Big Bang: Is Determinism Possible Beyond It?

[thomasxc]

whoa. that's hardcore criticism.

 

[robertm]

interestingly put.

Thank you, obviously I am just speculating here with a limited scope of information. I will have to do much more research before I can give a definitive opinion, but I think this view has some validity.

Basically my logic follows as such:

We can determine what has happened in a given system to a certain degree of certainty given enough information, but we can not always determine what will happen in certain systems no matter the amount of information, do to the nature of the system.

whoa. that's hardcore criticism.

In this case, I think it is unfortunately necessary...

 

[thomasxc]

each man is owed his own opinion. that's what this giant forum is for. well, i don't know nearly as much about this topic as others. i stumbled on determinism and ct only today. i don't think we can very well determine what will hapenn, esp. if things happen randomly. or did i just re-state the original thesis? lol

 

[thomasxc]

im not seeing how chaos theory is diff. from determinism. or does CT not necessarily say the future can be determined?im compfuzzled.

 

[Coldcall]

im not seeing how chaos theory is diff. from determinism. or does CT not necessarily say the future can be determined?im compfuzzled.

Yes its a bit confusing because the idea is that out of that chaos emerges order. Except the order itself is not a deterministic. Take our weather for instance; from a wider perspective one could say its an organised system beause we get weather "patterns". However they are changing patterns and even though one can say the overall system appears organised/ordered it would still be impossible to know if it will rain or shine in two weeks.

My advice is if anyone say we can predict this or that ask them for some evidence.

 

[robertm]

Funny, weather patterns are a particularly good example of what I tried to describe.

One could gather a range of data on a certain system (video, audio, radar, wind, temp...) and play it all in reverse and see exactly how the system evolves/evolved in the past, yet one could not necessarily gather the information and extrapolate it to future events. And thus, we have rainfall percentages not certainties.

A time evolving determinism... hhmmmmm...

To predict future states of a dynamic system evolving at the speed of light, one would be required to have time to gather the information (which can't be done >c) and to process the information (which also is limited by c). Thus, creating a circumstance in which the past evolves in a deterministic manner, yet the future is inherently unpredictable.

Sound reasonable/applicable to reality?

 

[Kenny_L]

If a thing was formed then it was not always there.

The thing here is that: you fail to understand that there's a possibility that energy was not always abundant. And you also fail to understand that there's a possibility that all resources (which includes energy and its possible constituents) was not always abundant/there/around. Plus you also fail to understand how something that you might claim to have been 'always there' could 'be there' without the need of being produced/formed. So basically, you're just as clueless as all of us when it comes to understanding how energy (etc) is/became abundant.

Your tendency to label paradoxes (system inconsistencies) as contradictions is fine, as long as you realize that the contradictions that you see are exactly what you should be expecting...because you (and us all) fail to understand how a big fat resource (energy etc) could be just 'plonked' there without being made/manufacturered/produced/formed etc.

Better still...could you please give us a theory about how certain 'resources' achieves/achieved the property of having always existed without the need for being formed or created by something else?

Go ahead...be my guest and give us your best shot.

 

[robertm]

The thing here is that: you fail to understand that there's a possibility that energy was not always abundant. And you also fail to understand that there's a possibility that all resources (which includes energy and its possible constituents) was not always abundant/there/around. Plus you also fail to understand how something that you might claim to have been 'always there' could 'be there' without the need of being produced/formed. So basically, you're just as clueless as all of us when it comes to understanding how energy (etc) is/became abundant.

I did not see anyone making definite statements about reality except for you Kenny. I am sure OoW keeps a keen eye out for future 'possibilities', as we all do.

Here is the problem kenny, you are asking that if one assumes that energy is infinite in time then one must answer as to an origin, or an 'abundance' (whatever technical term that is), when and only when one makes that assertion first, then the question ceases to have meaning. Surely you can see the case?

If one were to assume that energy is/was not conserved in time (infinite) then your question might have some validity. You are going to have to show some pretty convincing proofs against the universal conservation of energy on that one though. As far as we know at this point is history, the conservation of energy is one of the most repeatedly confirmed statements about reality. That is why they are "Conservation Laws" not "theories". Granted, most everything should be subject to speculation, good luck.

However, if your main question remains one of the nature of existence, then I am afraid that you will have to abandon that based on the premise above, and the conversations in the thread OoW linked to in an earlier post.

Also, could you please give us your theory about how certain 'resources' achieves/achieved the property of having always existed without the need for being formed or created by something else?

Go ahead...be my guest and give us your best shot.

All one must do is show that it is in an eternal state at any time of measurement. If that were the case, then it fully solves the problem/answers the question. "Origin" ceases to have meaning in an infinite system. The property of infinite is homogeneous along a given world-line.

Check out these videos Kenny, they are very reviling as to the nature of an infinity:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gh4F5BQ8hgw"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1tvU0XKVFTQ"- This one is a little more on the philosophical side, but still good.

Let me know what you think.

 

[Coldcall]

Funny, weather patterns are a particularly good example of what I tried to describe.

One could gather a range of data on a certain system (video, audio, radar, wind, temp...) and play it all in reverse and see exactly how the system evolves/evolved in the past, yet one could not necessarily gather the information and extrapolate it to future events. And thus, we have rainfall percentages not certainties.

A time evolving determinism... hhmmmmm...

To predict future states of a dynamic system evolving at the speed of light, one would be required to have time to gather the information (which can't be done >c) and to process the information (which also is limited by c). Thus, creating a circumstance in which the past evolves in a deterministic manner, yet the future is inherently unpredictable.

Sound reasonable/applicable to reality?

Sounds rights to me

Thats why i think that inherently its all unpredictable because all we need is one uncertain variable and that small change works its way through the system creating a big disparity between what we predicted and the observed outcomes.

 

[out of whack]

give us a theory about how certain 'resources' achieves/achieved the property of having always existed without the need for being formed or created by something else?

All you need is to know the meaning of the words you use. Something that was created has not always existed since it did not exist before its creation. So when you assert that something has always existed, what you assert is that it was not created. It's the same assertion. Conversely, when you insist that something was created then what you're saying is that it has not always existed.

 

[Kenny_L]

I did not see anyone making definite statements about reality except for you Kenny. I am sure OoW keeps a keen eye out for future 'possibilities', as we all do.

I have a good opinion Robert. I - too - also hope that OOW keeps an eye out for future possibilities too.

Here is the problem kenny, you are asking that if one assumes that energy is infinite in time then one must answer as to an origin, or an 'abundance' (whatever technical term that is), when and only when one makes that assertion first, then the question ceases to have meaning. Surely you can see the case?

Actually, Robert, when one assumes there is something, then - naturally - that something must have been formed or produced somehow or another. Don't worry about 'time' robert, because time is just a measurement that comes from physical movement, or cycles of physical movement. I'm just focusing on 'resources'. And the interesting thing/question is : how does a big fat piece of resource just get plonked there? So, basically, would you be bold enough to say that this resource is just plonked there without needing to be formed? I'm sure you'd look like an idiot if you tell everybody that such a resource is/was just plonked there without being formed, or without being produced. Because when somebody asks you how can something be plonked there without any links to anything else, then you'd just sit there like a clown...empty handed. I'm not saying you...but just giving an honest example.

Naturally, the whole thing is extremely interesting, and quite 'odd' because we don't know what is really going on. It is a true paradoxical situation. Which is why OOW finds contradictions...because we have a paradoxical situation on hand. Just that he/she still doesn't understand the situation.

However, if your main question remains one of the nature of existence, then I am afraid that you will have to abandon that based on the premise above, and the conversations in the thread OoW linked to in an earlier post.

My main question relates to...if you (and ooW) assume that a resource has always been around, then how do you explain HOW that resource has always been around - without the need for being formed or produced by something else. That is, you seriously believe that a fat resource is plonked there without any links or ties to anything else? You would very typically and necessarily assume that this resource is not plonked there (with no relation to anything else). And if you or OOW asks 'why' we would necessarily assume that the resource CANNOT be just plonked there without any relation to anything else, then it would mean that you're not thinking 'straight'.

On the other hand, if one tries to imagine how a resource could suddenly appear/pop out without needing to be made/formed/produced by anything else, then there is still no way to come up with any explanation anyway. Basically, we're all clueless about how the universe is here/abundant.

Check out these videos Kenny, they are very reviling as to the nature of an infinity:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gh4F5BQ8hgw"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1tvU0XKVFTQ"- This one is a little more on the philosophical side, but still good. Let me know what you think.

Thanks for those links Robert. They are great clips, and I reckon that Carl Sagan is a great person. I'm a fan of Carl Sagan actually. I have his cosmos collection on DVD.

 

[thomasxc]

lets say that some matter is transormed into energy. did that energy just come into existence, or was it technically always there?

 

[out of whack]

It makes no sense to 'plonk' what is already there. Simple as that. If it has always been there then - naturally - that thing was not 'plonked'. It's irrelevant to qualify the thing as abundant or rare, big and fat or thin and lean. When you assert that it was always there, the direct corollary is that it had no origin; you have to reach outside logic to say otherwise. Imagining that it comes from something else must be some sort of emotional feel-good fantasy because it seems to take a tenacious hold on certain people.

 

[thomasxc]

Better still...could you please give us a theory about how certain 'resources' achieves/achieved the property of having always existed without the need for being formed or created by something else?

Go ahead...be my guest and give us your best shot.

the term "origin" does not exist in a system which has existed forever.

 

[out of whack]

Just for fun...

Actually, Robert, when one assumes there is something, then - naturally - that something must have been formed or produced somehow or another.

Interesting. So if something must come from something then there cannot be an ultimate origin. Most interesting.

how does a big fat piece of resource just get plonked there?

This is a loaded question of course. It contains the gratuitous assumptions that some resource is big and fat and that it needs to be plonked. It must be just figurative because none of it is substantiated, just assumed.

So, basically, would you be bold enough to say that this resource is just plonked there without needing to be formed?

Oh no, I wouldn't dare say that. You cannot plonk something without forming it. That would be a logical contradiction that nobody here wants to make.

I'm sure you'd look like an idiot if you tell everybody that such a resource is/was just plonked there without being formed, or without being produced. Because when somebody asks you how can something be plonked there without any links to anything else, then you'd just sit there like a clown...empty handed.

Indeed, that would be absurd. Good thing we're not saying that. Now, if someone were to insist that existence had an origin and therefore came out of nowhere, they yes, they may look rather foolish.

I'm not saying you...

I wonder if you had anyone else in mind.

It is a true paradoxical situation. Which is why OOW finds contradictions...because we have a paradoxical situation on hand.

As we were saying, a paradox is something man-made. It arises when your logic is flawed. You can look it up in a dictionary.

Just that he/she still doesn't understand the situation.

This much is true. I'm not irrational enough to understand contradictory questions loaded with unsubstantiated assumptions.

if you (and ooW) assume that a resource has always been around, then how do you explain HOW that resource has always been around - without the need for being formed or produced by something else.

The explanation is right under your nose: it has always been around! If it's already there, there is no need to form it using something else. It's there already. Get it? It's already there. You don't need to plonk it. I know it's already there because you've just said that it's always been around. You're the one who just said so. Right there. In your sentence. You said it. Look again. Read it again. You've just said so.

That is, you seriously believe that a fat resource is plonked there without any links or ties to anything else?

No, of course not. If it's plonked then it's plonked from something. You cannot plonk without a plonker. If you say it was plonked, then it was plonked from something, it wasn't there before you plonked it. Right. If you plonk it, then clearly it wasn't there before the plonk. If you plonk it, it didn't always exist, it came from some sort of plonkogenic source that had to be there before the plonk. This is elementary plonkology.

You would very typically and necessarily assume that this resource is not plonked there (with no relation to anything else).

You got it. If it has always been there then it couldn't have been plonked. I agree.

And if you or OOW asks 'why' we would necessarily assume that the resource CANNOT be just plonked there without any relation to anything else, then it would mean that you're not thinking 'straight'.

Oops, you lost it. Back up a bit, you just had it a minute ago.

On the other hand, if one tries to imagine how a resource could suddenly appear/pop out without needing to be made/formed/produced by anything else, then there is still no way to come up with any explanation anyway.

Right again, as previously confirmed above. If it appeared then it must have been made/formed/produced. When you make/form/produce something then, well, it appears, perhaps abundantly. First it isn't there, then it appears. If it was there in the first place then it couldn't possibly appear.

Basically, we're all clueless about how the universe is here/abundant.

Yeah. We're clueless about what existed before existence. We're clueless about when time began. We're clueless about all circular and/or contradictory questions that make no sense. But we do pretty well with coherent questions.

Hey, logic didn't work. Maybe humor will.

 

[robertm]

This is elementary plonkology.

Exactly my point!

Hey, logic didn't work. Maybe humour will.

Well it's always worth a try. I am starting to run out of explanatory techniques here though!

I'm rooting for you Kenny! You can do it!

 

[Kenny_L]

It makes no sense to 'plonk' what is already there. Simple as that. If it has always been there then - naturally - that thing was not 'plonked'. It's irrelevant to qualify the thing as abundant or rare, big and fat or thin and lean. When you assert that it was always there, the direct corollary is that it had no origin; you have to reach outside logic to say otherwise. Imagining that it comes from something else must be some sort of emotional feel-good fantasy because it seems to take a tenacious hold on certain people.

Imagining it was already/always there is an emotional feel-good fantasy. Which is why there is a paradoxical situation on hand. We won't allow you to deviate from the fact that energy is a 'resource', and according to logic, resources are formed...in some way or another. You already know this, but you just choose to stay away from it. If you reckon that a resource (energy and company) was never produced by anything, then you're not much better than religious debaters that reckon that something of theirs was 'always hanging around'. My point of view comes from knowing that a resource must be formed, and despite what you think about 'infinity', this infinite system must have an origin. And if it sounds like a contradiction to you, then you're just barking up the tree of a paradox, which is perfectly natural.

 

[out of whack]

Imagining it was already/always there is an emotional feel-good fantasy.

It was your own premise.

Which is why there is a paradoxical situation on hand.

No, that premise is not the reason for the logical contradiction. Despite your characterization of it, it's a perfectly consistent premise to assert that something has always existed, it contains no paradox. The paradox arises when you add the impossibility that what was already there also had a beginning. This is what causes the problem. You can't have it both ways.

We won't allow you

Huh? You must be royalty to speak of yourself in the plural form. Surely you noticed how nobody else on this scientific forum has presented arguments in support of your untenable position. I'm sure you would get better numbers on a psychic or mystic forum.

to deviate from the fact that energy is a 'resource',

I never disputed or even addressed your definition of energy as a resource, let alone deviate in some way... You're imagining things. Again. Besides, you didn't even define what you mean by 'resource' for the purposes of this discussion. We shan't get too precise, shall we.

and according to logic, resources are formed...in some way or another.

Baloney. Logic says no such thing. Ask anyone who has completed Logic 101. You have to establish premises first, which you have not done. Basically, you are blowing thin smoke without knowing it.

My point of view comes from knowing that a resource must be formed,

You don't even know that. If you have proof, show it. I will of course remember that you have already dismissed scientific theories as "just theories" in previous posts so you will need something pretty strong to regain any credibility.

and despite what you think about 'infinity', this infinite system must have an origin.

Complete nonsense once again. It's not what "I" think of infinity that matters, it's what the word stands for to everyone's understanding of the term.

And if it sounds like a contradiction to you, then you're just barking up the tree of a paradox, which is perfectly natural.

If it's a contradiction then it's nonsense. If you believe it then you're cognitive system is failing you. You will be well advised to start paying more attention to what others are saying instead of insisting that nonsense makes sense.

 

[robertm]

Imagining it was already/always there is an emotional feel-good fantasy. Which is why there is a paradoxical situation on hand.

Quite to the contrary, the paradox arises only when one takes your position. It is called an 'infinite regress'. Look see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infinite_regress"

...and despite what you think about 'infinity', this infinite system must have an origin.

I think that you have not yet grasped the meaning and implications of infinity. This statement clearly shows your misunderstanding.

Infinity- (∞) quantity whose value is unbounded
Unbounded- having no boundaries or limits
Boundary- Something that indicates a border or limit.

Would you not say that an origin is a boundary? Well, that is a loaded question, of course an origin is a boundary. It marks where some event begins, and another ends.

Therefore, since infinity is that which has no boundary, no infinity can have the quality of being bound. Thus, it cannot have the quality of origin.

That is how your statement and your previous questions are inherently flawed.

And if it sounds like a contradiction to you, then you're just barking up the tree of a paradox, which is perfectly natural.

The statement that your queries are contradictory in their nature is not one of opinion. It is one of clear logic based on the complete understanding of the terms invoked.

I believe I am correct in stating that all of us are here to gain a better understanding of reality that we experience through stimulating discussion and the solid use of logic and reason. Not to run and hide in the face of a difficult question, which is what you are accusing several members of. We would not still be having this discussion if that were the case; please at least give credit where it is due.

No one has claimed, as of yet, to know any absolute fact about the nature of the fundamental constituents of the universe. No one has claimed that the conservation of energy is 100% fact, simply very well accounted for. No one has even claimed that energy dose not have an origin, simply that on some fundamental level, it most likely does not.

All that I object to is the way in which you ask a meaningless question.So, now that we have fully hijacked this thread, what do you think about the OP's query? The deterministic/non-deterministic nature of reality?

 

[Kenny_L]

Quite to the contrary, the paradox arises only when one takes your position. It is called an 'infinite regress'. Look see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infinite_regress"

I think that you have not yet grasped the meaning and implications of infinity. This statement clearly shows your misunderstanding.

robert...I have definitely grasped the definition of infinity. The issue here is not our understanding of infinity, but the paradoxical situation. The paradox is : things are always created...but yet, some people assume that the 'universe' is 'infinite'. So here, there is a direct clash of conditions. And nobody knows what is the deal with this situation.

That is how your statement and your previous questions are inherently flawed.

My statements aren't flawed robert. I'm only summarising the paradoxical situation...that is, 'physical things' must be made/formed ... in my opinion, this is a FACT. The other thing is, some people believe that the universe was always here, but neglecting the FACT that physical things MUST be formed in one way or another. I don't believe even for 1/googolplex of a second that the universe was NOT formed or created. In other words, I don't believe that the universe (it's resource components) was always 'around'. Nevertheless, the universe IS here, and hanging around, which makes things very interesting indeed. Talking about 'infinity' is meaningless, although infinity is very interesting. Talking about how a universe (resources) IS/BECAME abundant is the most interesting though. And nobody knows how (as already mentioned - it is a great puzzle, probably the greatest).

The statement that your queries are contradictory in their nature is not one of opinion. It is one of clear logic based on the complete understanding of the terms invoked.

I already mentioned that it is natural for you to see contradictions, because...afterall...I'm talking in the area of a paradoxical situation. It's just that I understand both sides of the story, and both sides meet up at the paradox.

The other thing is...I recall that you mentioned something about 'energy being infinite in time'...or you were quoting this from somewhere. Now, that statement there is quite meaningless...otherwise ambiguous. Do you mean to say from this statement that there is infinite amount of energy in the whole 'universe'? When I mean universe, I mean the whole package...including what happened before/after the 'big bang' thing, and whatever extra dimensions are out there. Or do you mean to say that energy has always existed?

 

[out of whack]

things are always created

You keep asserting without anything to back it up. Without that, it's just an unfounded opinion, nothing more than an intuition. You put all your faith in a hunch that you refuse to justify.

'physical things' must be made/formed ... in my opinion, this is a FACT.

An opinion does not make fact. Try to back it up with something. Shouting it does not make it true.

The other thing is, some people believe that the universe was always here, but neglecting the FACT that physical things MUST be formed in one way or another.

In other words they neglect your opinion, which you state without proof. If you at least presented something, anything at all for consideration. Nothing so far, just repetition.

I don't believe that the universe (it's resource components) was always 'around'.

Then, at long last, you are starting to be coherent. If you believe that the universe was created and that it was not always around then you no longer have a paradox. Congratulations. Do you see the difference compared to what you were saying only yesterday? I think you have indeed made some progress. Not that we are out of the woods just yet... you still didn't prove that your most recent position is the correct one.

I'm talking in the area of a paradoxical situation.

Remember that a paradox is not a good thing. Giving logical contradictions a pretty name like this does not automatically validate it, it remains nonsense. Take Zero's paradox as an example. You know and I know and everybody knows that a claim that you can never touch an object is pure crap. Anyone who has ever hit his shin on the coffee table knows this. But Zeno formulated it in a way that made you think it made sense. Some people could somehow be mystified and believe this nonsense. They knew it was wrong but it sounded so good that you couldn't help thinking it could also be true at some level. Well, it isn't. It remains nonsense, but well disguised nonsense. You need to apply rigorous logic to all elements of the claim to reveal the sham. So when you see a paradox, don't think it's a cool thing or a great truth. Recognize it for what it is, an error, and work to resolve it.

 

[robertm]

Emphasis added.

things are always created...but yet, some people assume that the 'universe' is 'infinite'.

No one is assuming anything. I have said several times that any respectable scientist does not claim absolutes about reality, that is what you have done.

'physical things' must be made/formed ... in my opinion, this is a FACT. The other thing is, some people believe that the universe was always here, but neglecting the FACT that physical things MUST be formed in one way or another. I don't believe even for 1/googolplex of a second that the universe was NOT formed or created. In other words, I don't believe that the universe (it's resource components) was always 'around'.

Like I said, the disagreement is about the logic of your question, not an argument about what the facts of the universe may be. If you want to have an opinion on the universe about conditions that the smartest people in the world have not yet been able to figure out, be my guest. But how can you make absolute statements? I never contested your opinion (yet) just your logic pertaining to the question you keep asking. You need to rethink your questions.

Nevertheless, the universe IS here, and hanging around, which makes things very interesting indeed.

Agreed! That's why I'm here!

Talking about 'infinity' is meaningless, although infinity is very interesting. Talking about how a universe (resources) IS/BECAME abundant is the most interesting though. And nobody knows how (as already mentioned - it is a great puzzle, probably the greatest).

How is talking about the possibility of infinities existing in reality meaningless!? And your right nobody does know exactly how the universe came about. That is why we are talking about it here, but one cannot make absolute assumptions when we really do not know.

The other thing is...I recall that you mentioned something about 'energy being infinite in time'...or you were quoting this from somewhere. Now, that statement there is quite meaningless...otherwise ambiguous. Do you mean to say from this statement that there is infinite amount of energy in the whole 'universe'? When I mean universe, I mean the whole package...including what happened before/after the 'big bang' thing, and whatever extra dimensions are out there. Or do you mean to say that energy has always existed?

My statement was a reply to your question before you had switched from saying from where did 'energy' originate to saying 'resources'. And the statement is meant to say that if energy really is conserved, then it's world line may be infinite along the time axis. Obviously I was merely speculating on a possibility based on an assumption.

 

[Kenny_L]

Then, at long last, you are starting to be coherent. If you believe that the universe was created and that it was not always around then you no longer have a paradox.

No ...OOW... you're wrong. This just goes to show that you don't understand the situation. If I believe that the universe was created/formed and that it was not always around, then there lies a great question... how did it become abundant - given that the 'universe' the I'm talking about includes all resources. In layman's terms so that you might understand, if there are no resources to 'start' off with, then you would have nothing to make anything with. And also, if there is no motion or transitions of resources (or anything else) to start with, then you would have no 'trigger' to do anything.

So there is a paradoxical situation...because if you choose to start with 'nothing' to begin with...and in this case, nothing means the cancellation of whatever things you can think of (and even whatever you haven't been able to think of yet...including your definition of something...and even your definition of nothing...etc)...then you begin with a 'nothing' slate. And from this 'nothing' slate, you would naturally believe that nothing could come from it...no resources, no movements, no transitions ...etc...in other words 'nothing'.

However, because the universe is abundant, then it is very interesting how resources/material/energy could be available...basically, you get resources (ie something) from 'nothing'. This is what I mean by 'popped out', or just 'plonked' there...like, just formed and also 'triggered' to form from absolutely nothing...even from a state where a 'trigger' doesn't even exist. But, nevertheless, there was a trigger...somehow...which leads to a paradox.

Anyway, if you still can't understand what I'm saying, then maybe you can understand in some years to come.

 

[out of whack]

It is becoming apparent that you don't even know what your position is. You had said: "I don't believe even for 1/googolplex of a second that the universe was NOT formed or created. In other words, I don't believe that the universe (it's resource components) was always 'around'." Today, you describe how this is impossible. Basically, you are talking like a fool.

 

[Kenny_L]

It is becoming apparent that you don't even know what your position is. You had said: "I don't believe even for 1/googolplex of a second that the universe was NOT formed or created. In other words, I don't believe that the universe (it's resource components) was always 'around'." Today, you describe how this is impossible. Basically, you are talking like a fool.

Actually, you are thinking like a fool. I mentioned on many occasions that we all don't know what the deal is with the universe. I don't believe that the universe was NOT created, and at the same time, it appears that the universe 'popped out' from 'nothing'. Now, how that happened...is beyond me.

Just because I'm approaching things from different viewpoints at the same time, it doesn't mean that I don't know my position at all. I know my position...you just don't understand the paradoxical situation. The deal is that, whichever stance you take on this matter, it leads to inconsistencies in our human logic. It even applies to you...but the only thing is that you fail to see all sides of the situation.

 

[out of whack]

The deal is that, whichever stance you take on this matter, it leads to inconsistencies in our human logic.

You have taken various stances that are indeed, as you say, inconsistent. You may prefer the word 'paradoxical'. (I say garbage, you say trash...) But one consistent stance without a paradox is the one you reject. You sure enjoy contradictions. Have fun with that.

 

[robertm]

Just because I'm approaching things from different viewpoints at the same time, it doesn't mean that I don't know my position at all.

Kenny, you are blatantly doing the opposite. I made bold the many parts of your reasoning in which you invoke absolutes in your opinions. I did not imagine that more emphasis would be needed.

The deal is that, whichever stance you take on this matter, it leads to inconsistencies in our human logic.

No it does not. If you take the stance of reality being in an eternal state, the paradox disappears. Your human logic has not been able to grasp that yet. I am not saying that it is the case, just that if you were to assume, then indeed the contradictions fall apart. Maybe you should seriously consider your mode of reasoning. Write down the steps in sequential order that you take to come to your conclusions and see if you can spot any flaws.

Obviously you are not going to take it from anyone else, so figure it out yourself.

It even applies to you...but the only thing is that you fail to see all sides of the situation.

It is as if you are looking in a mirror. You can see the blemish on the face, yet you insist that the reflection is not your own.




I really am seeing very little progress in this discussion. Though I am thoroughly enjoying it, I believe we may be risking the locking of this thread.

 

[out of whack]

I really am seeing very little progress in this discussion. Though I am thoroughly enjoying it, I believe we may be risking the locking of this thread.

Uh-hu. I too found it an interesting exercise for a while. But since paradox boy has started to take logical contradictions as a virtue, it has turned from intellectually challenging to plain stupid.

 

[Kenny_L]

Uh-hu. I too found it an interesting exercise for a while. But since paradox boy has started to take logical contradictions as a virtue, it has turned from intellectually challenging to plain stupid.

The only problem, OOW, is that you don't understand the paradoxical situations. I have no problem with the paradox. I only find it interesting. And I also find it interesting how you brand things that are too intellectually challenging for you as 'meaningless'.

 

[out of whack]

The only problem, OOW, is that you don't understand the paradoxical situations.

I actually explained them to you. Read back, you apparently have a short memory as well.

I have no problem with the paradox.

That's the problem.

I only find it interesting.

I believe you. Rational people find contradictions irrational but dreamers are fascinated by them.

And I also find it interesting how you brand things that are too intellectually challenging for you as 'meaningless'.

See, nonsense is meaningless. It's cool if you find the epithet interesting. But no intellectual challenge remains in your posts now that you've started to absolve nonsense by calling it a paradox.