why? It is the most sensible option, given the fact that:

1. The universe is in a state of change.
2. If the universe had ever been static, then it would still be static today.
3. Therefore, the universe was never static.

The only assumption involved here is that no supernatural influence intervened to act on a static system to make it dynamic.


Actually, by reason, there is only one possible God. The omni-God.
The non-finite God.

Why would that be?

[Lifegazer]

Originally posted by drag
LG,
How can existence be singular ?
The fact that we think/feel ANYTHING seems
indication enough that the Universe must be
a system of two or more components, in
addition to the inescapable conclusion
of existence itself of course.

We are always having thoughts and feelings about things which don't exist. Dreams & fantasies, for example. In this case, our perceptions are of a singular origin (ourselves).
You seem to be forgetting that thought/feeling are attributes of a singular being.

I would
even venture as far as to say that it
is an absolute fact that the Universe
is NOT singular.

You need to think about this more.
Existence is homogenous and harmonic, sharing singular-laws of existence. The evidence we have actually points to a singular source of change.

[drag]

Originally posted by Lifegazer
You need to think about this more.
Existence is homogenous and harmonic, sharing singular-laws of existence. The evidence we have actually points to a singular source of change.
But, something truely singular can not change.
Something truely singular has no traits, no
distinctions, no different points of any kind,
something truely singular can not possibly
account fot existence - whatever it really is.

Live long and prosper.

[Lifegazer]

Originally posted by Tom
That's right, I assumed that lifeless matter does not make decisions. I assumed it because it is better than the opposite, namely that subatomic particles think for themselves.

Subatomic-particles exist in time. They are part of the processes we are discussing. I am not suggesting that particles can think.

Sure, but certainly not a static origin.

Then you must believe that existence has eternally-changed, without an initial-cause; and that time is eternal.

The conclusion is reasoned. The time evolution of the state of a system is logically impossible from a static state, without some external impetus. But what is external to the universe? Nothing.

I do not argue for a cause outside/external to existence. I argue for a cause within existence itself. Existence is 'the whole', and any changes which occur must emanate from inside existence.
Thus, the time-evolution of the state of a system is not logically-impossible from a static-state, since the system can be affected by an internal impetus. Namely will.

I suppose that will be your next thread then?

I could do. I think it's worthy of a discussion. Maybe I'll make my point here, later.

Not at all. The time evolution of a system is described by a differential equation. It most certainly is not possible for a system to evolve in time if all its time derivatives vanish, and there is no source term.

Equations mirror time. They do not tell you whether time was created or not.

Why is all change "self-imposed"?

If 'existence' is taken as a whole, then what else can be responsible for the changes within it, other than itself?

Why? It is the most sensible option, given the fact that:

1. The universe is in a state of change.
2. If the universe had ever been static, then it would still be static today.
3. Therefore, the universe was never static.

'2' is assumed.

The only assumption involved here is that no supernatural influence intervened to act on a static system to make it dynamic.

What's a supernatural influence? One not understood by physics?

[Lifegazer]

Originally posted by drag
But, something truely singular can not change.
Something truely singular has no traits, no
distinctions, no different points of any kind,

Your first sentence is an assumption. Your second sentence only applies in a physical sense. Clearly, for example, a singular being can have as many personality traits as we do, and remain singular.

[heusdens]

Originally posted by Lifegazer
I think you once agreed with my argument that "existence is eternal", because you also agreed that 'absolutely-nothing' cannot be the cause of, or the abode of any proceeding existence.
However, when we discuss existence as a whole, we are not necessarily saying that it has also been in a state of eternal-motion (eternal change). Such a conclusion as that would require reasoned-support, for it is equally-possible that existence had/has a singular form, which means that fundamentally, existence was/is unchanging. In other words, the statement "existence is eternal" does not imply that existence has always been fragmented and changing. It may once have been (and in some sense, might still be) singular... indivisible... unchanging.

Here we go again. "singular existence" which is in a state of "no change", is inexistence, because there isn't change or motion, and existence implies motion and change. "Singular existence" is a rubbish concept, in fact I do not even understand what you mean with that. Just a play with words?
Can you clearify this? Can there be existence in a plural form? Can "everything" (the whole of existence) be plural?


Thus, any philosophical argument about time must proceed to analyse the logic of causality and its effects, in order to ponder the nature of that time. In the argument I hinted-at above, I can show that no effect of time can claim to be the end of a specific causality-chain and also claim that the causality-chain is infinite. I argue that all effects must proceed from an original-cause, and that all causality-chains must be finite. I'll give a full explanation if anyone's interested.

And here we go again, using Kant's argument, without mentioning that Kant also proved the alternative, that there can be no begin to time, can be proven....

It is because of the infinity of time is a contradiction that material existence evolves as an everlasting process, without begin or end!


It should also be pointed-out that your statement is actually irrelevant. You kind-of infer that there can be no processes of change, until change exists. That's all you're basically saying. And it's correct. However, your statement does little to address the issue of whether a state of changeless-existence was responsible for such a change. You just assume that it is impossible.
This appears to be short-sighted, especially when considering the fact that all change is self-imposed (comes from within existence). Time is self-change - of existence.

[b][quote]
"it is equally-possible that existence had/has a singular form, which means that fundamentally, existence was/is unchanging."
It is a mistake to assume that existence = change.

What a play with words here. "Existence in a singular form". Is there a plural form of existence? And I do not mean the trivial concept of there being two things, because even if there are two things in existence, or infinitely many things, or whatever, there is always only one existence.


Actually, by reason, there is only one possible God. The omni-God.
The non-finite God.

Actually, by reason, there isn't a God. There is only material existence in everlasting process of change, evolving, becoming.
Because there isn't any being outside of time and space.

[Tom Mattson]

Originally posted by Lifegazer
Subatomic-particles exist in time. They are part of the processes we are discussing. I am not suggesting that particles can think.


Well, you are suggesting that some thinking thing started it all into motion.


Then you must believe that existence has eternally-changed, without an initial-cause; and that time is eternal.


Yes.


I do not argue for a cause outside/external to existence. I argue for a cause within existence itself. Existence is 'the whole', and any changes which occur must emanate from inside existence.Thus, the time-evolution of the state of a system is not logically-impossible from a static-state, since the system can be affected by an internal impetus. Namely will.


And again, you have to assume a supernatural being with a will to accomplish this.


Equations mirror time. They do not tell you whether time was created or not.


The equation can and does tell me whether or not something should be moving, if the initial conditions are specified.


If 'existence' is taken as a whole, then what else can be responsible for the changes within it, other than itself?


How about the fact that it was always changing?


'2' is assumed.


No, '2' is observed. One would have to assume the existence of the will of a god to negate it.


What's a supernatural influence? One not understood by physics?

To be sure, there is plenty that is not understood by physics. But that is not what I mean. Supernatural means non-material, and thus not capable of interacting with the material world.

[Lifegazer]

Originally posted by heusdens
Here we go again. "singular existence" which is in a state of "no change", is inexistence, because there isn't change or motion, and existence implies motion and change.

Actually, 'nothing' equates to inexistence. If 'something' is shown to be eternally-existent, then even if it is in a static-state we still have a form of static-existence. What we don't have, is 'nothing'.

"Singular existence" is a rubbish concept, in fact I do not even understand what you mean with that. Just a play with words?
Can you clearify this?

A being. One being.

Can there be existence in a plural form?

Ultimately, no.

Can "everything" (the whole of existence) be plural?

Not as a whole, no. A whole is singular.

And here we go again, using Kant's argument, without mentioning that Kant also proved the alternative, that there can be no begin to time, can be proven....

Then I disagree with Kant, ultimately.

It is because of the infinity of time is a contradiction that material existence evolves as an everlasting process, without begin or end!

That's like saying "it is because infinite-space is a contradiction (because absolute-infinity = one/singularity), that material-existence can happen.".
Clearly, your reasoning is of the 8-pints-of-beer variety, here.

[Tom Mattson]

Originally posted by Lifegazer
That's like saying "it is because infinite-space is a contradiction (because absolute-infinity = one/singularity), that material-existence can happen.".


No, it is not. Not at all, in fact.

The conclusion comes not from the contradiction, but from the fact that the change we observe today could not have come from a static state. It says that, since both infinite time and finite time are equally absurd (and thus equally plausible), we should reject the one that contradicts the current state of the universe.


Clearly, your reasoning is of the 8-pints-of-beer variety, here.

You are the last person who should be saying that.

This is an argument that plenty of sober, rational people take seriously.

[Lifegazer]

Originally posted by Tom
Well, you are suggesting that some thinking thing started it all into motion.

You say that as though it was an absurd notion. What do you think we are?

And again, you have to assume a supernatural being with a will to accomplish this.

I'm not assuming anything. What I'm saying to you is that the concept of will is alive and kicking in this universe. Therefore, it is incorrect to imply that is not an inherent-attribute of existence itself. Your argument discards this attribute of the universe which is already evident within it.

The equation can and does tell me whether or not something should be moving, if the initial conditions are specified.

Equations apply to effects of time. They do not ponder time's own cause. Physical-equations cannot be used as evidence that time has no origin. I'm surprised you don't see that.

No, '2' is observed.

The observation of existence in motion is not a proof that it was never static.

One would have to assume the existence of the will of a god to negate it.

Or one could try and show that such a will is evidently real.

[Lifegazer]

Originally posted by Tom
The conclusion comes not from the contradiction, but from the fact that the change we observe today could not have come from a static state.

And I have shown you that this end-conclusion is an assumption which discards an attribute of existence (will), in order to make that conclusion.
Furthermore, if all changes within existence are shown to be self-changes (as they must be), then reason is justified in stating that change itself is dependent upon the whole self, ultimately. Thus, we cannot avoid the conclusion that change emanates from existence itself. Or: Existence itself is the cause of its own changing-state.
Given this, it is impossible to by-pass the will of existence, ultimately, as the cause of all change.

It says that, since both infinite time and finite time are equally absurd (and thus equally plausible)

You think that finite time is absurd because you cannot see a cause for it. But conceptually, will does fit the bill. And will does exist within existence.

You are the last person who should be saying that.

This is an argument that plenty of sober, rational people take seriously.
Agreed. Just having a bit of banter.

[Tom Mattson]

Originally posted by Lifegazer
You say that as though it was an absurd notion. What do you think we are?


We are thinking beings that came around a long time after the start of the universe, and thus could not have set it into motion. In fact, if it were not for the dynamics of particles of which we are made, we would not be here talking about this anyway.


I'm not assuming anything. What I'm saying to you is that the concept of will is alive and kicking in this universe.


Of course you are assuming something. You are assuming that some being willed the universe into motion, or maybe that it willed itself into motion, or whatever. There is no reason to think that.


Therefore, it is incorrect to imply that is not an inherent-attribute of existence itself. Your argument discards this attribute of the universe which is already evident within it.


It is evident as an emergent quality that has arrived on the scene much too late to have set the whole thing in motion.


Equations apply to effects of time. They do not ponder time's own cause. Physical-equations cannot be used as evidence that time has no origin. I'm surprised you don't see that.


Change occuring within time are exactly what I am talking about.

Once again, the argument is:

1. If a system is static, then it cannot become dynamic without external impetus.
2. The universe is a system.
3. There is nothing external to the universe to act as an impetus.
4. Therefore, the universe is either eternally static or eternally dynamic.
5. The universe is dynamic at this time.
6. Therefore, the universe must have always been dynamic.


The observation of existence in motion is not a proof that it was never static.


It is either proof that it was never static, or we have to assume some supernatural cause. The former is a strong inductive argument, the latter is pure speculation.


Or one could try and show that such a will is evidently real.

Good luck.

[Tom Mattson]

Originally posted by Lifegazer
I can show that no effect of time can claim to be the end of a specific causality-chain and also claim that the causality-chain is infinite.


I do not think you can do this and still cling to the idea of an omnipotent god in whose mind all things subsist. It is his omnipotence that will hang you in the end.

Let's assume your god exists...

God is omnipotent, meaning that he can do anything. Imagining an infinite number events occuring in an infinite amount of time is something. Since all events occur in god's mind (or imagination, if you will), then it is possible that an infinite number of events, ocurring in an infinite amount of time, have led up to now. On the other side of the coin, imagining a universe with a definite beginning is also something, so by the same logic god could also mave imagined that.

They are both equally plausible, and thus equally absurd!

As heusdens said, an attempt to get out of the contradiction he presented gets us into worse contradictions. Does this one do that? You bet it does.

Now, we not only have to accept the contradiction of existence, we also have to accept the additional contradiction of omnipotence. For example: "Can god create a jalapeno so spicy he cannot eat it?" Either way you answer, god cannot be omnipotent. Furthermore, we have to accept:

1. A being that has not left any evidence of its existence.
2. A mind that exists without a brain.

as well as a whole host of other issues that could be brought up if you really think about it.

[Lifegazer]

Originally posted by Tom
We are thinking beings that came around a long time after the start of the universe, and thus could not have set it into motion. In fact, if it were not for the dynamics of particles of which we are made, we would not be here talking about this anyway.

A 'property' cannot emerge within an enclosed system (existence) unless that existence already has the potential to do such a thing.
You don't get something from nothing, remember.

It is evident as an emergent quality that has arrived on the scene much too late to have set the whole thing in motion.

I never said that 'we' (concious awareness within time) created the universe. I implied that a form of awareness (self-awareness) existed before the onset of time, which has now (via life) re-emerged within changing-existence.

[Lifegazer]

Originally posted by Tom
I do not think you can do this and still cling to the idea of an omnipotent god in whose mind all things subsist. It is his omnipotence that will hang you in the end.

Okay, I'm listening...

Let's assume your god exists...

God is omnipotent, meaning that he can do anything. **Imagining an infinite number events occuring in an infinite amount of time is something.
Since all events occur in god's mind (or imagination, if you will), then it is possible that an infinite number of events, ocurring in an infinite amount of time, have led up to now.** On the other side of the coin, imagining a universe with a definite beginning is also something, so by the same logic god could also mave imagined that.

They are both equally plausible, and thus equally absurd!

God doesn't exist in time. God has an unchanging-existence, and is instantly omniscient. God resides at the eternal moment, and has all knowledge in that moment.
The error in your thinking is that you apply the logic of time to God's mind. You infer that God needs time to think about things. Yet if he is omniscient - as by definition - then God thinks/knows about everything in an instant.

As heusdens said, an attempt to get out of the contradiction he presented gets us into worse contradictions. Does this one do that? You bet it does.

We have to be careful when we apply reason to causality - especially in the case of God. I'm hoping that my above response will register as reasonable in regards to the definition of God itself. If so, then you'll see that your conclusion does not apply.

[(Q)]

Lifey

The error in your thinking is that you apply the logic of time to God's mind. You infer that God needs time to think about things. Yet if he is omniscient - as by definition - then God thinks/knows about everything in an instant.

It’s amazing how many times the word ‘logic’ gets bantered around but rarely used.

The claim that god is omniscient and that man has free will is an impossible combination. Omniscience means perfect knowledge of everything that is going to happen. Note that this isn’t clairvoyance but certain and perfect knowledge.

This means that from the moment of creation this god would have perfect knowledge of every event that is ever going to happen right until the end of the universe. This also means that every human event and decision will be perfectly pre-determined from the beginning of time.

If every such event is pre-determined than man cannot have free will to make any other choices other than that that has already been pre-determined. If man could make a decision that had not been pre-determined then that implies that this god would not know about it in advance in which case he could not be omniscient.

If this god is not omniscient then he cannot be omnipotent since if he is unaware of future events then he is clearly not all-powerful. So if he is neither omniscient nor omnipotent then clearly he isn’t a god.

However, if he is omnipotent and omniscient then man cannot have free will. If man has no free will then the claim that man can make a free choice to accept his savior or not is a mockery since those that do choose and those that don’t’ would have been predetermined by this god from the moment of creation. Or in other words he would have seemingly arbitrarily chosen some to go to hell and others to go to heaven. Man would have had no choice in the matter since these choices would have been made at the moment of creation before any man had ever made any choices.

[heusdens]

Originally posted by Lifegazer
God doesn't exist in time. God has an unchanging-existence, and is instantly omniscient. God resides at the eternal moment, and has all knowledge in that moment.

1. Anything that exists, exists in time
2. God does not exist in time.
3. Therefore, God does not exist.

# existenc in the above statements defined as material existence.

If God has an existence in a form of unchanging existence out of time and out of space, means that God belongs to a category of existence that is entirely part of the mind itself, and not 'something out there'.

-------------
Here is some application of some more usefull ideas on this.

premise: God does not exist in time

conclusion that must be true, based on this premise:
- God does not exist today.
- God did not exist yesterday.
- God does not exist tomorrow.
- God does not exist now.
- God does not exist now.
(some time elapsed after reading the previous one!)
- If God exist at any moment, then he exists in time, which is in flagrant contradiction with the premise that God does not exist in time.

Therefore:
- There is not any one moment in time that God existed or will exist.

And thus:
- God has no history, no past, no present, no future.

And:
- God is not omnipotent, cause if he is omnipotent, he could exist in time.

And also:
- God does not think, because he has no time to think.
- God did not create the world, cause he had no time for that. (humour!)

However, one can still claim the following (not necessarily true, but cannot be proven false)
- God is all eternity (since 'eternity' does not exist 'in time')
- God exists in eternity (since 'eternity' is not any single moment, but all of time)
- God is time
- God exists beyond time ('before' there was time,' 'after' there was time, or 'adjacent' to time)

[Lifegazer]

Originally posted by (Q)
It’s amazing how many times the word ‘logic’ gets bantered around but rarely used.

Okay, I'm listening again...

The claim that god is omniscient and that man has free will is an impossible combination. Omniscience means perfect knowledge of everything that is going to happen. Note that this isn’t clairvoyance but certain and perfect knowledge.

This means that from the moment of creation this god would have perfect knowledge of every event that is ever going to happen right until the end of the universe. This also means that every human event and decision will be perfectly pre-determined from the beginning of time.

I agree, except with the first sentence, which I'll deal with in a moment...

If every such event is pre-determined than man cannot have free will to make any other choices other than that that has already been pre-determined.

Okay. Let's see if I can explain your error here...
Firstly, we're discussing an omni-God, whereby all 'things' are finite-aspects of that God - God is everything (omnipresent). The mistake in your reasoning is that you fail to accomodate this into your conclusion...
Thus, whatever any 'thing' thinks or does actually emanates from God itself. Therefore, all events & thoughts are God's will.
Therefore, all events & thoughts are an expression of God's own free-will.
Hence, the thoughts and actions of mankind are an expression of free-will (Gods).
The above chain-of-logic necessitates that you see all things as God, and that you see all actions of those things as an expression of God's own will.
So; when you said "The claim that god is omniscient and that man has free will is an impossible combination.", you were wrong... since everything/action/choice is an expression of God's free-will.

By the way, what was your nick in pf-2?

[Lifegazer]

Originally posted by heusdens
1. Anything that exists, exists in time
2. God does not exist in time.
3. Therefore, God does not exist.

If God does exist, then he doesn't exist in time. He creates time (change). Number-2 agrees with this.
However, 'things' are what God creates, in time. God isn't one of those 'things', and you err when you imply that God is a 'thing' (as you did in premise-1). Consequently, your conclusion is an error.

# existenc in the above statements defined as material existence.

Exactly. So how can you apply material-logic to God?

[heusdens]

Originally posted by Lifegazer
If God does exist, then he doesn't exist in time. He creates time (change). Number-2 agrees with this.
However, 'things' are what God creates, in time. God isn't one of those 'things', and you err when you imply that God is a 'thing' (as you did in premise-1). Consequently, your conclusion is an error.

Indeed, God is not anything ('God is no-thing'), but God is a symbol, which belongs entirely to a category of the mind ('God is an invention of the mind'). God cannot create things in time, cause God does not exist in time.

Exactly. So how can you apply material-logic to God?

How can you apply non-material reasoning to the material world?

[(Q)]

Lifey

My dictionary shows omnipresent to mean – present in all places at the same time. With nothing to demonstrate how this could be possible the rational person should conclude that such a state is impossible.

So if god is everything and everywhere then our logic and reason are also part of god. Omnipresence seems to indicate that we could rename the universe and call it God. The effect seems to be the same; we are still left with our abilities to reason and deduce that there is no god.

By the way, what was your nick in pf-2?

I had not signed up here until after the 'renaissance' of pf-3. I came over with a few members of sciforums, which imo, is degrading rapidly.

[heusdens]

Does God have any relevance for the world?

Is the existence or non-existence or categorization of the type of existence of God, of any relevance for this world?

Does it make any thing better, look better, or feel better?

Do we realy need to even consider the relevance of the existence or non-existence or properties of an invented symbol of formal thinking, named God?

Some reasons for dismissing such non-sense discussions.

Whatever God is supposed to be attributed to, is of no relevance to the real world. Cause God (in this formal thinking) did not create any one moment of time, but created all of time in 'one shot', and things in time, all 'at once'. God can not influence anything existing in time cause God is not 'living' in time, so God is of no relevance whatsoever to the world.
Secondly, even the minimal existence potential that is available for God as a formal entity belonging to some category of the mind, does not attribuite any necessity to the existence of this entity, since the existence of the material world is not dependend on it.

This can be seen as follows. Using formal logic, and defining some approriate category of existence, one can state that either God is existing, or God is not existing. Suppose the latter, God is not existing. Is that of any relevance to the world? If God is said to have created time/change/matter, etc, would the inexistence of God lead to the inexistence of the material world? So, in other words, is there any formal necessity, is there any logical necessity, for the entity of God to be in existence, would we miss a part of understanding of the world, if we would state that God is not existing?

Another way of trying to answer is to raise the question why there is something, instead of nothing (see thread: The Fundamental Question). Would this question be unanswerable if God is not existing, would it be then that there would not have been a world? Although there are different ways of trying to answer the fundamental question, it does not lead us to the fact that God exists. But the existence of God is ultimately dependend on the fact that the existence of this entity is necessary for the world to exist. So if it can be argued that the existence of the world does not depend on the existence of God, we can state then that God does not even have the minimal requirerements for existence. God fails to exist then.

[Lifegazer]

C'mon guys. You were using logic to demonstrate that 'God' is not logical (within the context of your considerations).
You need to start understanding the concept of 'God' better (from a reasonable perspective of what such an entity should be like, regardless of its actual existence), before you can really attack the credibility of such an entity.
I think I should start a topic about this. I'll think about it.

[Tom Mattson]

Originally posted by Lifegazer
A 'property' cannot emerge within an enclosed system (existence) unless that existence already has the potential to do such a thing.
You don't get something from nothing, remember.


No one said anything about "something from nothing".


I never said that 'we' (concious awareness within time) created the universe. I implied that a form of awareness (self-awareness) existed before the onset of time, which has now (via life) re-emerged within changing-existence.

So, now we have to accept that "will" and "awareness" are just floating around out there in a disembodied spirit?

[Tom Mattson]

Originally posted by Lifegazer
God doesn't exist in time. God has an unchanging-existence, and is instantly omniscient. God resides at the eternal moment, and has all knowledge in that moment.


I never contradicted any of that.


The error in your thinking is that you apply the logic of time to God's mind. You infer that God needs time to think about things. Yet if he is omniscient - as by definition - then God thinks/knows about everything in an instant.


You are completely missing the point.

I have not made use of the premise that "god needs time to think about things". I made use of the premise that "we live in time".

Here it is again...

1. God is omnipotent.
2. The physical universe subsists in the imagination of god.
3. If a being is omnipotent, then it can do anything.
4. Imagining a universe that extends backwards infinitely in time is doing something.
5. Therefore, god can imagine a universe that extends backwards infinitely in time.

You are the one who said he is omnipotent. You can't take it back with some pseudo proof that time has to have a beginning.

[Lifegazer]

Originally posted by Tom
No one said anything about "something from nothing".

Then you should note the significance of 'will', 'reasoning-awareness', and 'emotion' existing now.
If they exist now, then we have to say that existence had the potential for will, reasoning-awareness, and emotion ever before they would become made manifest through humanity, and that these attributes have re-emerged through time.
I put it to you that no singular system can fragment in such a way that the aforementioned-attributes come to exist in fragmented/finite form, unless those very-same attributes already exist within the whole of existence itself.
I put it to you that if the parts of the whole can exhibit such attributes, then the universe as a singular-whole definitely must possess them.
I put it to you that the heart/source of finite and changing-existence, has will; knowledge; and is emotional itself.
It's a big thing to expect anyone to accept that, I know. But the parts of existence cannot exhibit mental-capability unless the whole of existence itself, as a singular and indivisible-source, already possesses such attributes.

So, now we have to accept that "will" and "awareness" are just floating around out there in a disembodied spirit?
The universe as a whole can be considered as the body of God. Disembodiment is an illusion of a finite-mind.

[Lifegazer]

Originally posted by Tom
You are completely missing the point.

I have not made use of the premise that "god needs time to think about things". I made use of the premise that "we live in time".

I thought you mentioned something about God having an infinite- ammount of thoughts within eternal-time, and in a specific order which relates to the causality-chain?
My point to you was that this is not the case. God has omniscience at every-instant... and therefore God does not think in time.
We, on the other hand, do, so it appears. Hence, the logic of causality within time can only apply to objects of time (including 'us').
That's why I judged your aforementioned-argument - which used the logic of God having an infinite-ammount of thoughts within eternal time - as not valid.

Here it is again...

Okay. I may have misunderstood you; so I'll have another close-look...

1. God is omnipotent.
2. The physical universe subsists in the imagination of god.
3. If a being is omnipotent, then it can do anything.

I'm okay with this, so far. Except that '3' needs the end-qualification of "God can do anything... within existence.

4. Imagining a universe that extends backwards infinitely in time is doing something.

Yes. God is imagining a universe (it's in God's mind).
I think I really do need to have a topic about ~The God of reason~. Have you considered what the word omnipotent means? It basically means 'all-powerful'.
I highlighted "all" because it is important: it means ~everything~ which exists within God.
So; let me start-off by giving you another example of a statement which seems to contradict God's power:- "Can God create things #outside# of himself? - No. Therefore, God is not omnipotent."
Upon first-glance, such a statement would seem to refute the actuality of 'omnipotence'. However, it does not. The reason being is that the question is "pooh", basically. It's a dumb question (and I have seen many such questions whilst I've frequented these forums).
... 'Omnipotence' equates to everything within God. It's a power over everything within God. It's a power to create things, within God. And since God is also omnipresent, then logic would dictate that there is not an external-reality to God. Hence this particular question is senseless. It does not apply to the reality of the situation.

I won't suffer your wrath by also calling this statement of yours "pooh"; but it does have a few major flaws, not unlike the above example:-
1. 'Imagination' is not reality. Not even God's imagination is reality. If we accept, for argument's sake, that God does exist; then God itself is reality. And any reality which is gleaned, other than 'God', is an illusion of reality.
2. Can God create the ~illusion~ of a reality which reflects your statement? Yes. Sure 'he' can. All he has to do is make the universe 'work' in such a way as though to reasonably-suggest (to all observers) that this is the case.
I'm not sure what God would have to do to create such an illusion. All I know is that this universe has failed to convince - for things are products - and no product can be manufactured by an eternal causal-process. There can be no end-product to an eternal-process.
If things which exist are the resultant-products of an eternal-chain, then these things represent an end to an infinite process, which has no beginning. And frankly, if it was God's intention to ~imagine~ such a reality, then God has failed.

5. Therefore, god can imagine a universe that extends backwards infinitely in time.

I'm okay with this. I'm quite sure that 'God' could imagine anything (create the illusion of anything). The point is that God has
not done so, in our case. Our reason has uncovered such a plot. Or rather, it should have done, by now.

You are the one who said he is omnipotent. You can't take it back with some pseudo proof that time has to have a beginning.

There's no such thing as pseudo-philosophy, Tom. There's only correct-reasoning, and incorrect reasoning. It's exactly like math: correct sums, and incorrect sums.

[Tom Mattson]

Originally posted by Lifegazer
Then you should note the significance of 'will', 'reasoning-awareness', and 'emotion' existing now.
If they exist now, then we have to say that existence had the potential for will, reasoning-awareness, and emotion ever before they would become made manifest through humanity, and that these attributes have re-emerged through time.


The only response I can think of is, "So what?" How does this fit into the context of the discussion here?


I put it to you that no singular system can fragment in such a way that the aforementioned-attributes come to exist in fragmented/finite form, unless those very-same attributes already exist within the whole of existence itself.


???


I put it to you that if the parts of the whole can exhibit such attributes, then the universe as a singular-whole definitely must possess them.


This reasoning is so bad that it has been given a name: The Fallacy of Composition

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/composition.html


I put it to you that the heart/source of finite and changing-existence, has will; knowledge; and is emotional itself.


Same fallacy, and just as easily dismissed.


The universe as a whole can be considered as the body of God.


It can also not be considered the body of god.


Disembodiment is an illusion of a finite-mind.

That's why I reject it.

[heusdens]

Originally posted by Lifegazer
I thought you mentioned something about God having an infinite- ammount of thoughts within eternal-time, and in a specific order which relates to the causality-chain?
My point to you was that this is not the case. God has omniscience at every-instant... and therefore God does not think in time.
We, on the other hand, do, so it appears. Hence, the logic of causality within time can only apply to objects of time (including 'us').
That's why I judged your aforementioned-argument - which used the logic of God having an infinite-ammount of thoughts within eternal time - as not valid.

Okay. I may have misunderstood you; so I'll have another close-look...

I'm okay with this, so far. Except that '3' needs the end-qualification of "God can do anything... within existence.

Yes. God is imagining a universe (it's in God's mind).
I think I really do need to have a topic about ~The God of reason~. Have you considered what the word omnipotent means? It basically means 'all-powerful'.

These posts about 'God' in the Philosophy section by now start to be irritating and annoying. There is a subsection of the Philospohy section entirely denoted for this kind of discussion.

[Tom Mattson]

Originally posted by Lifegazer
I'm okay with this, so far. Except that '3' needs the end-qualification of "God can do anything... within existence.


Why the qualification? If god can do anything, then he can define existence any way he wants.


I highlighted "all" because it is important: it means ~everything~ which exists within God.


Good, because I relied on that to show the incoherence of your position.


So; let me start-off by giving you another example of a statement which seems to contradict God's power:- "Can God create things #outside# of himself? - No. Therefore, God is not omnipotent."


The scenario I brought up was not nearly that severe. I did not ask you to consider something that is outside of god. I am talking about the mental act of imagining a universe with an infinite history. If god is omnipotent, then he should be able to do it.


1. 'Imagination' is not reality. Not even God's imagination is reality. If we accept, for argument's sake, that God does exist; then God itself is reality. And any reality which is gleaned, other than 'God', is an illusion of reality.


Again, "so what?"

I am talking about omnipotence here. You cannot claim that god is omnipotent, and then claim that he can't create (in his head) a universe that has infinite time, then he is not omnipotent.

The rest of your discussion takes us beyond the far-fetched into the downright looney. It is nothing more than wild speculation.

LG, you are the one who made this god up. Why don't you just tell us what he's like? There's no need for you to wonder about the "what-ifs". If it turns out to be inconsistent, you can always change your god when that becomes apparent.



There's no such thing as pseudo-philosophy, Tom. There's only correct-reasoning, and incorrect reasoning. It's exactly like math: correct sums, and incorrect sums.

When I said "pseudo proof", I meant "invalid logic". It is an argument that has premises and a conclusion, but whose premises do not necessarily imply the conclusion. The Fallacy of Composition is just such an example.

[Tom Mattson]

Originally posted by heusdens
These posts about 'God' in the Philosophy section by now start to be irritating and annoying. There is a subsection of the Philospohy section entirely denoted for this kind of discussion.

Amen.

This is the kind of junk that causes people to think that philosophy is for cocktail party chats. Insisting that god is a logical necessity, or talking about some silly notion as "the god of reason" is not philosophy.

[drag]

Greetings !

Tom and LG,
If I may interfere for the slightest moment
in your discussion, I would like to present my
view of your general argument.

Tom,
You clearly do not appear to recognize the basic
fact that your arguments are flawed. After all,
you recognized above that there IS always
a chance things are different. So why keep
trying to deny what you can not ?
(Are you a supporter of the "old" materialism ?! [:D])

Basicly, you are trying to judge about the
existence of the "game" from the "rules" of
the "game". And that is clearly impossible.
(Though I can never prove that either...[;)])

LG,
As usual you are trying to claim a whole lot
of strange stuff not observed by us to be
true so far. As usual, while it is impossible
to prove you wrong, your argument in favor
of things that are not supported by any
recognized proof is to say the least unreasonable.
What's the point ?
Your "proofs" were not accepted.

Basicly, you should learn the way of "proof
recognition and acceptance" which science
currently provides us and test your arguments
in light of this approach before displaying
your "proofs".


"In science one tries to tell people, in such a way
as to be understood by everyone, something that no
one ever knew before. But in poetry, it's the exact
opposite."
Paul Dirac

Live long and prosper.

[Tom Mattson]

Originally posted by drag
you recognized above that there IS always
a chance things are different. So why keep
trying to deny what you can not ?


I suppose you are referring to my discussion of inductive reasoning. Of course, I do not try to deny that things can be different than how I understand them. If so, then I could never accept a new theory.

The flipside to the "inductive logic" coin that you are not seeing here is "falsifiability". We hold to ideas about the universe until they are proven wrong and supplanted by better ones, recognizing all the time that the new ideas are only tentative. The guiding principle should be that the acceptance of new ideas must bring us closer to our experiences, not farther away from them.

In the case of arguing for a "god", there is no connection to our experiences whatsoever. Thus, we cannot say anything meaningful about it.

[drag]

Greetings Tom !
Originally posted by Tom
The guiding principle should be that the acceptance
of new ideas must bring us closer to our experiences,
not farther away from them.

In the case of arguing for a "god", there is no
connection to our experiences whatsoever. Thus,
we cannot say anything meaningful about it.

ONLY IF by "our experiences" you mean our
physical theories and ONLY the laws themselves
rather than any interpretations. And even then,
it's just a "likely" guiding principle.

Otherwise, some people might mistakenly
think you really mean our experiences, which
would be a rather ridiculous thing for them
to think because current theories like GR and
QM appear to go AGAINST our experiences.

Live long and prosper.

[Tom Mattson]

Originally posted by drag
ONLY IF by "our experiences" you mean our
physical theories and ONLY the laws themselves
rather than any interpretations. And even then,
it's just a "likely" guiding principle.


No, theories are not experiences. Theories are how we make sense of our experiences. Experiences are observations and measurements of things in the world. In regards to knowing the universe, such experiences are the only things to which we have access, and as such are the only things we can really know.


Otherwise, some people might mistakenly
think you really mean our experiences, which
would be a rather ridiculous thing for them
to think because current theories like GR and
QM appear to go AGAINST our experiences.


Arguments from ignorance are never valid, drag. If people choose not to become informed of experimental results, then that kills the discussion. Or, in some cases, makes it go on for 20 pages (but it is really dead by about page 2).

[drag]

Greetings Tom !
Originally posted by Tom
No, theories are not experiences. Theories are how we make sense of our experiences. Experiences are observations and measurements of things in the world. In regards to knowing the universe, such experiences are the only things to which we have access, and as such are the only things we can really know.

In that case, it sounds like a rather pathetic
guiding principle...[;)]

"When I examine myself and my methods of thought,
I come to the conclusion that the gift of fantasy
has meant more to me than my talent for absorbing
positive knowledge."
Albert Einstein

Originally posted by Tom
Or, in some cases, makes it go on for 20 pages
(but it is really dead by about page 2).
[:D]

Live long and prosper.

[Tom Mattson]

Originally posted by drag
In that case, it sounds like a rather pathetic
guiding principle...[;)]


I guess you've never heard of Karl Popper. He was the founder of this principle, and indeed of the modern scientific method (which I have sketched here). According to many, he is to philosophy of science what Einstein is to physics and Goedel is to logic. You really should read up on it, instead of snickering at it.

http://www.eeng.dcu.ie/~tkpw


"When I examine myself and my methods of thought,
I come to the conclusion that the gift of fantasy
has meant more to me than my talent for absorbing
positive knowledge."
Albert Einstein


And how many of these fantasies did he publish? Whatever he used as inspiration, or whatever it was that brought him happiness are one thing. The technical business of shedding falsified theories is quite another.

[drag]

Thanks for the link. [:)]

[heusdens]

Originally posted by Lifegazer
I do not argue for a cause outside/external to existence. I argue for a cause within existence itself. Existence is 'the whole', and any changes which occur must emanate from inside existence.
Thus, the time-evolution of the state of a system is not logically-impossible from a static-state, since the system can be affected by an internal impetus. Namely will.

A concept of will isn't applicable to the totality of things, and whatever we can consider will to be, it isn't something static, and ultimately dependend on already existing material world, including change, motion, etc.
Will in the context of a human mind, is always an envision of using some capacity (maybe future capacity) of own's own body or mind, will is not something that can exist on its own.

Within the context of a pure material world, will is for certain not something applicable, same as consciousness and like, they are mental capacities, functioning within the context of an existing mind and body, and not having meaning outside that context.

[heusdens]

Originally posted by Lifegazer
Equations apply to effects of time. They do not ponder time's own cause. Physical-equations cannot be used as evidence that time has no origin. I'm surprised you don't see that.


No, indeed, they come from another fact, namely that unchanging existence remains unchanging throughout all of eternity, which is for most people the reason to think that time did not have a beginning.
As for the use of mentioning terms like 'cause' you use it in a strange way, by saying time had a cause. Time for sure did not have a cause, because any causual connection assumes an already existent time. This comes from the ambiguity of language, when we say what is the cause for some mathematical expression to be true, we don't imply that the laws of causality govern mathematics, like 1 and 1 are causes for 2 to be their sum, as if mathematics would be the real world, with effects happening in time.

The efforts to explain existence, in terms of 'Unchanging-Existence' and things a like, are futile attempts to explain that there is an existing world, which does have an ordinary explenation. See for example the thread 'The Fundamental Question'.
Some of the ways to answer this question ("Why is there something, instead of nothing") point to the impossibility to answer the question, or to the fact that the question itself is meaniningless, or just a tautology ("something" has existence, whereas "nothing" has not).

[Steven Taylor]

Originally posted by heusdens
Well, what you state here is simply nonsens, cause material existence which does not implie motion and/or change, and thus requires time and space and time to exist, is a gross absurdity.

Change can not start from nothing, there is always a previous change. If there was at some time no change or motion at all, then where would that initial change/motion come from?

Your reasoning become very absurd. Time/change popping up from nowhere is as absurd as existence popping up from nowhere.
If time or change is said to have a beginning, then that itself was a change, at a time where it is said, there was no change. Which can for obvious reasons, not have been the case.
Because existence implies change and motion, there can't have been a state of existence in which there was no change or no motion. it would be an endless state of existence in which nothing whatsoever changes. What kind of existence would that be?

But with your stubborn kind of reasoning I guess you will never get at it.

I know I'm jumping aboard this thread a little late but--and I also know this may be a subject more appropriately addressed in the religion forum, but it follows naturally from the original topic--the notion of eternal chaotic inflation sounds an awful lot like the Buddhist conception of the Cycle of Samsara, in which the universe is a great wheel spinning eternally according the rule of cause and effect. It is this aspect of Buddhist belief that leads to the idea of rebirth and karma. The reasoning goes, the universe has always existed and will always exist, but as it spirals endlessly toward chaos, repeating, relatively orderly patterns sometimes emerge (this may seem a somewhat creative, interpretation of these ideas, but this interpretation is well supported by Buddhist texts). Consciousness, the argument goes, viewed on a higher-level is just such a pattern. And since all physical systems must in some sense be reproducible, why not consciousness too--even down to the level of individual experiences of consciousness?

I only offer these remarks because I believe that some aspects of Buddhist cosmology are remarkably sophisticated, and there are many volumes of keenly analytical debate on similar topics in Buddhist doctrinal texts.

[wuliheron]

Welcome to the forum Steven,

Buddhist cosmology does not necessarilly belong in the religion forum. Many Buddhists are philosophical rather than religious Buddhists. Essentially, they are Pantheists and can be Atheists or Agnostic who practice or believe in a simplified version of Buddhism.