Religion and Ethics Forum
Religion and Ethics Discussion => Philosophy, in all its guises. => Topic started by: Walt Zingmatilder on August 06, 2024, 08:05:31 AM
-
Came across some new thinking on the existence of actual, metaphysical infinities as opposed to abstract mathematical infinities.
Apparently certain infinities throw up contradictions, multiple solutions etc.
Since these are not seen in concreto as it were, or in physical reality, it gives us grounds to doubt the existence of those infinities.
-
Link please
-
Came across some new thinking on the existence of actual, metaphysical infinities as opposed to abstract mathematical infinities.
Apparently certain infinities throw up contradictions, multiple solutions etc.
Since these are not seen in concreto as it were, or in physical reality, it gives us grounds to doubt the existence of those infinities.
Link please
^^^ What splash said.
Also, calculus assumes an infinity of points between any two other points (the continuum), and that isn't even the smallest infinity.
-
Link please
https://youtu.be/7j4qJIWbfZ0?si=c7Jy1XI95NydyKiY
-
I think the arguments have been along the lines of infinities cause contradictions and therefore cannot be and the opposing there is no reason to believe that there is anything preventing them from being actual.
A revised line is that the contradictions are not observed in actuality and therefore the existence of those infinities is doubted.
Presumably, as an example, if there could be a Hilberts hotel then there would be an infinite number and yet alas nary a one.
-
^^^ What splash said.
Also, calculus assumes an infinity of points between any two other points (the continuum), and that isn't even the smallest infinity.
I don't think any one is arguing that infinities do not exist in maths or the abstract and a platonic might argue that maths is real but are we actually observing infinitesimal small points or even distances. I'm not sure.
You'd have to examine each infinity on it's own merits and see what contradictions are actually observed and evidenced.
-
https://youtu.be/7j4qJIWbfZ0?si=c7Jy1XI95NydyKiY
Oh dear, a video from a Christian apologist. The first mistake is that the Hilbert Hotel (yawn!!!) is not contradictory, just counterintuitive, compare with the continuum. There is literally the same 'number' of points in the interval -∞ to +∞ as there are between 0 and 1. This is not a contradiction.
You couldn't do the mathematics of transfinite numbers if there were actual logical contradictions involved because you'd end up being able to prove literally anything (The Principle of Explosion (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_explosion)).
If there are no logical contradictions, then there can be no contradictions in physical realisation (even if it's impossible in practice, like an infinite hotel).
There are many scientific hypotheses that involve real infinities in past and future time, and nobody throws them out with the absurd dogma of "you can't have real infinities" except people who disagree on religious grounds because it spoils their arguments. What's more, the limited evidence we have actually suggests infinite space. As an aside, there are also hypotheses that say past likelike paths are cyclical and lead back to the present.
To go back to the video, some credit is due for pointing out some of the more obvious objections to the KCA, but I skipped through to the relevant points according to the table of contents, and then lost interest when he started wittering on about time travel. If you think there is some other stunning point later on, please point out where. I'm not spending a full half hour of my time watching yet another apologist make the same old mistakes.
-
Oh dear, a video from a Christian apologist. The first mistake is that the Hilbert Hotel (yawn!!!) is not contradictory, just counterintuitive, compare with the continuum. There is literally the same 'number' of points in the interval -∞ to +∞ as there are between 0 and 1. This is not a contradiction.
You couldn't do the mathematics of transfinite numbers if there were actual logical contradictions involved because you'd end up being able to prove literally anything (The Principle of Explosion (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_explosion)).
If there are no logical contradictions, then there can be no contradictions in physical realisation (even if it's impossible in practice, like an infinite hotel).
There are many scientific hypotheses that involve real infinities in past and future time, and nobody throws them out with the absurd dogma of "you can't have real infinities" except people who disagree on religious grounds because it spoils their arguments. What's more, the limited evidence we have actually suggests infinite space. As an aside, there are also hypotheses that say past likelike paths are cyclical and lead back to the present.
To go back to the video, some credit is due for pointing out some of the more obvious objections to the KCA, but I skipped through to the relevant points according to the table of contents, and then lost interest when he started wittering on about time travel. If you think there is some other stunning point later on, please point out where. I'm not spending a full half hour of my time watching yet another apologist make the same old mistakes.
I want to focus on infinities. No one is denying the maths works or that contradictions thrown up by them can't constitute valid conclusions or even that there may be no logical barrier to their being.
The issue is are these contradictions evidenced in concreto?
If not then are we not justified in being a-infinitist?
-
I want to focus on infinities. No one is denying the maths works or that contradictions thrown up by them can't constitute valid conclusions or even that there may be no logical barrier to their being.
The issue is are these contradictions evidenced in concreto?
If not then are we not justified in being a-infinitist?
What contradictions? There simply aren't any.
-
What contradictions? There simply aren't any.
So you are saying that there are no mathematical infinities that produce multiple conclusions?
-
What contradictions? There simply aren't any.
https://reasons.org/explore/blogs/impact-events/do-infinities-produce-contradictions
-
So you are saying that there are no mathematical infinities that produce multiple conclusions?
I said there were no contradictions. You really need to tell us exactly what you think the contradictions are. "Multiple conclusions" is ambitious. For example, you can have multiple solutions to an equation without contradiction.
https://reasons.org/explore/blogs/impact-events/do-infinities-produce-contradictions
Yet another faith-based site and somebody else who doesn't know what they're talking about. We get another yawn inducing reference to Hilbert’s Hotel, with some 'absurdities'. What somebody thinks is absurd is not necessarily contradictory. He even ends by contradicting himself by referring to an infinite God.
This points out another silly aspects of religion rejecting infinities for the universe, while accepting them for 'God'. Special pleading fallacy.
-
Yet another faith-based site and somebody else who doesn't know what they're talking about. We get another yawn inducing reference to Hilbert’s Hotel, with some 'absurdities'. What somebody thinks is absurd is not necessarily contradictory. He even ends by contradicting himself by referring to an infinite God.
This points out another silly aspects of religion rejecting infinities for the universe, while accepting them for 'God'. Special pleading fallacy.
Actually, you need to read the whole article, as does Vlad. It explains why the absurdities don't really exist (subtraction is not well defined for infinities). It's arguing our side of the point.
-
https://reasons.org/explore/blogs/impact-events/do-infinities-produce-contradictions
You didn't read the article to the end, did you?
-
Actually, you need to read the whole article, as does Vlad. It explains why the absurdities don't really exist (subtraction is not well defined for infinities). It's arguing our side of the point.
My bad. Why did I assume Vlad had read what he posted. (https://i.imgur.com/POlXATR.jpeg)
-
My bad. Why did I assume Vlad had read what he posted. (https://i.imgur.com/POlXATR.jpeg)
Don't feel bad. We all overestimate the opposition from time to time.
-
:-*
Actually, you need to read the whole article, as does Vlad. It explains why the absurdities don't really exist (subtraction is not well defined for infinities). It's arguing our side of the point.
I think the point is he admits to contradictions where there is more than one conclusion possible.
All you have today is provide a physical example of such a situation. Similarly you are proposing subtraction as not well defined for infinities. You need to show this in the physical realm to justify showing that infinities are real.
-
You didn't read the article to the end, did you?
How does it detract from his earlier admission with working out
That Infinities can provide multiple conclusions?
It isn't that I'm saying they aren't logical it's you having to demonstrate that in the real physical world I.e. evidentially.
-
Actually, you need to read the whole article, as does Vlad. It explains why the absurdities don't really exist (subtraction is not well defined for infinities). It's arguing our side of the point.
I agree wholeheartedly that you should read the posts and Jeremy should actually read up on what my argument is.
Which is I am justified in being an A-Infinitist vis a vis actual infinities until physical evidence is presented even if they work in maths or logic.
-
Came across some new thinking on the existence of actual, metaphysical infinities as opposed to abstract mathematical infinities.
Apparently certain infinities throw up contradictions, multiple solutions etc.
Since these are not seen in concreto as it were, or in physical reality, it gives us grounds to doubt the existence of those infinities.
What is an 'actual, metaphysical infinity'? Actual and metaphysical would appear to be an oxymoron here.
-
I think the point is he admits to contradictions where there is more than one conclusion possible.
Where? What contradictions? Exact quote or your own example needed.
All you have today is provide a physical example of such a situation. Similarly you are proposing subtraction as not well defined for infinities. You need to show this in the physical realm to justify showing that infinities are real.
Nobody needs to show anything in the physical world to dismiss a claim for contradictions that they can't actually cite. As the article says, some operations are not defined for zero (division, for example), yet you can definitely have zero apples in a box.
I agree wholeheartedly that you should read the posts and Jeremy should actually read up on what my argument is.
You made an argument? Where? I see claims and links, but no hint of an argument. You can't even give an example of these supposed contradictions.
-
Where? What contradictions? Exact quote or your own example needed.
Nobody needs to show anything in the physical world to dismiss a claim for contradictions that they can't actually cite. As the article says, some operations are not defined for zero (division, for example), yet you can definitely have zero apples in a box.
You made an argument? Where? I see claims and links, but no hint of an argument. You can't even give an example of these supposed contradictions.
F there is more than one conclusion and those conclusions are different then we have a contradiction. If you are defining contradiction differently then you need to explain it.
If we look at the citation I gave we see in his working out that he does indeed come up with more than one conclusion when performing the maths of infinity. While that may be logical, if one is arguing that there could be real infinities one has to demonstrate these multiple conclusions occurring physically. And that’s all I am saying.
From the link
However, some “absurdities” arise when groups start leaving. If a finite group of 5 checks out, the hotel still has an infinite number of rooms filled. But consider what happens when two different infinite groups leave the hotel. Having the infinite group in all rooms greater than 5 check out leaves only 5 rooms filled. Alternatively, when the infinite group of all even numbers checks out, the hotel has an infinite number of odd rooms filled. In equation form (paralleling the addition equations above), this gives:
a – b = c Just like addition above
∞ – a = ∞ OK so far
∞ – ∞ = 5 First infinite group leaving
∞ – ∞ = ∞ Second infinite group leaving
The last two equations are contradictory! You can’t subtract one value from another value and get two different results. Thus, many people have used this contradiction to argue that actual infinities cannot exist in the physical world. However, mathematicians recognized this dilemma and solved the issue by noting that subtraction is not a well-defined operation for infinites. Lest this strike you as defining the problem away, you encounter a similar solution for a much more familiar mathematical idea. Let me illustrate with an interesting proof:”. How does noting that subtraction is not well defined for infinities help out in the argument that actual infinities could exist?
-
F there is more than one conclusion and those conclusions are different then we have a contradiction. If you are defining contradiction differently then you need to explain it.
If we look at the citation I gave we see in his working out that he does indeed come up with more than one conclusion when performing the maths of infinity. While that may be logical, if one is arguing that there could be real infinities one has to demonstrate these multiple conclusions occurring physically. And that’s all I am saying.
Why do you keep running away from giving an explicit example?
Just cite one example of such a contradiction (or of different conclusions that you regard as contradictions), and I'll happily respond. Just stop being so deliberately and pointlessly vague.
-
Why do you keep running away from giving an explicit example?
Just cite one example of such a contradiction (or of different conclusions that you regard as contradictions), and I'll happily respond. Just stop being so deliberately and pointlessly vague.
I have provided where he establishes a contradiction or apparent contradiction.
See previous. I am not saying these contradictory conclusions don’t logically follow, l just ask for a real world example and because they are not provided it may be reasonable to suppose actual infinities which would provide them do not exist.
-
Why do you keep running away from giving an explicit example?
Just cite one example of such a contradiction (or of different conclusions that you regard as contradictions), and I'll happily respond. Just stop being so deliberately and pointlessly vague.
Just to point out Vlad's edited his post that you are replying to here, after your reply, to provide what he sees as a contradiction.
-
Just to point out Vlad's edited his post that you are replying to here, after your reply, to provide what he sees as a contradiction.
Thanks
Let me post it again
However, some “absurdities” arise when groups start leaving. If a finite group of 5 checks out, the hotel still has an infinite number of rooms filled. But consider what happens when two different infinite groups leave the hotel. Having the infinite group in all rooms greater than 5 check out leaves only 5 rooms filled. Alternatively, when the infinite group of all even numbers checks out, the hotel has an infinite number of odd rooms filled. In equation form (paralleling the addition equations above), this gives:
a – b = c Just like addition above
∞ – a = ∞ OK so far
∞ – ∞ = 5 First infinite group leaving
∞ – ∞ = ∞ Second infinite group leaving
The last two equations are contradictory! [/quote]So infinities produce contradictions. Can this be exemplified in physics? You can’t subtract one value from another value and get two different results. Thus, many people have used this contradiction to argue that actual infinities cannot exist in the physical world. However, mathematicians recognized this dilemma and solved the issue by noting that subtraction is not a well-defined operation for infinites. Lest this strike you as defining the problem away
It does.
-
Moderator
Vlad
Perhaps you could make clear, since the OP is yours, where the relevance is to Theism of Atheism in your OP and in the subsequent discussion, since the thread is currently on the Theism and Atheism Board.
I'd have to say, the content seems more appropriate to Philosophy.
Please advise.
-
Moderator
Vlad
Perhaps you could make clear, since the OP is yours, where the relevance is to Theism of Atheism in your OP and in the subsequent discussion, since the thread is currently on the Theism and Atheism Board.
I'd have to say, the content seems more appropriate to Philosophy.
Please advise.
I’m happy wherever it is thanks.
-
From your edited post (as NS noted):
From the link
However, some “absurdities” arise when groups start leaving. If a finite group of 5 checks out, the hotel still has an infinite number of rooms filled. But consider what happens when two different infinite groups leave the hotel. Having the infinite group in all rooms greater than 5 check out leaves only 5 rooms filled. Alternatively, when the infinite group of all even numbers checks out, the hotel has an infinite number of odd rooms filled. In equation form (paralleling the addition equations above), this gives:
a – b = c Just like addition above
∞ – a = ∞ OK so far
∞ – ∞ = 5 First infinite group leaving
∞ – ∞ = ∞ Second infinite group leaving
The last two equations are contradictory! You can’t subtract one value from another value and get two different results. Thus, many people have used this contradiction to argue that actual infinities cannot exist in the physical world. However, mathematicians recognized this dilemma and solved the issue by noting that subtraction is not a well-defined operation for infinites. Lest this strike you as defining the problem away, you encounter a similar solution for a much more familiar mathematical idea. Let me illustrate with an interesting proof:”. How does noting that subtraction is not well defined for infinities help out in the argument that actual infinities could exist?
Actually, there are two answers to this. The first is given in the article that explains that zero is undefined under the operation of division because it leads to similar contradictions. This doesn't stop real zeros from appearing in nature. So the whole contradiction, using mathematically invalid operations, means physically impossible 'argument' goes straight out of the window.
This alone should answer your claim.
However, we could get more technical and point out that we can make it work for the Hilbert Hotel example if we use explicit sets. Infinite cardinal numbers are defined by the cardinality (loosely 'size') of sets.
The Hilbert Hotel has rooms numbered 1, 2, 3, 4,...., and the cardinality (loosely 'number') of rooms is the cardinality of the set of natural numbers: ℕ = {1,2,3,4,...}, denoted by |ℕ| = aleph-0 (ℵ₀). Using set difference (https://mathworld.wolfram.com/SetDifference.html) as 'subtraction', in the first subtraction, we are 'subtracting' all the numbers greater than five, so
{1,2,3,4,...}\{6,7,8,...} = {1,2,3,4,5} and |{1,2,3,4,5}| = 5.
In the second, we are 'subtracting' all the even numbers, so
{1,2,3,4,...}\{2,4,6,...} = {1,3,5,...} and |{1,3,5,...}| = ℵ₀ = |{1,2,3,4,...}|.
I'll take questions. :)
-
:-*I think the point is he admits to contradictions where there is more than one conclusion possible.
No. He does not.
The contradictions only arise if you have an incorrect understanding of the maths involved.
All you have today is provide a physical example of such a situation.
Why? As I said, the maths does not show a contradiction. The contradictions do not exist ands the article does a reasonable job of explaining why in layman's terms.
Similarly you are proposing subtraction as not well defined for infinities. You need to show this in the physical realm to justify showing that infinities are real.
No I don't.
-
a – b = c Just like addition above
∞ – a = ∞ OK so far
This is meaningless. Subtraction is undefined for infinities.
∞ – ∞ = 5 First infinite group leaving
∞ – ∞ = ∞ Second infinite group leaving
These are meaningless. Subtraction is not defined for infinities.
Did you look at the other example using division by zero?
If a = b then x / (a - b) is meaningless. Division is not defined for zero
And yet, the concept of zero certainly exists.
-
I have provided where he establishes a contradiction or apparent contradiction.
He does not establish a contradiction. Subtraction is not defined for infinities.
-
However, we could get more technical and point out that we can make it work for the Hilbert Hotel example if we use explicit sets. Infinite cardinal numbers are defined by the cardinality (loosely 'size') of sets.
The Hilbert Hotel has rooms numbered 1, 2, 3, 4,...., and the cardinality (loosely 'number') of rooms is the cardinality of the set of natural numbers: ℕ = {1,2,3,4,...}, denoted by |ℕ| = aleph-0 (ℵ₀). Using set difference (https://mathworld.wolfram.com/SetDifference.html) as 'subtraction', in the first subtraction, we are 'subtracting' all the numbers greater than five, so
{1,2,3,4,...}\{6,7,8,...} = {1,2,3,4,5} and |{1,2,3,4,5}| = 5.
In the second, we are 'subtracting' all the even numbers, so
{1,2,3,4,...}\{2,4,6,...} = {1,3,5,...} and |{1,3,5,...}| = ℵ₀ = |{1,2,3,4,...}|.
I'll take questions. :)
This is actually a much better answer than "subtraction is undefined for infinities". In fact it shows that Vlad's argument relies on obfuscating the fact that infinities are not numbers in the normal sense and that addition and subtraction are not the traditional operations we would like to believe.
-
From your edited post (as NS noted):
Actually, there are two answers to this. The first is given in the article that explains that zero is undefined under the operation of division because it leads to similar contradictions. This doesn't stop real zeros from appearing in nature.
Given that the statement “There me be no such thing as nothing, what real zeros are you talking about?Or to put it another way...”show me a physical zero” So the whole contradiction, using mathematically invalid operations, means physically impossible 'argument' goes straight out of the window.
Anybody?
This alone should answer your claim.
However, we could get more technical and point out that we can make it work for the Hilbert Hotel example if we use explicit sets. Infinite cardinal numbers are defined by the cardinality (loosely 'size') of sets.
The Hilbert Hotel has rooms numbered 1, 2, 3, 4,...., and the cardinality (loosely 'number') of rooms is the cardinality of the set of natural numbers: ℕ = {1,2,3,4,...}, denoted by |ℕ| = aleph-0 (ℵ₀). Using set difference (https://mathworld.wolfram.com/SetDifference.html) as 'subtraction', in the first subtraction, we are 'subtracting' all the numbers greater than five, so
{1,2,3,4,...}\{6,7,8,...} = {1,2,3,4,5} and |{1,2,3,4,5}| = 5.
In the second, we are 'subtracting' all the even numbers, so
{1,2,3,4,...}\{2,4,6,...} = {1,3,5,...} and |{1,3,5,...}| = ℵ₀ = |{1,2,3,4,...}|.
h
I'll take questions. :)
I am not denying it works in maths. Can you show me it in concreto or in nature?
-
No. He does not.
The contradictions only arise if you have an incorrect understanding of the maths involved.
Courtiers reply? But the problem isn’t with it being mathematically coherent or logically coherent but you demonstrating it physically, continual preening over solving the maths does not equate with showing these things in nature. Where does something having something taken away but leavingq the same amount being left occur in nature?Why? As I said, the maths does not show a contradiction. The contradictions do not exist ands the article does a reasonable job of explaining why in layman's terms.
The author calls them contradictions exclamation mark though because there are two answers both different. Where does he remove the difference immediately launching as he does into the properties of Zero?
-
Given that the statement “There me be no such thing as nothing, what real zeros are you talking about?
A box full of sand, and nothing else, contains exactly zero zebras.
I am not denying it works in maths. Can you show me it in concreto or in nature?
Your argument was that physical infinities were impossible because of contradictions. There are no such contradictions, and the one you gave as an example (from mathematics) actually doesn't contain any contradictions, when we examine it more closely,
If you're now going to run away and simply say that there can't be actual infinities because we cannot directly observe them, that's a whole new realm of stupid.
Are you ready to deny quantum mechanics because the quantum state requires i = √(-1) to describe it, and its development in time, and you can't actually observe either the quantum state or i?
-
A box full of sand, and nothing else, contains exactly zero zebras.
Show me a zero zebra or infinite zebras for that matter.
Your argument was that physical infinities were impossible because of contradictions. There are no such contradictions, and the one you gave as an example (from mathematics) actually doesn't contain any contradictions, when we examine it more closely,
If you're now going to run away and simply say that there can't be actual infinities because we cannot directly observe them, that's a whole new realm of stupid.
Are you ready to deny quantum mechanics because the quantum state requires i = √(-1) to describe it, and its development in time, and you can't actually observe either the quantum state or i?
No I am pointing out that doing the working out he came up with two answers for the same operation involving infinities. Where is that demonstrated in nature. He seemed to be equating infinity with what is the largest amount of numbers with zero. That intuitively seems a bad comparison but the chief problem here is evidencing either.
-
If you're now going to run away and simply say that there can't be actual infinities because we cannot directly observe them, that's a whole new realm of stupid.
The argument is rather there is no indirect evidence for them, therefore we can deduce they don’t exist and are not actual.
I think your evidential standard for actual infinity is lower for infinities than necessity.
-
The argument is rather there is no indirect evidence for them, therefore we can deduce they don’t exist and are not actual.
Both untrue and logically absurd. Oh, and by the same 'argument' we can deduce that no God exists.
I think your evidential standard for actual infinity is lower for infinities than necessity.
(https://external-content.duckduckgo.com/iu/?u=https%3A%2F%2Fupgifs.com%2Fimg%2Fgifs%2FjxCyGxJcyCxq.gif&f=1&nofb=1&ipt=7fc54e49230bec146544963c52de16bfec8849212d5a5307cf96a33e4b264164&ipo=images)
You have yet to show that a 'necessary entity' even makes logical sense.
-
Given that the statement “There me be no such thing as nothing, what real zeros are you talking about?Or to put it another way...”show me a physical zero” Anybody?I am not denying it works in maths. Can you show me it in concreto or in nature?
Just to point out that if you take that position, it means all the times you've asked why is there something rather than nothing, you've just said are incoherent questions
-
Missed this nugget of nonsense....
Show me a zero zebra...
How many zebras are there in the room with you right now?
No I am pointing out that doing the working out he came up with two answers for the same operation involving infinities.
Only by using incorrect 'working out'. If you use incorrect maths you'll get incorrect answers. If you use zero incorrectly, then you can prove that any number is equal to any other number.
What's more, I also showed that you got the same two answers by using the correct set theory approach to the problems stated, without any hint of contraction because the two situations are different when stated in those terms. Infinities are not really numbers in the same way as finite numbers are. It was trying to use them as such that produced the different answers to the 'same' questions, because the questions only looked the same if you simplistically used the infinities in the same way as ordinary numbers.
In fact, strictly speaking, all numbers are derived from set theory in modern mathematics, but we are so used to normal arithmetic, which works well for finite numbers, that it doesn't matter for most problems. Similarly, the concept of cardinality is not used for normal numbers because 'size' or 'quantity' work just fine for finite numbers. Also, with infinities, there are very significant differences between cardinal (1, 2, 3...) and ordinal (1st, 2nd, 3rd,...) numbers that don't arise with finite numbers. The smallest infinite ordinal number is ω and ω + 1 ≠ 1 + ω; addition is not a commutative operation.
In fact, there are many subjects in mathematics that are perfectly self-consistent, and free from contradiction, but counterintuitive. It's foolish to dismiss them as irrelevant to the real world because so much of what was thought of as 'pure mathematics' has found applications in the real world already. Things like, for example, complex numbers and group theory, are now firmly established as fundamental to physics. Other subjects like Lie algebras and quaternions (a hypercomplex number system) have also found real world applications.
Where is that demonstrated in nature. He seemed to be equating infinity with what is the largest amount of numbers with zero. That intuitively seems a bad comparison but the chief problem here is evidencing either.
The comparison was simply that some arithmetic operations are not applicable to them. There are plenty of other systems that some operations do not apply to. In fact, if you restrict yourself to natural number arithmetic, division (in the normal sense) doesn't apply to them, either, because rational numbers are outside the domain. Also, in the real number system, the square root operation cannot be applied to negative numbers.
Your recently acquired obsession with the need for direct evidence in nature, is in total contradiction with your theism, not to mention being logically silly.
-
Missed this nugget of nonsense....
How many zebras are there in the room with you right now?
Only by using incorrect 'working out'. If you use incorrect maths you'll get incorrect answers. If you use zero incorrectly, then you can prove that any number is equal to any other number.
What's more, I also showed that you got the same two answers by using the correct set theory approach to the problems stated, without any hint of contraction because the two situations are different when stated in those terms. Infinities are not really numbers in the same way as finite numbers are. It was trying to use them as such that produced the different answers to the 'same' questions, because the questions only looked the same if you simplistically used the infinities in the same way as ordinary numbers.
In fact, strictly speaking, all numbers are derived from set theory in modern mathematics, but we are so used to normal arithmetic, which works well for finite numbers, that it doesn't matter for most problems. Similarly, the concept of cardinality is not used for normal numbers because 'size' or 'quantity' work just fine for finite numbers. Also, with infinities, there are very significant differences between cardinal (1, 2, 3...) and ordinal (1st, 2nd, 3rd,...) numbers that don't arise with finite numbers. The smallest infinite ordinal number is ω and ω + 1 ≠ 1 + ω; addition is not a commutative operation.
In fact, there are many subjects in mathematics that are perfectly self-consistent, and free from contradiction, but counterintuitive. It's foolish to dismiss them as irrelevant to the real world because so much of what was thought of as 'pure mathematics' has found applications in the real world already. Things like, for example, complex numbers and group theory, are now firmly established as fundamental to physics. Other subjects like Lie algebras and quaternions (a hypercomplex number system) have also found real world applications.
The comparison was simply that some arithmetic operations are not applicable to them. There are plenty of other systems that some operations do not apply to. In fact, if you restrict yourself to natural number arithmetic, division (in the normal sense) doesn't apply to them, either, because rational numbers are outside the domain. Also, in the real number system, the square root operation cannot be applied to negative numbers.
Your recently acquired obsession with the need for direct evidence in nature, is in total contradiction with your theism, not to mention being logically silly.
And this post establishes actual infinities how exactly? What is the indirect evidence for actual infinities given you’ve talked about maths which is not the focus.
-
A box full of sand, and nothing else, contains exactly zero zebras.
zero zebras here gives rise to all kinds of absurdities here. There are no actual Zebras. What on earth is a zero zebra? They can’t be actual. But beyond all of this. How does it help you establish direct or indirect evidence for actual infinities.
-
Both untrue
So we arrive at you being able to provide indirect evidence for actual infinities. logically absurd. Oh, and by the same 'argument' we can deduce that no God exists.
Nobody is claiming God is physical whereas the claim is there Is evidence for actual physical infinities.
-
Just to point out that if you take that position, it means all the times you've asked why is there something rather than nothing, you've just said are incoherent questions
“There may be no such thing as nothing” as far as aI can recall is your line. Mine was there is a reason why there is something rather than nothing. Nothing being the absence of anything physical.
Again, we seem to have strayed from establishing if there are infinities.
If it ends up that actual infinities can only be believed in, then where does that put the superiority of non belief in things like. God for instance?
In my opening post I merely allude to new thinking on infinities vis a sceptical approach based on a demand for evidence. If Stranger can make good his counter claim to” there is no indirect evidence tfor actual infinities” then he’s home and dry.
-
I thought after I'd written post #40 (http://www.religionethics.co.uk/index.php?topic=21979.msg892036#msg892036), and before I hit 'post', that it was going to be a classic case of 'casting pearls before swine', but I'd written it by then. Ho-hum.
And this post establishes actual infinities how exactly?
I'm not trying to establish actual infinities, I'm arguing against the silliness in the OP that they are contradictory and cannot exist.
What is the indirect evidence for actual infinities given you’ve talked about maths which is not the focus.
The fact that space-time behaves, to the limit of our ability to measure it, exactly like a continuum (infinite points between any two separate points).
The fact that the observed 'curvature' of space, on large scales, is 'flat' (as far as we are able to measure it). The simplest topology associated with 'flat' space is infinite.
zero zebras here gives rise to all kinds of absurdities here. There are no actual Zebras. What on earth is a zero zebra? They can’t be actual. But beyond all of this
You don't understand how numbers work? No wonder you're struggling so much.
Nobody is claiming God is physical whereas the claim is there Is evidence for actual physical infinities.
Going for the special pleading fallacy, okay. If infinities are inherently contradictory, why would it matter whether an actual, real infinity was physical or not? And you're misrepresenting the claim. The claim is that infinities are not contradictory and therefore cannot be ruled out in reality. It is a bit of a side issue that there is some weak but indicative evidence that there might be real infinities even before we get into speculative conjectures or hypotheses.
-
“There may be no such thing as nothing” as far as aI can recall is your line. Mine was there is a reason why there is something rather than nothing. Nothing being the absence of anything physical.
Again, we seem to have strayed from establishing if there are infinities.
If it ends up that actual infinities can only be believed in, then where does that put the superiority of non belief in things like. God for instance?
In my opening post I merely allude to new thinking on infinities vis a sceptical approach based on a demand for evidence. If Stranger can make good his counter claim to” there is no indirect evidence tfor actual infinities” then he’s home and dry.
Are we trying to establish that there are no such thing as real infinities? And even if we were why does that stop it being an issue that if your 'logic' is followed then you end up with taking contradictory positions being an issue?
-
Courtiers reply?
No. The analogy of this argument is the equivalent of you telling us that wool is a form of cotton. Regardless of whether the emperor is wearing wool cotton or nothing at all, that would be a false statement.
But the problem isn’t with it being mathematically coherent or logically coherent but you demonstrating it physically, continual preening over solving the maths does not equate with showing these things in nature.
Why would I need to demonstrate something that is logically invalid in the physical world? What would it tell us about the maths (spoiler: nothing)?
Where does something having something taken away but leavingq the same amount being left occur in nature?The author calls them contradictions exclamation mark
No he doesn't. He says they are apparent contradictions, but actually not in reality. Read the whole article.
-
Show me a zero zebra or infinite zebras for that matter.
Photo taken from my desk just now.
Zero zebras
-
you demonstrating it physically
Well, it looks like the Universe is infinite in extent according to measurements of its expansion. So, assuming that it is and that the number of stars in it is also infinite (it would have to be else, space would not be infinite in extent), it is a real life example of Hilbert's hotel. Let's take a couple of examples.
- I take all of the stars (there are infinitely many) and remove all of the red giants (there are infinitely many). There are still infinitely many stars left. ∞ - ∞ = ∞
- I take all of the stars and remove all of the stars more than 10 light years from Earth (https://www.space.com/18964-the-nearest-stars-to-earth-infographic.html#) (there are infinitely many). There is a finite number of stars left. ∞ - ∞ = 12
Wow. Look, I seem to have the same contradiction as the article had. Except there is absolutely nothing wrong with or contradictory about what I did.
-
Photo taken from my desk just now.
Zero zebras
I did ask what this has to do with infinite zebras I actually see no actual zebras.
Or a potential zebra,Do you mean how many non actual zebras are their?
-
Well, it looks like the Universe is infinite in extent according to measurements of its expansion. So, assuming that it is and that the number of stars in it is also infinite (it would have to be else, space would not be infinite in extent), it is a real life example of Hilbert's hotel. Let's take a couple of examples.
But are we talking about an actual infinity or a potential infinity?
- I take all of the stars (there are infinitely many) and remove all of the red giants (there are infinitely many). There are still infinitely many stars left. ∞ - ∞ = ∞
- I take all of the stars and remove all of the stars more than 10 light years from Earth (https://www.space.com/18964-the-nearest-stars-to-earth-infographic.html#) (there are infinitely many). There is a finite number of stars left. ∞ - ∞ = 12
Wow. Look, I seem to have the same contradiction as the article had. Except there is absolutely nothing wrong with or contradictory about what I did.
But are the conclusions contradictory?
-
I did ask what this has to do with infinite zebras I actually see no actual zebras.
Or a potential zebra,Do you mean how many non actual zebras are their?
You seem to have complexly lost the plot. You claimed infinities were contradictory. It was pointed that the supposed contradictions only arise when you do your 'sums' wrong. An article you referenced compared it to zero because you get similar 'contradictions' if you use zero wrong. Then you started to question if zero could exist in reality, it was pointed how it does, now you're asking what this has to do with infinity and wittering on about 'potential zebras'.
Get a grip!
-
But are the conclusions contradictory?
No.
-
I did ask what this has to do with infinite zebras
You asked to see zero zebras. I showed you a photograph with zero zebras in it. I can't show you a photo with an infinite number of zebras in it because there aren't infinite zebras, at least not within range of my phone camera.
I actually see no actual zebras.
There's your zero zebras.
Or a potential zebra,Do you mean how many non actual zebras are there?
What the hell is this supposed to be about?
-
But are we talking about an actual infinity or a potential infinity?
We can't be 100% certain but it seems we are dealing with an actual infinity of stars.
But are the conclusions contradictory?
No but they exactly parallel the ones that you claim (falsely) are contradictory.
-
You seem to have complexly lost the plot. You claimed infinities were contradictory. It was pointed that the supposed contradictions only arise when you do your 'sums' wrong. An article you referenced compared it to zero because you get similar 'contradictions' if you use zero wrong. Then you started to question if zero could exist in reality, it was pointed how it does, now you're asking what this has to do with infinity and wittering on about 'potential zebras'.
Get a grip!
When you get your inverted comma sums inverted comma wrong. WTF are you on about?
If you can produce an actual infinity in concreto then as I said to Nearly Sane then you have completely won the argument. You have still to justify the claim that there is indirect evidence for an actual infinity existing.
Concerning the absence of zebra or zero zebra Can zero zebra be shown to exist I’m not sure. It works better as a non existent than an actual something in nature.
-
You asked to see zero zebras. I showed you a photograph with zero zebras in it. I can't show you a photo with an infinite number of zebras in it because there aren't infinite zebras, at least not within range of my phone camera.
There's your zero zebras.What the hell is this supposed to be about?
Yes I am being unreasonable specifically asking for infinite zebras. Any actual infinity will do
-
When you get your inverted comma sums inverted comma wrong. WTF are you on about?
If you can produce an actual infinity in concreto then as I said to Nearly Sane then you have completely won the argument.
FFS, pay some attention for once in your life!
There are no real contradictions with infinities (as you wrongly claimed in the OP), they all arise because you (and others) can't do the maths right and have made basic mistakes.
If I said: "0 × 7 = 0 × 300, therefore, dividing by 0, we get 7 = 300", then I'd clearly know noting about mathematics and have made an elementary mistake.
Exactly the same is true of the supposed contradictions with infinities. They are simply mathematical mistakes.
Once that had been shown, that should have been the end of this thread. But because you can't let it go, you are now pretending that it was always about actually showing you a real infinity. Nobody has ever claimed we could do that, and it has nothing to do with the claims of contradictions that you started with.
You really need to grow up.
You have still to justify the claim that there is indirect evidence for an actual infinity existing.
#45 (http://www.religionethics.co.uk/index.php?topic=21979.msg892053#msg892053)
Concerning the absence of zebra or zero zebra Can zero zebra be shown to exist I’m not sure. It works better as a non existent than an actual something in nature.
(https://i.imgur.com/POlXATR.jpeg) I really can't be arsed to try to teach you the basics of counting things. Tell you what, why don't you transfer all the money in all your accounts to me, so all your bank balances are zero, then explain to me if zero is real or not....
-
Yes I am being unreasonable specifically asking for infinite zebras. Any actual infinity will do
I'm not claiming there definitely are any actual infinities, only that we can't rule them out.
There is evidence that space-time is infinite. If we have measured its expansion correctly and Einstein's general theory of relativity is correct, then space-time is infinite. That's not definite, but it's the best you are going to get.
-
FFS, pay some attention for once in your life!
There are no real contradictions with infinities (as you wrongly claimed in the OP), they all arise because you (and others) can't do the maths right and have made basic mistakes.
If I said: "0 × 7 = 0 × 300, therefore, dividing by 0, we get 7 = 300", then I'd clearly know noting about mathematics and have made an elementary mistake.
Exactly the same is true of the supposed contradictions with infinities. They are simply mathematical mistakes.
Once that had been shown, that should have been the end of this thread. But because you can't let it go, you are now pretending that it was always about actually showing you a real infinity. Nobody has ever claimed we could do that, and it has nothing to do with the claims of contradictions that you started with.
You really need to grow up.
#45 (http://www.religionethics.co.uk/index.php?topic=21979.msg892053#msg892053)
(https://i.imgur.com/POlXATR.jpeg) I really can't be arsed to try to teach you the basics of counting things. Tell you what, why don't you transfer all the money in all your accounts to me, so all your bank balances are zero, then explain to me if zero is real or not....
This isn’t the issue, the issue is you passing zero Zebras or absent entities off as an actual existent entity. Zeroes like this are paradoxes. There is no way of distinguish zero zebras from zero elephants from zero anything. Mathematically sound perhaps but an ontological absurdity.
This rather makes you the one trying to claim that unnatural, ontologically absurd Zeroes somehow provide evidence for actual physical infinities.
In terms of counting real physical entities we start at one, ignoring those absent.
I wonder whether by your logic you see zero funds in your account you take it as an occasion to break out a fat cigar.
-
This isn’t the issue, the issue is you passing zero Zebras or absent entities off as an actual existent entity. Zeroes like this are paradoxes. There is no way of distinguish zero zebras from zero elephants from zero anything. Mathematically sound perhaps but an ontological absurdity.
This rather makes you the one trying to claim that unnatural, ontologically absurd Zeroes somehow provide evidence for actual physical infinities.
In terms of counting real physical entities we start at one, ignoring those absent.
I wonder whether by your logic you see zero funds in your account you take it as an occasion to break out a fat cigar.
Sorry, you're just being silly now. Your OP has been demolished, get over it. Move on.
-
This isn’t the issue, the issue is you passing zero Zebras or absent entities off as an actual existent entity. Zeroes like this are paradoxes. There is no way of distinguish zero zebras from zero elephants from zero anything. Mathematically sound perhaps but an ontological absurdity.
This rather makes you the one trying to claim that unnatural, ontologically absurd Zeroes somehow provide evidence for actual physical infinities.
In terms of counting real physical entities we start at one, ignoring those absent.
I wonder whether by your logic you see zero funds in your account you take it as an occasion to break out a fat cigar.
And again if you are saying that zero is an ontological absurdity, you are saying that when you have asked why is there something rather than nothing that you have been asking a logically incoherent question.
-
And again if you are saying that zero is an ontological absurdity, you are saying that when you have asked why is there something rather than nothing that you have been asking a logically incoherent question.
No what I am asking is why physics or nature and not the absence of it.
If you are claiming that question is incoherent you have to say that physics and nature have to be.
Zeroes are mathematically real but non existant entities do not exist definitionally.
-
No what I am asking is why physics or nature and not the absence of it.
If you are claiming that question is incoherent you have to say that physics and nature have to be.
Zeroes are mathematically real but non existant entities do not exist definitionally.
And yet the concept of a physical nothing is for you an ontological absurdity. That applies to the nothing in you why something rather than nothing question. As a foot shooting move, it's almost elegant.
-
F there is more than one conclusion and those conclusions are different then we have a contradiction.
No. In maths there are any number of scenarios - the most obvious and basic being solutions to quadratic equations - where there are multiple, equally correct solutions. That's because sometimes, what's being described by the maths, doesn't have a single, unique solution.
If you are defining contradiction differently then you need to explain it.
Differently to you? You're the one making the claim, all I need to do is point out the error in YOUR definition - you are presuming that you can't have multiple valid conclusions from any given situation, that the presence of mathematical ranges or discrete values somehow invalidates the work because you haven't got 'an' answer.
If we look at the citation I gave we see in his working out that he does indeed come up with more than one conclusion when performing the maths of infinity.
Actually, as is spelt out in the introduction, the failure comes from "Some philosophers use Hilbert’s Hotel to argue that actual infinities cannot exist in the physical world because basic arithmetic operations involving infinities lead to “absurdities.” Infinity is not a number, it's a concept; you can do maths with it, but amongst the things you can't do with it is arithmetic.
While that may be logical, if one is arguing that there could be real infinities one has to demonstrate these multiple conclusions occurring physically. And that’s all I am saying.
I write an equation to map the contours of a mountain range - I then solve that equation for all points moving out from, say, Everest's peak, where the gradient turns positive. There are going to be hundreds, possibly thousands or millions depending on the scale to which I'm working and the precision of the equation. All correct, all within the one equation.
However, some “absurdities” arise when groups start leaving. If a finite group of 5 checks out, the hotel still has an infinite number of rooms filled. But consider what happens when two different infinite groups leave the hotel. Having the infinite group in all rooms greater than 5 check out leaves only 5 rooms filled. Alternatively, when the infinite group of all even numbers checks out, the hotel has an infinite number of odd rooms filled. In equation form (paralleling the addition equations above), this gives:
a – b = c Just like addition above
∞ – a = ∞ OK so far
∞ – ∞ = 5 First infinite group leaving
∞ – ∞ = ∞ Second infinite group leaving
Actually, no. Depending on the ranges and the context:
∞ – anything is undefined - you can't do arithmetic with infinity, it's not a number. In mathematical terms, it's like saying 15 - fish.
The last two equations are contradictory! You can’t subtract one value from another value and get two different results.
And here is the crux of the misunderstanding: seven is a value. 'x' in an equation is a value (not currently defined). ∞, though, is not a value. He goes on to explain that, which you even quoted, but then continued with the misunderstanding anyway.
No what I am asking is why physics or nature and not the absence of it.
What makes you think there's a 'why'? You're such a fan of 'necessary entities' - why can't 'laws of nature' be the necessary entity?
If you are claiming that question is incoherent you have to say that physics and nature have to be.
No, just that they are. The probability of an event that's already happened is 1. If there was never a point where physics didn't happen, that probability has always been 1.
O.
-
And yet the concept of a physical nothing is for you an ontological absurdity. That applies to the nothing in you why something rather than nothing question. As a foot shooting move, it's almost elegant.
No a non existent thing being counted as a physical thing ditto potential things, as in a statement like “There are zeroes found in nature” is what is ontologically difficult or absurd.
-
No a non existent thing being counted as a physical thing ditto potential things, as in a statement like “There are zeroes found in nature” is what is ontologically difficult or absurd.
And that's exactly what your why something rather than nothing question does.
-
And that's exactly what your why something rather than nothing question does.
But this so called invalid question appears to have an answer which makes me wonder why you are saying it is an invalid question. You seem to be resting the absurdity of the question on its answer.
-
But this so called invalid question appears to have an answer which makes me wonder why you are saying it is an invalid question. You seem to be resting the absurdity of the question on its answer.
I'm not saying it's an invalid question, though I don't know that it is a valid one. I'm saying that for someone like you that says zero is an ontological absurdity, as you do, then it's a logically incoherent one to ask.
-
I'm not saying it's an invalid question, though I don't know that it is a valid one. I'm saying that for someone like you that says zero is an ontological absurdity, as you do, then it's a logically incoherent one to ask.
I’m not sure it is. Potential things are also non existent. So when the question Why something rather than nothing is asked it means “why are things actualised rather than not actualised?”
-
I’m not sure it is. Potential things are also non existent. So when the question Why something rather than nothing is asked it means “why are things actualised rather than not actualised?”
If non existent things are a coherent thing, then they are not an ontological absurdity, and you are saying that when you said zero was an ontological absurdity, you were wrong. Your self abuse on this thread is unbecoming.
-
No a non existent thing being counted as a physical thing ditto potential things, as in a statement like “There are zeroes found in nature” is what is ontologically difficult or absurd.
I showed you a photograph with zero zebras in it. How can you deny that zeros are found in nature?
-
If non existent things are a coherent thing, then they are not an ontological absurdity, and you are saying that when you said zero was an ontological absurdity, you were wrong. Your self abuse on this thread is unbecoming.
I am not saying zeros are illogical since they operate perfectly well and have a glorious existence in mathematical reality. All I am saying is that they are not a thing in physical reality.
That IMV does not detract from any question why there is a physical universe and since that is all I’m interested in.......
-
I am not saying zeros are illogical since they operate perfectly well and have a glorious existence in mathematical reality. All I am saying is that they are not a thing in physical reality.
That IMV does not detract from any question why there is a physical universe and since that is all I’m interested in.......
No, you said that zero is an ontological absurdity, that would apply to the nothing in the question of why something rather than nothing.
You then used non existent things as the equivalent of the nothing in the question but they are also analogus to the zero you are saying is an ontological absurdity, hence your contradiction.
-
No, you said that zero is an ontological absurdity, that would apply to the nothing in the question of why something rather than nothing.
You then used non existent things as the equivalent of the nothing in the question but they are also analogus to the zero you are saying is an ontological absurdity, hence your contradiction.
After a morning of this, Sane, I’m afraid you have me in the position of “not knowing which cup the walnut is under”
To say that a physically non existent thing exists is an absurdity. That means we cannot “find it physically, I.e in nature.
That tells us nothing about why physics exists.
-
After a morning of this, Sane, I’m afraid you have me in the position of “not knowing which cup the walnut is under”
To say that a physically non existent thing exists is an absurdity. That means we cannot “find it physically, I.e in nature.
That tells us nothing about why physics exists.
And yet a nothing in the question why something rather than nothing is an ontological statement. I would suggest that your confusion is entirely self inflicted.
-
After a morning of this, Sane, I’m afraid you have me in the position of “not knowing which cup the walnut is under”
It's quite simple. You are claiming that zeros don't exist in nature. If it's true, this means we can answer the question "why something rather than nothing?" by pointing out that nothings don't physically exist and therefore something must be the answer. Suddenly we don't need to invoke a god because it turns out there always has been a something and there never was a need to create it out of nothing.
-
It's quite simple. You are claiming that zeros don't exist in nature. If it's true, this means we can answer the question "why something rather than nothing?" by pointing out that nothings don't physically exist and therefore something must be the answer. Suddenly we don't need to invoke a god because it turns out there always has been a something and there never was a need to create it out of nothing.
No, I can agree that there has to be something, that it always was. But I do not thane to agree to it being physical.
I also do not have to agree to it being a potential.
I thought all of that was implicit in my question to you “what is it about the universe that is necessary?” Or put it another way you seem to be agreeing that there must be an unactualised actualiser for all potential entities. I e. Physical entities.
In other words there is something that must exist but it cannot be contingent on nothing.
-
No, I can agree that there has to be something, that it always was. But I do not thane to agree to it being physical.
I also do not have to agree to it being a potential.
I thought all of that was implicit in my question to you “what is it about the universe that is necessary?” Or put it another way you seem to be agreeing that there must be an unactualised actualiser for all potential entities. I e. Physical entities.
In other words there is something that must exist but it cannot be contingent on nothing.
Apart from what is a non physical thing, you've again just argued again that there would be something, as nothing cannot be.
-
Apart from what is a non physical thing, you've again just argued again that there would be something, as nothing cannot be.
Being a theist i’ve Never argued that nothing actually existed.
God is not dependent on non existent things. And neither are you or I. They have no effect.
I feel you are concentrating on getting one over rather than realising what you might have talked yourself into.
-
Being a theist i’ve Never argued that nothing actually existed.
God is not dependent on non existent things. And neither are you or I. They have no effect.
I feel you are concentrating on getting one over rather than realising what you might have talked yourself into.
Buggered if I know what you are attempting to say
Not at all sure you know either.
-
Apart from what is a non physical thing, you've again just argued again that there would be something, as nothing cannot be.
This thread is about actual infinities and zeroes existing physically. Which would be a neat trick if you could pull it off.
-
This thread is about actual infinities and zeroes existing physically. Which would be a neat trick if you could pull it off.
Well we have shown actual zeros exist and current knowledge of the Universe strongly suggests actual infinities exist.
Job done.
-
Well we have shown actual zeros exist and current knowledge of the Universe strongly suggests actual infinities exist.
Job done.
It will be possible then to attribute physical properties to zeroes then. Good luck with that one.
-
This thread is about actual infinities and zeroes existing physically. Which would be a neat trick if you could pull it off.
Well it's difficult to say what it's about as your OP is just a ramble, and at one point you said it wasn't about zeroes, so now you've contradicted yourself again, but the idea that nothing could be, which is the basis of your why something rather than nothing question, is tangled up with actual zero, and in such a way that make your statements about it and zero contradictory.
-
It will be possible then to attribute physical properties to zeroes then. Good luck with that one.
Zero zebras have zero mass.
That was easy.
-
Zero zebras have zero mass.
That was easy.
Unfortunately zero zebras is indistinguishable from zero elephants or the absence of hyenas or zero physical properties or indeed, the absence of physical properties.
-
Unfortunately zero zebras is indistinguishable from zero elephants or the absence of hyenas or zero physical properties or indeed, the absence of physical properties.
Why do you think it is unfortunate? It's still zero.
-
Why do you think it is unfortunate? It's still zero.
It's unfortunate for anyone touting zeros as actual physical entities and then in the hope that establishing that a real physical entity called a zero suggests that actual infinities exist.
-
It's unfortunate for anyone touting zeros as actual physical entities
Who's doing that? The question was "do zeros exist?" I answered it. There are zero zebras in the room in which I am typing this. Zeros exist.
Thinking about it: this room is a physical entity and contains zero zebras, so there we are: a physical demonstration of zero.
and then in the hope that establishing that a real physical entity called a zero suggests that actual infinities exist.
I've demonstrated that physical zeros exist. It was you who claimed that zeros existing means infinities exist, not me.
Although, I will point out that the physical universe appears to be infinite in extent, according to the latest measurements. So there's that.
-
Who's doing that? The question was "do zeros exist?" I answered it. There are zero zebras in the room in which I am typing this. Zeros exist.
Thinking about it: this room is a physical entity and contains zero zebras, so there we are: a physical demonstration of zero.
I've demonstrated that physical zeros exist. It was you who claimed that zeros existing means infinities exist, not me.
Although, I will point out that the physical universe appears to be infinite in extent, according to the latest measurements. So there's that.
Then I think we have an issue over what the Question was and I rather think it had something to do with whether infinities existed in physical reality.
I am perfectly willing to accept a mathematical reality but that isn't physical reality.
So for folks on here otherwise obsessed by empirical evidence, you all seem peculiarly relaxed about it when it comes to Infinities and zero.
-
Then I think we have an issue over what the Question was
No we don't. You have an issue because your arguments have been demolished again but you can't admit it.
and I rather think it had something to do with whether infinities existed in physical reality.
And I've told you that current measurements from cosmology suggest that they do. Granted, something might happen that changes things but, as best we know at the moment: infinities do exist.
I am perfectly willing to accept a mathematical reality but that isn't physical reality.
You don't accept the evidence then. Just be honest and say that.
So for folks on here otherwise obsessed by empirical evidence, you all seem peculiarly relaxed about it when it comes to Infinities and zero.
The empirical evidence for zeros is incontrovertible. The empirical evidence for infinities is in favour. I don't have to be relaxed about empirical evidence because it is on my side.
-
I'll ask the moderators to close the thread, because you have now clearly lost. There's no point in carrying on.
-
I'll ask the moderators to close the thread, because you have now clearly lost. There's no point in carrying on.
Courtiers reply.
-
Courtiers reply.
Jesus, you don't even know what that is.
-
Jesus, you don't even know what that is.
Jeremy.
Any body claiming empirical evidence for something that is indistinguishable from the Emperor's new clothes, in your case
Zero Zebras.....who then claims that evidence is so incontrovertible so as to merit shutting down any contrary view must indeed be making the Mother of Courtier's replies.
In terms of a universe which will expand forever, I'm not sure that will ever finally give empirical proof of an infinity and apparently we may never be able to observe but a section of the universe.
The evidence imv for an actual empirical observed infinity is not at hand.
Secondly infinities or the lack of them are not relevant to all arguments from contingency.
-
Jeremy.
Any body claiming empirical evidence for something that is indistinguishable from the Emperor's new clothes, in your case
Zero Zebras.....who then claims that evidence is so incontrovertible so as to merit shutting down any contrary view must indeed be making the Mother of Courtier's replies.
Good point. Somebody who is naked has zero clothes on. How you can claim that zero doesn't exist in the real world is a mystery.
Well, no, not a mystery. We know the reason you are desperate to deny it: it is because you have been unequivocally found to be wrong. In the fashion parade of intellectual ability, you are bollock naked.
In terms of a universe which will expand forever, I'm not sure that will ever finally give empirical proof of an infinity and apparently we may never be able to observe but a section of the universe.
It already has. If the Universe is expanding forever (and at increasing speed), it must be unbounded. i.e. infinite.
The evidence imv for an actual empirical observed infinity is not at hand.
You are blinded by religion. Your view is worth bugger all.
Secondly infinities or the lack of them are not relevant to all arguments from contingency.
The sure sign that Vlad has lost the plot: he descends into pointless nonsense about contingency.
Thanks for playing. You have lost.
-
Any body claiming empirical evidence for something that is indistinguishable from the Emperor's new clothes, in your case.
You're suggestion, though, is that the child in the story is wrong, because there is no possible way for the Emperor to have zero clothes, because there are no actual zeroes. Which bypasses the point that you apparently don't understand the Courtier's reply, but it needed to be highlighted because it is pretty much the exact worst choice of a story you could make when the point is to demonstrate that there's nothing there.
Zero Zebras.....who then claims that evidence is so incontrovertible so as to merit shutting down any contrary view must indeed be making the Mother of Courtier's replies.
The courtier's reply would be suggesting that you wouldn't know your zebra from your elbow to make the judgement.
O.
-
You're suggestion, though, is that the child in the story is wrong, because there is no possible way for the Emperor to have zero clothes, because there are no actual zeroes. Which bypasses the point that you apparently don't understand the Courtier's reply, but it needed to be highlighted because it is pretty much the exact worst choice of a story you could make when the point is to demonstrate that there's nothing there.
The courtier's reply would be suggesting that you wouldn't know your zebra from your elbow to make the judgement.
O.
Let's be clear here. Zero denotes physical non existence.
To then attach physical existence to them is absurd.
A universe that begins and goes on for ever can be inferred from detecting the flatness of the universe but that, can only be extrapolated. Does that count as empirical fact? I'm not sure.
It seems to me that science is prepared to infer alternatives to that model e.g. the penrose model.
Contingency is about what has to exist and what can be potential, then exist, then not exist.
-
Let's be clear here. Zero denotes physical non existence.
Let's run with this for now.
To then attach physical existence to them is absurd.
Yes, but fortunately, nobody is doing that.
A universe that begins and goes on for ever can be inferred from detecting the flatness of the universe but that, can only be extrapolated. Does that count as empirical fact? I'm not sure.
I said the evidence is good. I didn't say it is proven.
It seems to me that science is prepared to infer alternatives to that model e.g. the penrose model.
Explain the Penrose model in your own words.
Contingency is about what has to exist and what can be potential, then exist, then not exist.
Forget about that for now. Concentrate on fixing your basic misunderstanding of the nature of zero and infinity.
-
Let's be clear here. Zero denotes physical non existence.
Within this context, ok.
To then attach physical existence to them is absurd.
No. Wherever they are they have physical existence, it's just that that's not here and now.
A universe that begins and goes on for ever can be inferred from detecting the flatness of the universe but that, can only be extrapolated.
Do you stand ten feet from your computer and lob commas randomly? Yes, but that extrapolation is from observations, i.e. it's empirical.
Does that count as empirical fact? I'm not sure.
Given our nature of experiencing time in a linear fashion, it's as empirical as we're going to get. It's certainly a lot more empirical than trying to infer information from ancient scripture.
It seems to me that science is prepared to infer alternatives to that model e.g. the penrose model.
It is. That's what's great about science, and also its limitation - any finding is always at least technically provisional.
Contingency is about what has to exist and what can be potential, then exist, then not exist.
That's your definition, at least some of the time, but you have a somewhat reduction view of this at times, where you can only see one isolatable object as being necessary, and not the notion of a cycle or process. And just making that a definition for contingency (and, by implication, necessity) doesn't preclude the possibility that everything is contingent and it's an infinite stretch back.
O.
-
Infinity is a useful concept in maths, but there probably ain't no such thing in the real world. Even the universe isn't infinite - I believe that the preferred form of words is "finite but unbounded".
-
Infinity is a useful concept in maths, but there probably ain't no such thing in the real world. Even the universe isn't infinite - I believe that the preferred form of words is "finite but unbounded".
Sorry Steve, but you may be wrong. The Universe appears to be more or less flat. In fact, the expansion is accelerating, so it probably is infinite.
-
Sorry Steve, but you may be wrong. The Universe appears to be more or less flat. In fact, the expansion is accelerating, so it probably is infinite.
Isn't anything expanding finite?
What is it that, as you say "IS infinite" " not "Will be infinite " but "IS infinite"?
-
Explain the Penrose model in your own words.
OK If you insist on eliciting some amateur cosmology, I shall indulge.
Basically the universe expands to a point beyond heat death when all that’s left is isolated photons then, for some reason space and time cease to exist so this situation becomes indistinguishable from that of the Big Bang so we are back at the Big Bang.
-
That's your definition, at least some of the time, but you have a somewhat reduction view of this at times, where you can only see one isolatable object as being necessary, and not the notion of a cycle or process. And just making that a definition for contingency (and, by implication, necessity) doesn't preclude the possibility that everything is contingent and it's an infinite stretch back.
O.
I merely apply the principle of sufficient reason.So for your suggestion that there may be more than one necessary entity there is the question why more than one and not one?And the reason for that which we don’t have to know incidentally, is then the actual single necessary entity.
Similarly we can ask “Why a circular process and not a linear one”. Again, the answer that we don’t have to know, but expect there to be one then becomes the single necessary entity.
The trouble with just suspending the PSR is that it is an arbitrary decision taken merely because it suits imo.
There’s a further problem with a circular process is that ultimately it has everything responsible for creating itself and not creating itself simultaneously which makes the idea of a single necessary entity seem far, far, more reasonable.
-
Isn't anything expanding finite?
Not if our current theory of the Universe is correct.
What is it that, as you say "IS infinite" " not "Will be infinite " but "IS infinite"?
Space-time.
-
OK If you insist on eliciting some amateur cosmology, I shall indulge.
Basically the universe expands to a point beyond heat death when all that’s left is isolated photons then, for some reason space and time cease to exist so this situation becomes indistinguishable from that of the Big Bang so we are back at the Big Bang.
And how does that preclude infinities?
-
And how does that preclude infinities?
Because the question arises. Is this a loop, like a tape or film loop...If it is a loop can it then be considered an empirical infinity. Put another way. Space may be said to be flat but in a higher dimension it is curved. If it gives rise to a different universe the question is then raised “why could subsequent universes not be curved” or “closed and finite”?
-
Not if our current theory of the Universe is correct.
Space-time.
But in Penrose model space and time disappears. So in what way Can space time be said to be infinite?
-
But in Penrose model space and time disappears. So in what way Can space time be said to be infinite?
You're making a big assumption. What evidence do you have that the Penrose model is correct?
-
You're making a big assumption. What evidence do you have that the Penrose model is correct?
My point is that there are several models of which Penrose is but one so your peculiar confidence in one model is unfounded.
Whereas we can have confidence in say, evolution we can have no similar confidence in any particular theory which throws up actual infinities.
-
I merely apply the principle of sufficient reason.
Which you've repeatedly been shown not to understand.
So for your suggestion that there may be more than one necessary entity there is the question why more than one and not one?
That's a potentially valid question, but that the question exists doesn't mean that you can reject the potential and continue with your presumption that therefore there can be only one necessary entity.
And the reason for that which we don’t have to know incidentally, is then the actual single necessary entity.
You're presuming that there's an underlying 'something' - that's not been demonstrated. You've asked the question 'why multiple necessary things', presumed there's an answer and gone with that. We could equally ask the question 'why god and not nothing', and then just go with that.
Similarly we can ask “Why a circular process and not a linear one”. Again, the answer that we don’t have to know, but expect there to be one then becomes the single necessary entity.
If you go into the question with an expectation, you're likely to fall foul of confirmation bias at the very least.
The trouble with just suspending the PSR is that it is an arbitrary decision taken merely because it suits imo.
The trouble with applying the Principle of Sufficient Reason is that you have to know what that actually means, not what you want it to mean.
There’s a further problem with a circular process is that ultimately it has everything responsible for creating itself and not creating itself simultaneously which makes the idea of a single necessary entity seem far, far, more reasonable.
No, you're suffering from an anthropomorphic limitation - you see this is as a circular process, but it's not a process, it's a four-dimensional structure that exists as an entirety. We experience it as 'changing' because our subjective experience is limited from within the structure, restricted to movement through time within a narrow band, but independent of that subjective experience of time it isn't a process it's just a singular entity.
O.
-
Which you've repeatedly been shown not to understand.
How can I put this diplomatically? If I was giving advice to a visitor expecting justification of this it would be along the lines of don’t hold your breath
That's a potentially valid question, but that the question exists doesn't mean that you can reject the potential and continue with your presumption that therefore there can be only one necessary entity.
You're presuming that there's an underlying 'something' - that's not been demonstrated. You've asked the question 'why multiple necessary things', presumed there's an answer and gone with that. We could equally ask the question 'why god and not nothing', and then just go with that.
If you go into the question with an expectation, you're likely to fall foul of confirmation bias at the very least.
The trouble with applying the Principle of Sufficient Reason is that you have to know what that actually means, not what you want it to mean.
No, you're suffering from an anthropomorphic limitation - you see this is as a circular process, but it's not a process, it's a four-dimensional structure that exists as an entirety. We experience it as 'changing' because our subjective experience is limited from within the structure, restricted to movement through time within a narrow band, but independent of that subjective experience of time it isn't a process it's just a singular entity.
O.
[/quote] Again we can ask why it is a four dimensional entity and not a three dimension or nine dimension. If it has structure, why that particular structure.
You contradict yourself by assuming one entity while castigating me for assuming one entity.
-
How can I put this diplomatically? If I was giving advice to a visitor expecting justification of this it would be along the lines of don’t hold your breath
It's all here in black and white, just go look.
Again we can ask why it is a four dimensional entity and not a three dimension or nine dimension. If it has structure, why that particular structure.
Again, we can, but it might be that there is no reason, that it simply is. Or it may be that there's an infinite chain of reasons going back forever. Or it might be that a big beardy sky-fairy made it so.
You contradict yourself by assuming one entity while castigating me for assuming one entity.
No, I'm not castigating your for assuming one entity, I'm castigating you for lacking the understanding that what we perceive from our limited viewpoint to be a cycle of entities is, in fact, one single entity in a four- (or more) dimensional arena.
It's a bit like a butterfly - there's an egg, or a larva, or a cocoon, or an imago, but they're all the same butterfly in four dimensional space. A cone is thinner at one end than the other, a universe is smaller in 3 dimensional space at one end than the other (if there is an 'other' end).
O.
-
It's all here in black and white, just go look.
Again, we can, but it might be that there is no reason, that it simply is. Or it may be that there's an infinite chain of reasons going back forever. Or it might be that a big beardy sky-fairy made it so.
No, I'm not castigating your for assuming one entity, I'm castigating you for lacking the understanding that what we perceive from our limited viewpoint to be a cycle of entities is, in fact, one single entity in a four- (or more) dimensional arena.
It's a bit like a butterfly - there's an egg, or a larva, or a cocoon, or an imago, but they're all the same butterfly in four dimensional space. A cone is thinner at one end than the other, a universe is smaller in 3 dimensional space at one end than the other (if there is an 'other' end).
O.
It isn’t so much that you are suspending the PSR it’s where you choose to do it.
You are countering a reason with the reply there may be no reasons.
So that gives rise to three questions.
1 Why are you pulling this out at this point?
2 Isn’t what you mean that you don’t like the reason. So for what reason don’t you like it
3 Does this person actually want a reason.
I see no reason for suspending the expectation of a reason.
-
My point is that there are several models of which Penrose is but one so your peculiar confidence in one model is unfounded.
I'm quite happy that current evidence shows that space-time is apparently infinite. The Penrose model has no evidence to suggest it is true at this point.
Whereas we can have confidence in say, evolution we can have no similar confidence in any particular theory which throws up actual infinities.
You haven't explained why not. You try to hand wave away evidence based on your experience of a very small corner of the Universe.
-
I'm quite happy that current evidence shows that space-time is apparently infinite. The Penrose model has no evidence to suggest it is true at this point.
You haven't explained why not. You try to hand wave away evidence based on your experience of a very small corner of the Universe.
So you disagree with penrose that at some point space time ceases? The very thing you say is infinite. And that Penroses theory is as unlikely as any alternative to evolution.
What is it that makes you so confident that Penrose is wrong.
He has given reasons why something supposedly infinite disappears.
-
So you disagree with penrose that at some point space time ceases?
What's that got to do with anything? Do you think his model is generally accepted as what will happen in the cosmology community?
The very thing you say is infinite. And that Penroses theory is as unlikely as any alternative to evolution.
You've just latched on to a bit of speculation for no reason other than you think it supports your point of view. Where's your evidence?
For some reason it's important to you that infinities don't exist. But there's nothing in modern physics that says they can't. If you want to show they can't exist, show some evidence.
What is it that makes you so confident that Penrose is wrong.
He has given reasons why something supposedly infinite disappears.
You are the one who needs him to be right. Show the evidence.
-
It isn’t so much that you are suspending the PSR it’s where you choose to do it.
It's not so much that I'm 'suspending the PSR' as you're deploying something and calling it the PSR, when that's not actually the case.
You are countering a reason with the reply there may be no reasons.
No, I'm countering your request for a reason with the notion that there may not be a reason. Exactly like you do when someone asks 'but why God?' or 'but what cause God?' or, 'but where does God come from?'
1 Why are you pulling this out at this point?
I've brought it up before, but we were both focused more on my point that you hadn't (and so far as I can tell still haven't) given a reason why reality could not be infinite and go back forever.
2 Isn’t what you mean that you don’t like the reason. So for what reason don’t you like it
No. I mean I don't think there's a reason to existence. I suspect at each stage there are immediate causes, but what makes most sense to me is that there is an infinite chain of immediate causes and reality just is.
3 Does this person actually want a reason.
I presume you mean me? Whether I want a reason or not isn't really that relevant to whether there is one or not, I don't feel like I'm missing out by not thinking there is one. If there is one I guess I'd like to know what it is
I see no reason for suspending the expectation of a reason.
I see no basis for presuming a reason in the first place - why do you have an expectation to be suspended?
O.
-
It's not so much that I'm 'suspending the PSR' as you're deploying something and calling it the PSR, when that's not actually the case.
No, I'm countering your request for a reason with the notion that there may not be a reason. Exactly like you do when someone asks 'but why God?' or 'but what cause God?' or, 'but where does God come from?'
I've brought it up before, but we were both focused more on my point that you hadn't (and so far as I can tell still haven't) given a reason why reality could not be infinite and go back forever.
No. I mean I don't think there's a reason to existence. I suspect at each stage there are immediate causes, but what makes most sense to me is that there is an infinite chain of immediate causes and reality just is.
I presume you mean me? Whether I want a reason or not isn't really that relevant to whether there is one or not, I don't feel like I'm missing out by not thinking there is one. If there is one I guess I'd like to know what it is
I see no basis for presuming a reason in the first place - why do you have an expectation to be suspended?
O.
You still need to state why a given situation could have no explanation in a way that is distinguishable from special pleading.
-
You still need to state why a given situation could have no explanation in a way that is distinguishable from special pleading.
You first. Explain why God needs no explanation.
-
You still need to state why a given situation could have no explanation in a way that is distinguishable from special pleading.
I gave at least two: that it could be infinite in extent, and there was no initial event; or, that it's an entirely spontaneous natural occurrence without any underlying intelligent motivation - it simply is, there is no intellect to incept it with a reason.
Both of these have been offered before.
O.
-
You first. Explain why God needs no explanation.
There is existence rather than non existence.
Nothing comes from nothing since nothing is non existence.
So something must always exist. And we call that God.
That then is the explanation of God.
A statement, the universe just is is not an explanation which is sufficient.
-
I gave at least two: that it could be infinite in extent, and there was no initial event; or, that it's an entirely spontaneous natural occurrence without any underlying intelligent motivation - it simply is, there is no intellect to incept it with a reason.
Both of these have been offered before.
O.
A spontaneous natural event sounds a bit unnatural to me. It also requires nature and then what does that require.
Infinite regress has two problems. It intrinsically avoids reason and for no good reason assumes that everything has an external cause.
-
A spontaneous natural event sounds a bit unnatural to me.
Because our understanding of natural is confined to in-universe events, and we're considering extra-universal possibilities.
It also requires nature and then what does that require.
If it's, by your definition, unnatural, how do you then determine that it requires nature? What does it require? Well, if it's spontaneous, nothing, that's what makes it spontaneous. If it's infinite, nothing, it never wasn't for there to conditions to consider requirements.
Infinite regress has two problems. It intrinsically avoids reason and for no good reason assumes that everything has an external cause.
That an infinite regress 'avoids reason' is an argument from consequence - you don't like that it doesn't give you a reason, so you reject it. That's a logical fallacy - the whole point here is that you're presuming a reason, and I'm showing explanations which don't require one. For you to then reject it because it doesn't give a reason is an admission that I've satisfactorily made my point.
An infinite regress, which by definition precludes a cause, also by definition therefore doesn't presume that everything has an external cause. It mentions a single example, and that single example doesn't have an external cause.
O.
-
I'm quite happy that current evidence shows that space-time is apparently infinite. The Penrose model has no evidence to suggest it is true at this point.
You haven't explained why not. You try to hand wave away evidence based on your experience of a very small corner of the Universe.
Apparently Penroses theory uses the same evidence as you. Expansion of something towards infinity. Towards mind. And the dispersion of finite matter throughout.
Yours and his depend on extrapolation and following what has been called the law of mediocrity where what we observe here, Cosmic flatness, is what we'd expect to see anywhere in the universe.
And yet, You were prepared to suspend that self same law of mediocrity when you suggested that we may not have observed a thing that was necessary because we haven't observed everything in the universe.
So if the universe looks flat here and that is good for the universe then all we observe is contingent and so the whole universe is contingent given your logic.
Whatever is expanding I would say, does not ever reach infinity.
Once you allow the law of mediocrity in this case you have then to ask what business you have to ignore it in other arguments.
-
That an infinite regress 'avoids reason' is an argument from consequence - you don't like that it doesn't give you a reason, so you reject it. That's a logical fallacy - the whole point here is that you're presuming a reason,
But equally you could be proposing it because it precludes a reason which it actually doesn’t and I'm showing explanations which don't require one. For you to then reject it because it doesn't give a reason is an admission that I've satisfactorily made my point.
An infinite regress, which by definition precludes a cause, also by definition therefore doesn't presume that everything has an external cause. It mentions a single example, and that single example doesn't have an external cause.
Unfortunately an infinite regress is only reached if you assume that everything has an external cause.
If you say everything has a cause then we are entitled to ask what that cause is.
Your infinite regress is a regress of events of causes.
Your claim that this infinite regress needs no cause is in contradiction to your claim that everything needs a cause. So the argument for Uncaused infinite regress is self defeating.
O.
[/quote]
-
But equally you could be proposing it because it precludes a reason which it actually doesn’t
It does, and that's exactly why I'm positing it, because you're trying to portray reality as requiring some sort of underlying reason. I'm demonstrating that there viable explanations where that's not the case.
Unfortunately an infinite regress is only reached if you assume that everything has an external cause.
Everything that we've ever been able to study has been the result of external causes. It's not an 'assumption' to propose that principle could continue, it's somewhat presumptive to make a special case for one thing.
If you say everything has a cause then we are entitled to ask what that cause is.
Yes you are. And, at the moment, we don't know what might have caused the universe - and if we do find that out, we then have 'well what caused that'. That's the nature of an infinite regress, no matter how far back you go you still have an infinite list of questions waiting to be answered.
Your infinite regress is a regress of events of causes.
Yes.
Your claim that this infinite regress needs no cause is in contradiction to your claim that everything needs a cause.
No. You're conflating the individual elements or stages of the regress - which require a cause - with the overall process, which being infinite didn't have a start point, and therefore has no ultimate 'cause'.
So the argument for Uncaused infinite regress is self defeating.
No, your scarecrow with a sign round it's neck saying 'argument for an infinite regress' is flawed, but your straw-man is not the argument that I'm putting forward.
O.
-
It does, and that's exactly why I'm positing it, because you're trying to portray reality as requiring some sort of underlying reason. I'm demonstrating that there viable explanations where that's not the case.
Everything that we've ever been able to study has been the result of external causes. It's not an 'assumption' to propose that principle could continue, it's somewhat presumptive to make a special case for one thing.
Yes you are. And, at the moment, we don't know what might have caused the universe - and if we do find that out, we then have 'well what caused that'. That's the nature of an infinite regress, no matter how far back you go you still have an infinite list of questions waiting to be answered.
Yes.
No. You're conflating the individual elements or stages of the regress - which require a cause - with the overall process, which being infinite didn't have a start point, and therefore has no ultimate 'cause'.
No, your scarecrow with a sign round it's neck saying 'argument for an infinite regress' is flawed, but your straw-man is not the argument that I'm putting forward.
O.
You are still ignoring that the reasonableness of proposing an infinite chain of causes is based on everything having a cause. Otherwise the proposal of an infinite regression is just an assertion.
So you are proposing a reason for something while simultaneously arguing it needs no reason.
In otherwords you are saying that a infinite regression just is without having a reason and providing a reason for it.
We don't empirically have the answer but some lines of argument can be dismissed on the grounds of absurdity
-
You are still ignoring that the reasonableness of proposing an infinite chain of causes is based on everything having a cause. Otherwise the proposal of an infinite regression is just an assertion.
So you are proposing a reason for something while simultaneously arguing it needs no reason.
In otherwords you are saying that a infinite regression just is without having a reason and providing a reason for it.
We don't empirically have the answer but some lines of argument can be dismissed on the grounds of absurdity
This also applies to your position that everything has a cause apart from one thing. Neither position is logical therefore the only logical position is dunno.
-
This also applies to your position that everything has a cause apart from one thing. Neither position is logical therfore the only logical position is dunno.
I disagree. Outlander is proposing something doesn't need a reason or explanation which is itself based on the idea everything has a cause.
It would be like me asserting God and everything needs a cause.
I am not asserting everything needs a cause. A reason yes but not a cause.
What I say is that there are things that do need a cause So we are entitled and duty bound to ask what that cause is.
I'm not surprise that someone who can propose that perhaps their is nothing contingent can consider my position equivalent to Outlanders.
-
I disagree. Outlander is proposing something doesn't need a reason or explanation which is itself based on the idea everything has a cause.
It would be like me asserting God and everything needs a cause.
I am not asserting everything needs a cause. A reason yes but not a cause.
What I say is that there are things that do need a cause So we are entitled and duty bound to ask what that cause is.
I'm not surprise that someone who can propose that perhaps their is nothing contingent can consider my position equivalent to Outlanders.
What's the difference between a reason and a cause here?
And if you want to deal with the idea that nothing might be contingent then propose am argument that defeats is rather than just assume that it is wrong
-
What's the difference between a reason and a cause here?
And if you want to deal with the idea that nothing might be contingent then propose am argument that defeats is rather than just assume that it is wrong
Take the question why something and not nothing or existence as opposed to non existence.
We can say that nothing is definitionally non existent. So something exists that has always existed since nothing comes from nothing.
Outrider maintains that this something is an infinite regression of causes. I say that it it is something other since caused things have a cause and the thing I proposes hasn't failed to exist and can have no external cause since nothing comes from nothing.
So although it is not caused it has an explanation.
Outrider says his entity doesn't have a reason but it does since an infinite regress implies that everything has a cause.
I would be very interested in moving to some of the secondary problems with an infinite regress if anyone is game.
-
Take the question why something and not nothing or existence as opposed to non existence.
We can say that nothing is definitionally non existent. So something exists that has always existed since nothing comes from nothing.
Outrider maintains that this something is an infinite regression of causes. I say that it it is something other since caused things have a cause and the thing I proposes hasn't failed to exist and can have no external cause since nothing comes from nothing.
So although it is not caused it has an explanation.
Outrider says his entity doesn't have a reason but it does since an infinite regress implies that everything has a cause.
I would be very interested in moving to some of the secondary problems with an infinite regress if anyone is game.
The question why something rather than nothing is already as has been covered countless times before begging the question that there is a reason. So you've just repeated an error. Add to that, you then say nothing makes no sense in the question, and you've said your own question, already based on a fallacy, is meaningless.
As so often, you demonstrate that your grasp of logic is non existent.
-
There is existence rather than non existence.
Nothing comes from nothing since nothing is non existence.
So something must always exist. And we call that God.
You call it God. I see no reason to.
That then is the explanation of God.
It's not very good though. Apart from making some unfounded assertions, there is no reason to believe that the "something that must exist" is God.
So, again, I ask what is the explanation for God?
-
Apparently Penroses theory uses the same evidence as you. Expansion of something towards infinity. Towards mind. And the dispersion of finite matter throughout.
Are you aware that Penrose's model (it's not a theory) makes things worse for you? The implication of it is that we are in the middle of one of an infinite sequence of Big Bangs and expansions. At least you had the point that the cosmos doesn't extend infinitely into the past. Now you've proposed a mechanism whereby it could.
-
The question why something rather than nothing is already as has been covered countless times before begging the question that there is a reason. So you've just repeated an error. Add to that, you then say nothing makes no sense in the question, and you've said your own question, already based on a fallacy, is meaningless.
As so often, you demonstrate that your grasp of logic is non existent.
Things exist, nothing comes from nothing, nothing does not exist something exists then without external reasons. Not everything exists without an external reason so things which exist are divided into that which exists without external reason and that which exists because of external reasons.
If you disagree with those two ways of existence you have to state how they exist.
-
You call it God. I see no reason to.
It must be the ultimate entity, or ground of being, The fundemental thing. I see no reason not to call it GodIt's not very good though. Apart from making some unfounded assertions, there is no reason to believe that the "something that must exist" is God.
Call it what you like but not the physical universe since
a lot of it doesn't have to exist and indeed doesn't at some point or other
-
Are you aware that Penrose's model (it's not a theory) makes things worse for you? The implication of it is that we are in the middle of one of an infinite sequence of Big Bangs and expansions. At least you had the point that the cosmos doesn't extend infinitely into the past. Now you've proposed a mechanism whereby it could.
The existence of infinities including a chain of causation which is infinite would not address the question "Why existence rather than non existence".
I think I asked you whether each universe is identical to the last.
If so then that is indistinguishable from a loop and we are entitled to ask why a loop. Indeed we are entitled to ask why each new universe has to be flat....and if they don't then there would not be an infinite chain of universes.
-
Things exist, nothing comes from nothing, nothing does not exist something exists then without external reasons. Not everything exists without an external reason so things which exist are divided into that which exists without external reason and that which exists because of external reasons.
If you disagree with those two ways of existence you have to state how they exist.
No, I don't. If you make statements you have to justify them. Simply repeating yourself does not change thar your assumptions that things need a reason, apart from the thing that doesn't contradict each other.
As so often you do not understand the burden of proof.
Oh and can you answer what the difference between cause and reason is in this context. (Note because you rarely define terms with any clarity, you have used the terms interchangeably in the past so it seems you have managed to confuse yourself)
-
No, I don't. If you make statements you have to justify them. Simply repeating yourself does not change thar your assumptions that things need a reason, apart from the thing that doesn't contradict each other.
As so often you do not understand the burden of proof.
Oh and can you answer what the difference between cause and reason is in this context. (Note because you rarely define terms with any clarity, you have used the terms interchangeably in the past so it seems you have managed to confuse yourself)
Just a word about the burden of proof here.
What is the status quo here?
Infinite regress? We are to run with infinite regress because that
is what we wake up everyday and see?
Or are we to say naturalism is the status quo? What advantages does naturalism have over contingency and accounting for it?
You seem to have arbitrarily abandon sufficient reason at a critical point in the discussion.
-
Just a word about the burden of proof here.
What is the status quo here?
Infinite regress? We are to run with infinite regress because that
is what we wake up everyday and see?
Or are we to say naturalism is the status quo? What advantages does naturalism have over contingency and accounting for it?
You seem to have arbitrarily abandon sufficient reason at a critical point in the discussion.
No, the status quo is if you make a claim you have to justify it. There is no assumed position. Any and all suggestions would need to be justified. Note that also includes the principle of sufficient reason. I have, as covered previously, pointed out that it has not been justified as the absolute you treat it as - though you essentially abandon it in suggesting that the reason for something existing is it just has to in terms of necessity.
And again please, explain the difference between reason and cause that you suggested as previously you have used the terms interchangeably.
ETA - and it's not that any posts ago thar I pointed out that there are logical problems about infinite regress and that we',,re at the position of Dunno - it would help if you didn't, create strawmen on things that I've explicitly covered as not being my position.
-
No, the status quo is if you make a claim you have to justify it. There is no assumed position. Any and all suggestions would need to be justified. Note that also includes the principle of sufficient reason. I have, as covered previously, pointed out that it has not been justified as the absolute you treat it as - though you essentially abandon it in suggesting that the reason for something existing is it just has to in terms of necessity.
And again please, explain the difference between reason and cause that you suggested as previously you have used the terms interchangeably.
ETA - and it's not that any posts ago thar I pointed out that there are logical problems about infinite regress and that we',,re at the position of Dunno - it would help if you didn't, create strawmen on things that I've explicitly covered as not being my position.
JeremyP is arguing that the picture not the proof science evidence gives us of the universe is of a universe with a start that thermodynamically is tending to entropy into infinity.
Penrose presumably uses physics to postulate how the universe started and what came before it. There is no question that Penrose is wrong to so do. Or any pressure for him to show the previous universe. Or it seems for Jeremy to empirically produce an infinity.
You state that naturalism has a stronger case because of methodological naturalism.
Contingency as you have seem to have forgotten also uses methodological naturalism.
So Sane you have lost your advantage. We are both using the same argument.
It's where you and I diverge. You seek to undermine contingency in the strange way of suggesting it isn't a thing.You arbitrarily suspend cause and effect and methodological naturalism at a point that is suspiciously atheist.
I on the other hand propose accounting for contingency which leads of course to the necessary entity.
-
JeremyP is arguing that the picture not the proof science evidence gives us of the universe is of a universe with a start that thermodynamically is tending to entropy into infinity.
Penrose presumably uses physics to postulate how the universe started and what came before it. There is no question that Penrose is wrong to so do. Or any pressure for him to show the previous universe. Or it seems for Jeremy to empirically produce an infinity.
You state that naturalism has a stronger case because of methodological naturalism.
Contingency as you have seem to have forgotten also uses methodological naturalism.
So Sane you have lost your advantage. We are both using the same argument.
It's where you and I diverge. You seek to undermine contingency in the strange way of suggesting it isn't a thing.You arbitrarily suspend cause and effect and methodological naturalism at a point that is suspiciously atheist.
I on the other hand propose accounting for contingency which leads of course to the necessary entity.
No, you assert both contingency and that it leads to a necessary entity. You present No arguments that it does so. You don't attempt to demonstrate that it is an absolute.
You also misunderstand as ever, methodological naturalism, which is based on an assumption that things works as they do. I can't and don't extend that to being an absolute as you attempt to do with the PSR, though as noted you then abandon it
I don't say
"You state that naturalism has a stronger case because of methodological naturalism." And as already covered I explicitly take the position of dunno. I'm not sure whether you are continually misrepresenting me because you are lying or just completely out of your depth in terms of logical philosophical discussions , though the second is certainly true.
Take up what Jeremy says with him.
And any chance of you explaining your idea that rwaon and cause are different in this context?
-
It must be the ultimate entity, or ground of being, The fundemental thing. I see no reason not to call it God
"God" implies something with agency.
Call it what you like but not the physical universe since
a lot of it doesn't have to exist and indeed doesn't at some point or other
You've clearly not heard of any of the conservation laws.
-
The existence of infinities including a chain of causation which is infinite would not address the question "Why existence rather than non existence".
What makes you think there is an answer other than "why not?"
I think I asked you whether each universe is identical to the last.
You were the one who brought up the Penrose Universe. You're the one who's supposed to know about it.
If so then that is indistinguishable from a loop and we are entitled to ask why a loop.
Indeed we are. Why not a loop?
-
JeremyP is arguing that the picture not the proof science evidence gives us of the universe is of a universe with a start that thermodynamically is tending to entropy into infinity.
I'm arguing that that seems to be the most likely scenario given the evidence we observe.
Or it seems for Jeremy to empirically produce an infinity.
I'm saying that it seems like the Universe is infinite. You are claiming that infinities don't exist . But you are not giving us any evidence that they don't exist.
-
I'm arguing that that seems to be the most likely scenario given the evidence we observe.
I'm saying that it seems like the Universe is infinite. You are claiming that infinities don't exist . But you are not giving us any evidence that they don't exist.
Feel free to show where I definitively say that actual infinities don't exist? I don't think you can empirically demonstrate an infinity.
You want the luxury of being an atheist on the strength of not being able to demonstrate God empirically but deny the same luxury to me being an AInfinitist.
Hypocrisy.
-
Feel free to show where I definitively say that actual infinities don't exist?
Periodically, throughout this thread: https://www.religionethics.co.uk/index.php?topic=21979.0
I don't think you can empirically demonstrate an infinity.
Our measurements of certain phenomena in the Universe show that it is infinite, if general relativity is an accurate description.
These are empirical measurements.
You want the luxury of being an atheist on the strength of not being able to demonstrate God empirically
I don't want the luxury(?) of being an atheist. I am an atheist.
but deny the same luxury to me being an AInfinitist.
I'm not denying you anything. You can disbelieve what you like, but, unlike with God there is some evidence that infinities exist.
-
Periodically, throughout this thread: https://www.religionethics.co.uk/index.php?topic=21979.0
Our measurements of certain phenomena in the Universe show that it is infinite, if general relativity is an accurate description.
These are empirical measurements.I don't want the luxury(?) of being an atheist. I am an atheist. I'm not denying you anything. You can disbelieve what you like, but, unlike with God there is some evidence that infinities exist.
But the problem with this sampling as you well know, Is is the sampling extensive enough and is it representative?
The argument that it is is self defeating since how could you adequately sample an infinity.
Further if you have ruled out extrapolation in the argument that every natural object in the universe is contingent, then you are special pleading that you can extrapolate in this case.
Similarly if one rules out Alan Burns explanation of consciousness on the grounds that it creates an infinite regress what business have you proposing one for the universe although I am not saying you've done that.
As I say the argument from contingency is not affected by whether there is an infinity of not since the reason there is physics is the necessary entity.
If the universe then has a beginning but no end, Why should that have come to pass
And not one that has a beginning and an end
Or no beginning but an end,
Or is infinite in both directions?
-
We can say that nothing is definitionally non existent.
No, we can't. You keep viewing 'nothing' as some sort of lowest point - like an absolute zero in temperature measurement. In some instances, though, zero is a balance point, a centre-line between 'thing' and 'anti-thing'. Zero, in that instance, is not 'definitionally nothing'.
So something exists that has always existed since nothing comes from nothing.
Again, no.
Outrider maintains that this something is an infinite regression of causes.
No, Outrider doesn't maintain that. Outrider posits that as a possible example of a model of reality which doesn't require an 'uncaused cause'.
I say that it it is something other since caused things have a cause and the thing I proposes hasn't failed to exist and can have no external cause since nothing comes from nothing.
You just arbitrarily determine your favourite toy is 'uncaused' out of nowhere because... um... ooh, look, strawman. Quick, say 'antitheists' in the hope no-one spots the special pleading.
So although it is not caused it has an explanation.
No, it's trying to define the problem out of existence rather than actually addressing. 'God did it' has always been the avoidance of answering the question rather than an attempt to actually answer it, and 'God did God' is just the epitome of that nonsense.
Outrider says his entity doesn't have a reason but it does since an infinite regress implies that everything has a cause.
Do you bother reading what people actually write? I've expressly pointed out, in response to this assertion, that that's not what I'm saying. Each element of an infinite regress has a cause, yes, but given that there's no initiation (hence, infinite) there is no initial start point to have a 'reason' implemented, no instantiation for an overriding purpose, reason or cause to be inserted.
I would be very interested in moving to some of the secondary problems with an infinite regress if anyone is game.
Because you appreciate you've manifestly failed to address any of the primary ones, or because you have new and interesting misrepresentations waiting in the wings? Presumably created ex nihilo, obviously, just emerging spontaneously out of diefic magnanimity, because something out of nothing is impossible.
O.
-
But the problem with this sampling
What do you mean by sampling?
The argument that it is is self defeating since how could you adequately sample an infinity.
Much more easily than sampling a god.
Further if you have ruled out extrapolation in the argument that every natural object in the universe is contingent, then you are special pleading that you can extrapolate in this case.
Who's ruled out that argument? If you want to argue that every natural object in the Universe (what even is an unnatural object) is contingent, go for it.
Similarly if one rules out Alan Burns explanation of consciousness
He hasn't given us an explanation of consciousness.
-
If the universe then has a beginning but no end, Why should that have come to pass
And not one that has a beginning and an end
Or no beginning but an end,
Or is infinite in both directions?
To borrow from Spock - 'It may be poetry, Captain, but not as we know it'
-
No, we can't. You keep viewing 'nothing' as some sort of lowest point - like an absolute zero in temperature measurement. In some instances, though, zero is a balance point, a centre-line between 'thing' and 'anti-thing'. Zero, in that instance, is not 'definitionally nothing'.
Again, no.
No, Outrider doesn't maintain that. Outrider posits that as a possible example of a model of reality which doesn't require an 'uncaused cause'.
You just arbitrarily determine your favourite toy is 'uncaused' out of nowhere because... um... ooh, look, strawman. Quick, say 'antitheists' in the hope no-one spots the special pleading.
No, it's trying to define the problem out of existence rather than actually addressing. 'God did it' has always been the avoidance of answering the question rather than an attempt to actually answer it, and 'God did God' is just the epitome of that nonsense.
Do you bother reading what people actually write? I've expressly pointed out, in response to this assertion, that that's not what I'm saying. Each element of an infinite regress has a cause, yes, but given that there's no initiation (hence, infinite) there is no initial start point to have a 'reason' implemented, no instantiation for an overriding purpose, reason or cause to be inserted.
Because you appreciate you've manifestly failed to address any of the primary ones, or because you have new and interesting misrepresentations waiting in the wings? Presumably created ex nihilo, obviously, just emerging spontaneously out of diefic magnanimity, because something out of nothing is impossible.
O.
zero May well be the balance point etc. But here I am using the term nothing to mean the absence or non existence of a thing.
In your quest to find an uncaused thing you have to arbitrarily alter the word contingent to the point of ignoring it.
You merely make the universe non contingent and therefore you defeat your own argument. All contingency must be accounted for. The puzzle is why you run away from that obligation?
-
What do you mean by sampling?
Much more easily than sampling a god.
Who's ruled out that argument? If you want to argue that every natural object in the Universe (what even is an unnatural object) is contingent, go for it.
He hasn't given us an explanation of consciousness.
He has given sufficient explanation to start a veritable cottage industry in rebuttals, including the one relevant to this thread, he produces an infinite regress so that renders his ideas cobblers. Indeed such is the interminability of the response that I'm almost swayed toward there being an actual infinity.
-
zero May well be the balance point etc. But here I am using the term nothing to mean the absence or non existence of a thing.
And it being a balance point doesn't obviate that point - at the balance point there is nothing.
In your quest to find an uncaused thing you have to arbitrarily alter the word contingent to the point of ignoring it.
That's not even close to being true. Each element within the chain is contingent on something prior in exactly the conventional sense of contingent. It's just that there isn't an arbitrary point at which someone has decided there must be something different.
You merely make the universe non contingent and therefore you defeat your own argument.
My argument is that when you say there must be a start point you're wrong - my model of an entirely contingent infinite chain makes that point perfectly.
All contingency must be accounted for.
As must necessity, if you're proposing a specific definitive explanation - I'm not. I'm showing that your claim that there must be a necessary element somewhere isn't the case. I don't need to give all the infinite examples, I just need to show that the model is conceptually valid.
The puzzle is why you run away from that obligation?
No, the puzzle is why you still haven't grasped the nature of the burden of proof. You're claiming God. You're claiming on the basis that it's the necessary thing for the universe to exist. I'm showing there are models which don't require a necessary element. It's on you to show either why your model is definitively right, or why mine's definitively wrong, and you're failing to do that.
O.
-
And it being a balance point doesn't obviate that point - at the balance point there is nothing.
That's not even close to being true. Each element within the chain is contingent on something prior in exactly the conventional sense of contingent. It's just that there isn't an arbitrary point at which someone has decided there must be something different.
My argument is that when you say there must be a start point you're wrong - my model of an entirely contingent infinite chain makes that point perfectly.
As must necessity, if you're proposing a specific definitive explanation - I'm not. I'm showing that your claim that there must be a necessary element somewhere isn't the case. I don't need to give all the infinite examples, I just need to show that the model is conceptually valid.
No, the puzzle is why you still haven't grasped the nature of the burden of proof. You're claiming God. You're claiming on the basis that it's the necessary thing for the universe to exist. I'm showing there are models which don't require a necessary element. It's on you to show either why your model is definitively right, or why mine's definitively wrong, and you're failing to do that.
O.
Burden of proof about the providence of the universe is a euphemism for No one was there so any old bollocks idea will do in your hands.
Necessity less contingency is absurd since necessity is derived from contingency that's why it is called the argument from contingency. It's not a question of empirical evidence, There seems to be none for rebuttals it's a question of what's possible and contingency with no necessity is an absurdity.
The proposition there is no contingency is more valid than necessityless contingency which is intellectual cake-ism.
-
He has given sufficient explanation to start a veritable cottage industry in rebuttals,
Of course he hasn't. All he has done is say "I don't know, but God".
he produces an infinite regress so that renders his ideas cobblers.
Saying "but God" produces potential infinite regress because you have to explain God's consciousness. This is why it is unsatisfactory. I guess it's possible that there is an infinite series of gods, but doesn't seem very satisfying, especially as there is zero evidence that any of that infinite regress exists.
Indeed such is the interminability of the response that I'm almost swayed toward there being an actual infinity.
And the level off understanding that both you and he displays works very nicely as an example of an actual zero.
-
Necessity less contingency is absurd since necessity is derived from contingency
Lol. Necessity is contingent on contingency. Something can only be necessary if there are things which are contingent on it. That makes it also contingent.
Do you have any understanding at all of the things about which you talk?
-
Lol. Necessity is contingent on contingency. Something can only be necessary if there are things which are contingent on it. That makes it also contingent.
Do you have any understanding at all of the things about which you talk?
No. Again a misunderstanding of the term contingency.
A contingent is dependent on an external necessity. The necessity is inferred from the contingency.
Having cleared that up your point is right in that a universe made up of contingent things is contingent.
What your logic allows for is statements like "My Dad only exists because I was born" which is clearly absurd. Your father did not need you to exist.
Similarly The necessary entity does not need contingent things to exist.
Again If the necessary entity is in the universe. What is it?
-
No. Again a misunderstanding of the term contingency.
A contingent is dependent on an external necessity. The necessity is inferred from the contingency.
Having cleared that up your point is right in that a universe made up of contingent things is contingent.
You are doing exactly what I did in my post: conflating different meanings of "dependent".
You need to tell us exactly what meaning of dependent you assume when you say "x is contingent on y".
Some possible answers (all of which you have attempted to use at various times in the past).
"x is caused by y"
"x is made of y"
"x contains y".
What your logic allows for is statements like "My Dad only exists because I was born" which is clearly absurd. Your father did not need you to exist.
No it's your logic - or lack of - and it's deeply dishonest..
Again If the necessary entity is in the universe. What is it?
Has anybody claimed that there is a necessary entity in the Universe? I don't think so. You are being dishonest again.
-
You are doing exactly what I did in my post: conflating different meanings of "dependent".
You need to tell us exactly what meaning of dependent you assume when you say "x is contingent on y".
Some possible answers (all of which you have attempted to use at various times in the past).
"x is caused by y"
"x is made of y"
"x contains y".
No it's your logic - or lack of - and it's deeply dishonest..
Has anybody claimed that there is a necessary entity in the Universe? I don't think so. You are being dishonest again.
I have made it quite clear what my position is.
The necessary is not dependent for it's existence or status on whatever is contingent.
I have even been taken to task for insisting the universe has to be contingent if it is just a collection of contingent things.
That you now seem to agree with me on this....Well done! ?keep it up.
-
I have made it quite clear what my position is.
No you haven't. In your previous message you were still prevaricating.
The necessary is not dependent for its existence or status on whatever is contingent.
In what sense? Causation? Composition? Contents?
I have even been taken to task for insisting the universe has to be contingent if it is just a collection of contingent things.
Yes. Because you are flat out wrong when you say that.
-
Burden of proof about the providence of the universe is a euphemism for No one was there so any old bollocks idea will do in your hands.
You could just admit that you don't understand the burden of proof.
Necessity less contingency is absurd since necessity is derived from contingency that's why it is called the argument from contingency.
No, that's a misnomer, because the point of the 'argument from contingency' is to arbitrarily decide that there must be a start point, must be some change, without any demonstration that that's the case. That, in case it's not clear, is the bit where you're falling over here - you're saying 'there must be something at the start', and I'm saying 'Why, what's wrong with an infinite regress' and you're waffling and trying to push the burden of proof.
It's not a question of empirical evidence
Did anyone suggest that it was?
There seems to be none for rebuttals it's a question of what's possible and contingency with no necessity is an absurdity.
So you keep asserting without basis.
The proposition there is no contingency is more valid than necessity less contingency which is intellectual cake-ism.
That's the same assertion, with exactly the same lack of basis. If you want to suggest that there cannot be contingency without some necessary 'start' condition, all you have to do is provide the argument to support that. We're still waiting for that.
O.
[/quote]
-
I have even been taken to task for insisting the universe has to be contingent if it is just a collection of contingent things.Yes. Because you are flat out wrong when you say that.
You seem to be contradicting your observation that things formed from other things are contingent on those things and that makes them contingent.
The apparent problem for me is, supposedly the fallacy of composition. e.g. just because a wall is made of small bricks doesn’t mean it has to be a small wall. But which ever way you cut it, the wall is still a composite and it’s “wallness” is dependent on it’s bricks.
Similarly, the universality of the universe is dependent on it’s components. It is contingent on it’s components and therefore contingent.
Finally what if the wall is made of red bricks. Your reading of the fallacy would render the wall “Not necessarily red” so you see under certain conditions the fallacy is not applicable.
-
No, that's a misnomer, because the point of the 'argument from contingency' is to arbitrarily decide that there must be a start point,
It’s a bottom up argument starting with objects and an empirical knowledge of how they came into existence. We don’t start with something that just is, always has been, and always will be because nothing like that, that is also prone to sense or instrumental discovery, has been observed. To start with something non contingent would be to introduce a skyhook.must be some change, without any demonstration that that's the case.
Change is observed. So what we are doing is setting up an account where all contingency must ultimately be accounted for so if we agree that the universe is contingent, I.e. dependent for it’s existence on it’s components then we have to ask on what are they contingent on ultimately?
iI'm saying 'Why, what's wrong with an infinite regress'.
It assumes everything has a cause...Do you want to be doing that?
Also we are entitled to ask why an infinite regress....and not a finite chain?
Can this infinite regress be demonstrated?
Then there is the nature of contingency. We borrow our existence from the past. However if someone owed me a fiver who could only pay it when they were owed a fiver and there was an infinite regress there, then I would still be waiting a long time for my fiver.In other words forever, in other words an infinite regress never accounts for contingency since it keeps kicking the Can back down the road.
How does infinity of causes fit in with the phenomenon of entropy. Are you proposing a perpetual motion machine?
So that’s the problems known to me with infinite regress.
-
You are doing exactly what I did in my post: conflating different meanings of "dependent".
You need to tell us exactly what meaning of dependent you assume when you say "x is contingent on y".
Some possible answers (all of which you have attempted to use at various times in the past).
"x is caused by y"
"x is made of y"
"x contains y".
The first and third describe a contingent entity. Not sure I have proposed the second since X would equal Y wouldn’t it?
If Y were the sum of a+b etc, Then that would result in a contingent entity.
-
My argument is that when you say there must be a start point you're wrong - my model of an entirely contingent infinite chain makes that point perfectly.
If it is contingent then logically we have to ask “Contingent on what?”
-
We don’t start with something that just is, always has been, and always will be because nothing like that, that is also prone to sense or instrumental discovery, has been observed.
But, in your scheme, you do start with something that 'just is': you call it 'God', and you then you sneakily exclude this 'God' of yours from being susceptible to "sense or instrumental discovery", which is no more than special pleading on your part.
To start with something non contingent would be to introduce a skyhook.
Yet that is exactly what you are doing - case closed.
-
But, in your scheme, you do start with something that 'just is': you call it 'God', and you then you sneakily exclude this 'God' of yours from being susceptible to "sense or instrumental discovery", which is no more than special pleading on your part.
Yet that is exactly what you are doing - case closed.
No you don’t start with God, You start with any contingent thing, note that it was made or born or made in a supernova, and then work, your way back. That’s why greater minds than ours call it “The argument from contingency”. The argument then takes us to the necessary feared and loathed by atheists everywhere and those that accept the logic state that it doesn’t mean there is a God, but that is based on a misunderstanding imo.
So, Wrong.
-
No you don’t start with God, You start with any contingent thing, note that it was made or born or made in a supernova, and then work, your way back. That’s why greater minds than ours call it “The argument from contingency”. The argument then takes us to the necessary feared and loathed by atheists everywhere and those that accept the logic state that it doesn’t mean there is a God, but that is based on a misunderstanding imo.
So, Wrong.
But surely your schema must 'start' with the 'necessary' preceding any initial state of 'contingency', and any approach of working backwards doesn't avoid that scenario.
So, the 'God' you pray to may not be this 'necessary' thing after all?
-
If it is contingent then logically we have to ask “Contingent on what?”
What came before it, that's sort of what contingency means.
O.
-
What came before it, that's sort of what contingency means.
O.
No the contingency of the "It" has no bearing on the contingency or otherwise of what came before.
In terms of a temporal chain of contingency, there are other heirarchies of existence independent of befores and after e.g the Tory government existed simultaneously with the requisite MPs it was contingent on. So you can have contingency irrespective of "before"
-
But surely your schema must 'start' with the 'necessary' preceding any initial state of 'contingency', and any approach of working backwards doesn't avoid that scenario.
So, the 'God' you pray to may not be this 'necessary' thing after all?
No the argument is from contingency.
It is bottom up argument employing methodological naturalism at the start and that avoids skyhook.
The argument does not need any time reference since there are hierarchies of being e.g. We exist because our cells exist, because molecules exist, because our atoms exist etc. Down to the fundamental reason
-
I have even been taken to task for insisting the universe has to be contingent if it is just a collection of contingent things. You seem to be contradicting your observation that things formed from other things are contingent on those things and that makes them contingent.
I have not made that observation.
The apparent problem for me is, supposedly the fallacy of composition. e.g. just because a wall is made of small bricks doesn’t mean it has to be a small wall. But which ever way you cut it, the wall is still a composite and its “wallness” is dependent on its bricks.
But it's not contingent on the bricks in it. That's the point. You want to redefine contingency to mean whatever kind of dependency suits your purpose. That won't fly. We can see your dishonesty.
Similarly, the universality of the universe is dependent on its components.
And yet the components are dependent on the Universe.
Oh look, we have another way to avoid the existence of a necessary thing.
You argue against circular dependencies and yet you give us an example yourself.
-
The first and third describe a contingent entity.
Interesting. I saw a bus this morning and it had a number of passengers on board. You claim the bus is contingent on the passengers.
Not sure I have proposed the second since X would equal Y wouldn’t it?
No. Humans are made of cells. Humans are not cells.
-
No the argument is from contingency.
It is bottom up argument employing methodological naturalism at the start and that avoids skyhook.
The argument does not need any time reference since there are hierarchies of being e.g. We exist because our cells exist, because molecules exist, because our atoms exist etc. Down to the fundamental reason
Nope - for you the 'necessary' is a supernatural agent (a.k.a. 'skyhook') that precedes anything that is susceptible to the the tools of methodological naturalism - presumably you see it as a special case that is not amenable to methodological naturalism, which is both special pleading and a category error.
-
What came before it, that's sort of what contingency means.
O.
No the contingency of the "It" has no bearing on the contingency or otherwise of what came before.
In terms of a temporal chain of contingency, there are other heirarchies of existence independent of befores and after e.g the Tory government existed simultaneously with the requisite MPs it was contingent on. So you can have contingency irrespective of "before"
-
No the contingency of the "It" has no bearing on the contingency or otherwise of what came before.
In terms of a temporal chain of contingency, there are other heirarchies of existence independent of befores and after e.g the Tory government existed simultaneously with the requisite MPs it was contingent on. So you can have contingency irrespective of "before"
So God is contingent on the Father, Son and Holy Ghost.
Got it.
-
Nope - for you the 'necessary' is a supernatural agent (a.k.a. 'skyhook') that precedes anything that is susceptible to the the tools of methodological naturalism - presumably you see it as a special case that is not amenable to methodological naturalism, which is both special pleading and a category error.
Skyhook refer to the commencement of an argument using a skyhook I.e.something which needs no explanation soI think you've misunderstood the term skyhook here.
In the argument from contingency the existence is inferred starting from the observed.
Given that. I'm trying to find meaning in your post that is possible to address
I think you may have confused the term skyhook with Skyfairy.
I think the term supernatural doesn't help since all objections to my argument have sought answers in things which are beyond nature including.
Circular hierarchies of causation
Popping out of nothing
Contingency without necessity
Just is.
In short calling something supernatural doesn't have the destructive effect or sense that you suppose it has.
-
So God is contingent on the Father, Son and Holy Ghost.
Got it.
Not really. Using the contingency of the tory government is poor analogy.
The trinity aren't parts since God doesn't exist independently in parts.
-
Not really. Using the contingency of the tory government is poor analogy.
Thanks for the admission.
The trinity aren't parts since God doesn't exist independently in parts.
The Father, Son and Holy Ghost are three different aspects of God right? If they don't exist, God doesn't exist. Therefore God is contingent on the persons of the Trinity.
You can't get out of it.
-
Skyhook refer to the commencement of an argument using a skyhook I.e.something which needs no explanation soI think you've misunderstood the term skyhook here.
Nope - for you 'God' is something that requires no explanation: it 'just is', therefore it is a 'skyhook'.
In the argument from contingency the existence is inferred starting from the observed.
Which you use to claim a preceding supernatural 'necessary' agent
You're confusing yourself again
-
Nope - for you 'God' is something that requires no explanation: it 'just is', therefore it is a 'skyhook'.
Which you use to claim a preceding supernatural 'necessary' agent
You're confusing yourself again
A supernatural agent like the Necessary entity doesn't have to precede anything in a heirarchy of being. This was spelt out some posts back.
-
No the contingency of the "It" has no bearing on the contingency or otherwise of what came before.
Except that that's what you're asking for, something that comes before 'the chain' which by the definition of the chain doesn't exist. It's infinite, the clue is in the name
In terms of a temporal chain of contingency, there are other heirarchies of existence independent of befores and after e.g the Tory government existed simultaneously with the requisite MPs it was contingent on. So you can have contingency irrespective of "before"
Not really - until you have MPs, you can't have a parliament. Similarly, you can have the chain of cause and effect, but it's contingent on the elements of the chain, it doesn't exist before them for them to slot into.
So you're back to the infinite chain of events, which are individually only congingent upon the one before them.
O.
-
A supernatural agent like the Necessary entity doesn't have to precede anything in a heirarchy of being. This was spelt out some posts back.
So why are so obsessed with 'necessity' if it ain't required?
-
So why are so obsessed with 'necessity' if it ain't required?
Of course it's required. Just like the eiffel tower depends on having it's lower stage.....
Which kind of illustrates circular hierarchies and infinite regresses. They are sort of free floating entities.
-
Except that that's what you're asking for, something that comes before 'the chain' which by the definition of the chain doesn't exist. It's infinite, the clue is in the name
Not really - until you have MPs, you can't have a parliament. Similarly, you can have the chain of cause and effect, but it's contingent on the elements of the chain, it doesn't exist before them for them to slot into.
So you're back to the infinite chain of events, which are individually only congingent upon the one before them.
O.
First cause is first cause in a causal chain. So it isn't outside the chain of causation. It is the uncaused cause or reason.
And it's the base in vertical hierarchies of being.
-
Of course it's required. Just like the eiffel tower depends on having it's lower stage.....
Which kind of illustrates circular hierarchies and infinite regresses. They are sort of free floating entities.
He asserted
-
First cause is first cause in a causal chain. So it isn't outside the chain of causation. It is the uncaused cause or reason.
And it's the base in vertical hierarchies of being.
He asserted
-
First cause is first cause in a causal chain. So it isn't outside the chain of causation. It is the uncaused cause or reason. And it's the base in vertical hierarchies of being.
It can be, but you haven't shown that it needs to be. Why can't the chain continue going back forever? Why does it need to be finite? Why does there need to be an uncaused cause?
O.
-
It can be, but you haven't shown that it needs to be. Why can't the chain continue going back forever? Why does it need to be finite? Why does there need to be an uncaused cause?
O.
As I've said Contingency would be unaccounted for in an infinite regress of causation and since we know contingency is a thing, that is problematic.
There are some ways round it. It's a bit humean. There is no temporal chain of causation. Hierarchies of being would be created on a moment by moment basis. Contingency would be preserved.
Then again an infinite causal chain existed we would still have the question, Why an infinite causal chain and not an eternity of unrealised potential....or non existence...or a finite chain But I feel I've been through all of this already.
-
As I've said Contingency would be unaccounted for in an infinite regress of causation and since we know contingency is a thing, that is problematic.
That doesn't mean anything. Yes, contingency would be 'unaccounted for', but if your expectation is for something accountable then you're begging the question - there's no justification here for why you're looking for an answer to 'why' rather than 'how'.
Then again an infinite causal chain existed we would still have the question, Why an infinite causal chain and not an eternity of unrealised potential....or non existence...or a finite chain But I feel I've been through all of this already.
You are begging the question. There may not be a 'why' underlying it all. If it's infinite, if it's always been, there is no 'prior' for there to have been a causal event, there was no 'first', there is no 'why' there is just cause and effect eternally.
You're right, we have been over this already, but mainly because you've still not provided anything which obviates this possibility.
O.
-
That doesn't mean anything. Yes, contingency would be 'unaccounted for', but if your expectation is for something accountable then you're begging the question - there's no justification here for why you're looking for an answer to 'why' rather than 'how'.
You are begging the question. There may not be a 'why' underlying it all. If it's infinite, if it's always been, there is no 'prior' for there to have been a causal event, there was no 'first', there is no 'why' there is just cause and effect eternally.
You're right, we have been over this already, but mainly because you've still not provided anything which obviates this possibility.
O.
I think I've talked about disapplying the question why ( suspension of the PSR) saying it's where and when you do it. And you're doing it in a very suspicious place in the argument.
You've been given the reason why the necessary entity should exist...You've merely disapplied reason when the going got tough.
-
That doesn't mean anything. Yes, contingency would be 'unaccounted for', but if your expectation is for something There may not be a 'why' underlying it all. If it's infinite, if it's always been,
If what has always been? I Seem to be surrounded by things that haven't always been.
-
As I've said Contingency would be unaccounted for
The trouble is that, in your model, the necessary thing is unaccounted for. If being unaccounted for is not allowed, then your god needs to be accounted for.
-
The trouble is that, in your model, the necessary thing is unaccounted for. If being unaccounted for is not allowed, then your god needs to be accounted for.
No, All the contingency needs accounting for and the necessary entity accounts for it. It balances the books.
An infinite regress however requires something for nothing.
An analogy would be someone ordering a meal and instead of paying for it they keep ordering more and more dishes.
-
The trouble is that, in your model, the necessary thing is unaccounted for. If being unaccounted for is not allowed, then your god needs to be accounted for.
Are you saying then that without something settling the account the contingency IS accounted for? That's what an infinite regress model is trying to do.
-
No, All the contingency needs accounting for and the necessary entity accounts for it. It balances the books.
An infinite regress however requires something for nothing.
An analogy would be someone ordering a meal and instead of paying for it they keep ordering more and more dishes.
He asserted
-
Are you saying then that without something settling the account the contingency IS accounted for? That's what an infinite regress model is trying to do.
No, he's pointing put that the issue you think there is with infinite regress applies to your model too.
-
No, he's pointing put that the issue you think there is with infinite regress applies to your model too.
It doesn't. If contingency cannot explain itself it must be explained from without I.e. non contingency.
In fact contingency demands it, which is why it is called the argument from contingency.
Infinite regress is an attempt to solve contingency by contingency but it actually throws up what looks like a necessary entity as insurance I.e. the infinite regress.
We know that something exists but we are surrounded with entities that don't have to and at sometime haven't.
The question then is what is it that has always existed?
-
If what has always been?
Reality.
I Seem to be surrounded by things that haven't always been.
You seem to be, but actually you aren't. You're surrounded by energy, which changes form, solidifies into matter in some circumstances, interacts with other forms of energy in different ways depending on their states at the time.
That energy appears to have been released in the period immediately prior to the Big Bang, but from what we aren't clear on. Given, though, that so far as we know energy can be neither created nor destroyed, it's reasonable to presume that it was around in some other form prior to this. Hence, the history of that energy could well be infinite in scope, going back forever.
O.
-
It doesn't. If contingency cannot explain itself it must be explained from without I.e. non contingency.
In fact contingency demands it, which is why it is called the argument from contingency.
Infinite regress is an attempt to solve contingency by contingency but it actually throws up what looks like a necessary entity as insurance I.e. the infinite regress.
We know that something exists but we are surrounded with entities that don't have to and at sometime haven't.
The question then is what is it that has always existed?
Not really - in my experience some theists invoke 'God' as a means of stopping an infinite regress - but they tend to remain silent on where 'God' came from else they are happy to say that 'God, and only God, just is' as a 'necessary' special case (which is special pleading).
-
No, All the contingency needs accounting for and the necessary entity accounts for it.
But you then need to account for the necessary thing.
An infinite regress however requires something for nothing.
So does an unaccounted for necessary being.
An analogy would be someone ordering a meal and instead of paying for it they keep ordering more and more dishes.
I don't think you haver got the hang of this analogy thing. Analogies are meant to help explain things, not make them more confusing.
-
It doesn't. If contingency cannot explain itself it must be explained from without I.e. non contingency.
In fact contingency demands it, which is why it is called the argument from contingency.
Infinite regress is an attempt to solve contingency by contingency but it actually throws up what looks like a necessary entity as insurance I.e. the infinite regress.
We know that something exists but we are surrounded with entities that don't have to and at sometime haven't.
The question then is what is it that has always existed?
More assertions.
-
It doesn't. If contingency cannot explain itself it must be explained from without I.e. non contingency.
In fact contingency demands it, which is why it is called the argument from contingency.
Infinite regress is an attempt to solve contingency by contingency but it actually throws up what looks like a necessary entity as insurance I.e. the infinite regress.
We know that something exists but we are surrounded with entities that don't have to and at sometime haven't.
The question then is what is it that has always existed?
You seem to have introduced yet another definition of contingency.
X is explained by Y.
You are also conflating two different meanings for the word "account". Please try to get your thoughts in some sort of coherent order before coming back to us.
-
Reality.
OK. How does that differ or tell us anymore than the term something that has existed forever?
You seem to be, but actually you aren't.
So you and I and your computer aren't real? [/quote]You're surrounded by energy,[/quote] But if I'm not real then it's incorrect to say I'm surrounded by energy, because there is no I which changes form, solidifies into matter in some circumstances, interacts with other forms of energy in different ways depending on their states at the time.
Thanks to entropy. It sounds like you are proposing a perpetual motion machine. An infinite chain of changes and actualisation requires a prime mover to avoid thermodynamics, I would have thought
That energy appears to have been released in the period immediately prior to the Big Bang, but from what we aren't clear on. Given, though, that so far as we know energy can be neither created nor destroyed, it's reasonable to presume that it was around in some other form prior to this. Hence, the history of that energy could well be infinite in scope, going back forever.
O.
Since we are talking Big Bang we have a situation where all the energy is potential. I would have thought release involves the introduction of a gradient. So we have to ask ourselves what it is that introduced this?
-
You seem to have introduced yet another definition of contingency.
X is explained by Y.
That is just the principle of sufficient reason.
Note explanation does not have to mean " external cause".
-
Not really - in my experience some theists invoke 'God' as a means of stopping an infinite regress - but they tend to remain silent on where 'God' came from else they are happy to say that 'God, and only God, just is' as a 'necessary' special case (which is special pleading).
God is proposed as that which has always been here Gordon. You either say something popped out of nothing or it was always here.
-
God is proposed as that which has always been here Gordon. You either say something popped out of nothing or it was always here.
False dichotomy based on assumptions
-
OK. How does that differ or tell us anymore than the term something that has existed forever?
What more did you need to understand the concept? I don't understand why you're struggling with this possibility.
So you and I and your computer aren't real?
You missed out some reasoning there in how you got from conservation of energy and mass and energy are interchangeable to therefore we're not real.
You're surrounded by energy,
Yes. And I AM energy, condensed and channelled and interacting according to physical laws.
But if I'm not real then it's incorrect to say I'm surrounded by energy, because there is no I
Well if you want to make that case, go for it. As I didn't even hint towards that, it's not on me to explain how the hell you found yourself there.
Thanks to entropy.
Entropy is the tendency of the energy in the universe to disperse and even out - nothing in that obviates anything that I've said.
It sounds like you are proposing a perpetual motion machine.
Only in the sense that the conservation of energy suggests that the universe is a constant energy state - elements within that energy state undergo change constantly, and entropy is one of the resulting effects of those processes of change.
An infinite chain of changes and actualisation requires a prime mover to avoid thermodynamics, I would have thought
No it doesn't. We do need to understand, potentially, what the 'restart' events are that instigate things like the Big Bang, but there's no reason to presume that those mechanisms constitute any sort of prime mover notion, it's entirely plausible that they are effects within reality already.
Since we are talking Big Bang we have a situation where all the energy is potential.
No, we don't. Immediately prior to the Big Bang all the energy was condensed into a singular point, but all the information we have suggests that is as far back as we can know at the moment. Where that energy came from before that is, currently, not known.
I would have thought release involves the introduction of a gradient. So we have to ask ourselves what it is that introduced this?
If you want to help to understand the early universe and what happened to move from the singularity to expansion, you'd be better served studying Cosmology I'd say than trying to claim a cosmic magician did it.
O.
-
That is just the principle of sufficient reason.
Note explanation does not have to mean " external cause".
What is the sufficient reason for your god?
-
What more did you need to understand the concept? I don't understand why you're struggling with this possibility.
You missed out some reasoning there in how you got from conservation of energy and mass and energy are interchangeable to therefore we're not real.
Yes. And I AM energy, condensed and channelled and interacting according to physical laws.
Well if you want to make that case, go for it. As I didn't even hint towards that, it's not on me to explain how the hell you found yourself there.
Entropy is the tendency of the energy in the universe to disperse and even out - nothing in that obviates anything that I've said.
Only in the sense that the conservation of energy suggests that the universe is a constant energy state - elements within that energy state undergo change constantly, and entropy is one of the resulting effects of those processes of change.
No it doesn't. We do need to understand, potentially, what the 'restart' events are that instigate things like the Big Bang, but there's no reason to presume that those mechanisms constitute any sort of prime mover notion, it's entirely plausible that they are effects within reality already.
No, we don't. Immediately prior to the Big Bang all the energy was condensed into a singular point, but all the information we have suggests that is as far back as we can know at the moment. Where that energy came from before that is, currently, not known.
If you want to help to understand the early universe and what happened to move from the singularity to expansion, you'd be better served studying Cosmology I'd say than trying to claim a cosmic magician did it.
O.
When I said I seemed surrounded by things that haven't always been there you said I wasn't.
When challenged you changed that to they were there, I could talk about an I and a you but they were made of energy. It seems like you are doing a bit of handwaving there. "It's a finite entity, no it's energy it's a finite entity no it's energy"
That you and I will cease to exist makes us contingent. That we are altered energy makes us contingent.
That energy can be changed makes it contingent.
You seem to intimate that this energy was concentrated. Since you discount it as being solely potential energy. I have to ask you what energy transfers were going on and how you propose these happened since the only way energy transfers is where there is a potential difference or gradient.
Cosmologists do recognise the heat death problem for the infinite universe theory. It should have happened an infinitely long time ago perhaps hence Penroses conformal cosmological theory.
-
What is the sufficient reason for your god?
One reason is that contingency demands a non contingency.
Infinite regress seems an insufficient reason because it never satisfies the demands of contingency but change makes it contingent IMO. Why does it change?
Popping out of nothing? Not sure might be might not be a sufficient reason but has the drawback that nothing comes from nothing.
-
When I said I seemed surrounded by things that haven't always been there you said I wasn't.
And that doesn't meant that they weren't real, it just means those 'things' weren't always there. The energy that makes them up has been.
When challenged you changed that to they were there, I could talk about an I and a you but they were made of energy. It seems like you are doing a bit of handwaving there. "It's a finite entity, no it's energy it's a finite entity no it's energy"
The energy is conserved. The 'things' that it makes up, at times, change.
That you and I will cease to exist makes us contingent.
No. The fact that you and I started to exist implies that we're contingent. Whether or not we cease to exist (and speak for yourself on that assumption ;D) has nothing to say about whether we're contingent.
That we are altered energy makes us contingent.
Yes.
That energy can be changed makes it contingent.
No. If I change energy by, say, building a windmill and changing kinetic energy of wind into kinetic energy of machinery, the existence of the energy itself is not a result of that process. The energy is not contingent; its state might be.
You seem to intimate that this energy was concentrated. Since you discount it as being solely potential energy. I have to ask you what energy transfers were going on and how you propose these happened since the only way energy transfers is where there is a potential difference or gradient.
The energy was condensed, in part, because there was no space for them to have a gradient within.
Cosmologists do recognise the heat death problem for the infinite universe theory. It should have happened an infinitely long time ago perhaps hence Penroses conformal cosmological theory.
Penrose's theory isn't that this instance of a universe should have undergone a heat death already, so far as I've read, but rather that previous universes may have undergone a heat death which creates the conditions for a 'Big Bang' type event.
O.
-
One reason is that contingency demands a non contingency.
Rubbish. You haven't demonstrated that yet nor have you demonstrated that your god is not contingent.
Infinite regress seems an insufficient reason because it never satisfies the demands of contingency but change makes it contingent IMO. Why does it change?
I wasn't asking you about infinite regresses, I was asking you about your god. Please don't distract yourself in this way. Concentrate on the question in hand.
-
No. If I change energy by, say, building a windmill and changing kinetic energy of wind into kinetic energy of machinery, the existence of the energy itself is not a result of that process. The energy is not contingent; its state might be.
You seem to be positing energy as the necessary entity. This would make everything necessary since everything is energy. And yet there is, by definition contingent things in the universe including the state of energy. That leaves us with the question "What is it about energy that is not contingent". Secondly though you seem to be treating energy like a single entity, but we know energy to be particulate. It is made up of parts and the question is why this number of parts and why this or that arrangement of components?
This compositeness therefore makes energy a contingent.
The energy was condensed, in part, because there was no space for them to have a gradient within.
I think you probably realise that's a circular argument.
-
Rubbish. You haven't demonstrated that yet nor have you demonstrated that your god is not contingent.
It demonstrates itself. If something is contingent there is the question "What on". You've recieved that news time and time again. No person of the trinity is independent of another. They are not parts. You are confusing closest analogies of a thing with the thing itself imo.
-
It demonstrates itself. If something is contingent there is the question "What on". You've recieved that news time and time again. No person of the trinity is independent of another. They are not parts. You are confusing closest analogies of a thing with the thing itself imo.
If they are not three elements of a single thing - this 'one true God' notion - then they are surely three separate things. Seems to me that the 'trinity' comprises three separate things since, from what I understand, they can each independently do their own thing - is that so?
Anyway, drifting back in the general direction of infinity, is it your view that 'God' didn't have a start point and has always 'been' - here, there and everywhere, and also 'everywhen' - so that it is both eternal and infinite since what it is alleged to have created, as in 'everything for all time', implies infinity?
-
If they are not three elements of a single thing - this 'one true God' notion - then they are surely three separate things. Seems to me that the 'trinity' comprises three separate things since, from what I understand, they can each independently do their own thing - is that so?
No the holy spirit proceeds from the father and the son and the father is in the son and the son is in the father.
Anyway, drifting back in the general direction of infinity, is it your view that 'God' didn't have a start point and has always 'been' - here, there and everywhere, and also 'everywhen' - so that it is both eternal and infinite since what it is alleged to have created, as in 'everything for all time', implies infinity?
I think it's perfectly possible for an infinite God to be maintaining an infinity . That is acceptable within the argument from contingency. How that works is that God is the necessity at the bottom of all hierarchies of existence and that isn't time dependent. So You are contingent on your body parts which are contingent on tissues which is contingent on cells which are contingent on molecules all the way down to the fundamental and necessary entity.
Anyway aside from that,wishing you all the best.
-
If I understood that Gordon I'd disagree with it.I think it's perfectly possible for an infinite God to be maintaining an infinity . That is acceptable within the argument from contingency. How that works is that God is the necessity at the bottom of all hierarchies of existence and that isn't time dependent. So You are contingent on your body parts which are contingent on tissues which is contingent on cells which are contingent on molecules all the way down to the fundamental and necessary entity.
He asserted
-
No the holy spirit proceeds from the father and the son and the father is in the son and the son is in the father.
Makes no sense: I'm quite clear that my son and myself are two distinctly separate people no matter that we are related.
I think it's perfectly possible for an infinite God to be maintaining an infinity . That is acceptable within the argument from contingency. How that works is that God is the necessity at the bottom of all hierarchies of existence and that isn't time dependent. So You are contingent on your body parts which are contingent on tissues which is contingent on cells which are contingent on molecules all the way down to the fundamental and necessary entity.
So what is the relationship between 'God and time?
Anyway aside from that,wishing you all the best.
Thank you, Vlad: much appreciated.
-
It demonstrates itself.
No it doesn't.
If something is contingent there is the question "What on".
Wouldn't you agree that a thing can be contingent on other contingent things? For example, I would not exist but for my parents. I assume it is not your claim that they are necessary.
You've recieved that news time and time again.
And time and time again you have been told that your argument is bollocks. Why don't you actually do some thinking instead of vomiting your normal tripe?
You haven't been able to rule out an infinite regress and you haven't been able to rule out circular dependencies. You are just a mess.
No person of the trinity is independent of another. They are not parts. You are confusing closest analogies of a thing with the thing itself imo.
The Trinity are three persons right. If none of them existed, would God exist?
You just denying a logical outcome of your own argument is not persuasive. In fact, it makes you look like a clown.
-
You seem to be positing energy as the necessary entity.
I'm not sure 'necessary entity' makes sense in an eternal cycle, but I suppose it's a possibility.
This would make everything necessary since everything is energy. And yet there is, by definition contingent things in the universe including the state of energy.
Absolutely.
That leaves us with the question "What is it about energy that is not contingent".
Only if you're wedded to the idea that something has to be non-contingent.
Secondly though you seem to be treating energy like a single entity, but we know energy to be particulate. It is made up of parts and the question is why this number of parts and why this or that arrangement of components?
What makes you think 'why' is a valid question? It's simply what there is, it's what there has always been, it's what there always will be. Why this arrangement - because of the preceding arrangements and the way the various states of energy interact.
This compositeness therefore makes energy a contingent. I think you probably realise that's a circular argument.
For you, because you're trying to lever in non-contingency somewhere to say that it's God. Where I'm not trying to fit something non-contingent in there I'm happy to have energy going back in various states forever.
O.
-
but we know energy to be particulate.
This is a fundamental misunderstanding of what energy is. Energy is not stuff, it's a property, a number that is calculated in a certain way depending on the situation. It's really an accounting abstraction.
-
So what is the relationship between 'God and time?
God is at every moment in time.
Did God create the universe with time. I think the jury is still out on the Kalam but if it has had it's day and the universe is an infinitesequence of events, God is still behind/at the bottom of everything as the thing the whole ensemble of contingent things
are contingent on.
Contingency remains even in an infinity.
Without a necessity you have nothing and nothing comes from nothing so if we have contingency we have a something that has to exist.
Something HAS to exist it exists because there never anything to prevent it existing and contingency is dependent on it.
-
No it doesn't.
Wouldn't you agree that a thing can be contingent on other contingent things? For example, I would not exist but for my parents. I assume it is not your claim that they are necessary.
And time and time again you have been told that your argument is bollocks. Why don't you actually do some thinking instead of vomiting your normal tripe?
You haven't been able to rule out an infinite regress and you haven't been able to rule out circular dependencies. You are just a mess.
The Trinity are three persons right. If none of them existed, would God exist?
You just denying a logical outcome of your own argument is not persuasive. In fact, it makes you look like a clown.
Alan Burns ideas on consciousness are dismissed on account that they give rise to an infinite regress. I am dismissed because I am dismissing infinite regress and I am the one being called a clown.
Circular dependencies have things existing because they already have existed and ceased to exist. It introduces the absurdity of self causation and that gets you to something like necessity. The very thing you are trying to rule out by assuming that everything has an external cause. You want something to be the reason for its own existence and contingent as well. You are the one who is confused. In other words You've been sympathetic to everything having an external reason for existence and everything being it's own reason for existing.
Terms like Father Son and Holy Ghost are not mathematical or scientific terms Jeremy. They are figurative words coined for situations and arguments at times and places. God the son doesn't literally sit at God's right hand because God doesn't have one. It's a vision which shows those who can access it what it is closest to in terms that can be understood. That's why Christianity has different metaphors.
-
Alan Burns ideas on consciousness are dismissed on account that they give rise to an infinite regress.
No, they are dismissed on the grounds that he has no evidence for their truth.
I am dismissed because I am dismissing infinite regress and I am the one being called a clown.
You are dismissed because your arguments are chock full of logical fallacies and your use of big words that you don't understand.
Circular dependencies have things existing because they already have existed and ceased to exist. It introduces the absurdity of self causation and that gets you to something like necessity.
You would have us believe that the Universe depends on the things in it and the things in the Universe are dependent on it.
The same applies to your Trinity.
These are circular and yet you try to hand wave them aside.
The very thing you are trying to rule out by assuming that everything has an external cause. You want something to be the reason for its own existence and contingent as well. You are the one who is confused. In other words You've been sympathetic to everything having an external reason for existence and everything being it's own reason for existing..
The other thing you do is put words into our mouths to misrepresent our positions.
Terms like Father Son and Holy Ghost are not mathematical or scientific terms Jeremy. They are figurative words coined for situations and arguments at times and places.
They do have meanings though and pretending they don't mean what even Christians normally think they mean is disingenuous at best.
God the son doesn't literally sit at God's right hand because God doesn't have one. It's a vision which shows those who can access it what it is closest to in terms that can be understood. That's why Christianity has different metaphors.
Nobody is claiming Jesus does literally sit at God's right hand. Why are you even bring it up?
-
No, they are dismissed on the grounds that he has no evidence for their truth.
Neither has infinite regress of causes or circular heirarchy of causes You would have us believe that the Universe depends on the things in it and the things in the Universe are dependent on it.
I thought that was your schtick. The things that the universe are composed of ultimately come from the necessary entity. But I'm glad you've spotted the argument is circular.
-
Neither has infinite regress of causes or circular heirarchy of causes
Your point?
I thought that was your schtick. The things that the universe are composed of ultimately come from the necessary entity. But I'm glad you've spotted the argument is circular.
No. I reject your vague definition of contingency. I also point out that your god has a circular dependency exactly like the one you claim applies to the universe.
-
Your point?
No. I reject your vague definition of contingency. I also point out that your god has a circular dependency exactly like the one you claim applies to the universe.
No put simply a circular heirarchy is a gives rise to b gives rise to c gives rise to d gives rise to a. So a is responsible for giving rise to itself.
God is eternal and doesn't cause himself.
-
No put simply a circular heirarchy is a gives rise to b gives rise to c gives rise to d gives rise to a. So a is responsible for giving rise to itself.
God is eternal and doesn't cause himself.
Your god is composed of the Father Son and Holy Ghost. They in turn are aspects of your god.
Circular dependency.
-
Your god is composed of the Father Son and Holy Ghost. They in turn are aspects of your god.
Circular dependency.
A is God, B is God, C is God
A causesBcausesCcauses A
You are saying these are not different?
-
A is God, B is God, C is God
A causesBcausesCcauses A
You are saying these are not different?
You are beginning to catch on. There is hope.
-
You are beginning to catch on. There is hope.
No if they were the same the circular heirarchy would have to read a is b b is c c is d and d is a. Not at all the same.
-
No if they were the same the circular heirarchy would have to read a is b b is c c is d and d is a. Not at all the same.
It's even tighter than that. God depends on the Son, and the Son depends on God. Same for the Father and Holy Ghost. You have three circular dependencies.
-
It's even tighter than that. God depends on the Son, and the Son depends on God. Same for the Father and Holy Ghost. You have three circular dependencies.
No, the son is God but b isn't a and c isn't b.
Similarly Saturn is not the universe but the Son is God.
-
No, the son is God but b isn't a and c isn't b.
no. You don't get to redefine English.
God is three distinct persons, so the Son is God in the same sense that Saturn is the Universe i.e. both are parts of the whole.
-
A is God, B is God, C is God
That's fine if A is B is C, but that's not the claim.
A causes B causes C causes A
So they're all contingent? That was your suggestion when I pointed out that you could have a necessary 'loop' of entities in a cycle, that they were therefore all contingent and therefore it was invalid.
O.
-
no. You don't get to redefine English.
English is redefined and adapted all, the time. Science is particularly noted. Meanings are different in different contexts. Persons is a translation from the original Greek word for what early theologians wish to convey about the nature of God and how we encounter God.It's more to do with the relationship between God and his creation.
God is three distinct persons, so the Son is God in the same sense that Saturn is the Universe i.e. both are parts of the whole.
No Saturn is not the universe. It is a part. Jesus is not a part . He is God. As he says. Who has seen me has seen the father. I am in the father and the father in me.
Saturn is not the universe. If you see Saturn you have not seen the universe.
-
That's fine if A is B is C, but that's not the claim.
So they're all contingent? That was your suggestion when I pointed out that you could have a necessary 'loop' of entities in a cycle, that they were therefore all contingent and therefore it was invalid.
O.
Not getting you. In a linear chain nothing causes a but a is ultimately responsible for everything in the chain.
In a circular chain a is ultimately responsible for its own existence but is caused by the last member of the chain.
You have in effect entities that are there own explanation and not their own explanation simultaneously.
-
English is redefined and adapted all, the time. Science is particularly noted. Meanings are different in different contexts. Persons is a translation from the original Greek word for what early theologians wish to convey about the nature of God and how we encounter God.It's more to do with the relationship between God and his creation.No Saturn is not the universe. It is a part. Jesus is not a part . He is God. As he says. Who has seen me has seen the father. I am in the father and the father in me.
Saturn is not the universe. If you see Saturn you have not seen the universe.
And Jesus is not God, at least not the whole of it. If you’ve seen Jesus you haven’t seen the Father or the Holy Ghost.
Your tactic is to try to render language meaningless. Well we not playing Calvinball.
-
Not getting you. In a linear chain nothing causes a but a is ultimately responsible for everything in the chain.
You weren't suggesting a linear chain, you were suggesting the Trinity were causes of each other.
In a circular chain a is ultimately responsible for its own existence but is caused by the last member of the chain.
Which I suggested for a cyclic model of reality as not needing an external cause, and you suggested that was somehow an invalid model - I never did fully understand why you though it was invalid, but it was something to do with all the parts being contingent.
You have in effect entities that are there own explanation and not their own explanation simultaneously.
Just like your model of a causes b causes c causes a where a, b and c are all aspects of God. Sauce for the goose...
O.
-
You weren't suggesting a linear chain, you were suggesting the Trinity were causes of each other.
Which I suggested for a cyclic model of reality as not needing an external cause, and you suggested that was somehow an invalid model - I never did fully understand why you though it was invalid, but it was something to do with all the parts being contingent.
Just like your model of a causes b causes c causes a where a, b and c are all aspects of God. Sauce for the goose...
O.
Two conversations seem to have collides here.
Circular hierarchies result in things creating themselves AND being created by something other than themselves.
THAT is intellectual cakeism imv.
Is the trinity a circular heirarchy?
It doesn't seem even to be a heirachy of any sort.
-
Is the trinity a circular heirarchy?
It doesn't seem even to be a heirachy of any sort.
It is a hierarchy. You have God and God consists of the Father, Son and Holy Ghost. There's also an implied dependency between Father and Son.
-
It is a hierarchy. You have God and God consists of the Father, Son and Holy Ghost. There's also an implied dependency between Father and Son.
And a glass of wine is the whole universe according to Feynmann.The son is God incarnate in Jesus. Of course Christ's humanity is subordinate to his divinity.
-
And a glass of wine is the whole universe according to Feynmann.
Really? Where does he day that?
Or are you lying again?
The son is God incarnate in Jesus. Of course Christ's humanity is subordinate to his divinity.
So Jesus is made of two parts. Now we have God, the Father, the Son (human part and divine part) and the Holy Ghost.
That makes God contingent by your own rule.
-
I don't see why an infinite regress is intrinsically impossible, though II don't think real infinities exist, but as an alternative to it and to a first cause, how about a loop, eg a causes b, which causes c, which causes d ... which case y, which causes z, which cases a, which causes b, etc ?
-
Two conversations seem to have collides here.
Always a risk, but that doesn't meant that point out inconsistencies is necessarily unwarranted.
Circular hierarchies result in things creating themselves AND being created by something other than themselves.
No, and no. Circular continuities don't necessarily imply any sort of hierarchy, and whilst a given instance of an element in a loop can be looked at as being dependent upon a similar precursor, nothing in the existence of a circular continuity necessitates any sort of creation, you'd have to justify that conclusion separately.
Is the trinity a circular heirarchy? It doesn't seem even to be a heirachy of any sort.
You tell me. You were the one that said a=god, b=god and c=god, and that a causes b, which causes c, which causes a. I didn't introduce hierarchise to the discussion, but that certainly seems to be the circular continuity that you've just discounted above as 'intellectual cakeism'*
O.
* as any good Portal fan knows, the cake is a lie.
-
No, and no. Circular continuities don't necessarily imply any sort of hierarchy,
But we are not talking about continuity but change and causationand whilst a given instance of an element in a loop can be looked at as being dependent upon a similar precursor, nothing in the existence of a circular continuity necessitates any sort of creation, you'd have to justify that conclusion separately.
That’s only if you can demonstrate one that actually exists and exists free of any explanation
The questions remain
Why a circular and not linear order of causation?
Why this circularity and not another circular continuity?
Why anything at all?
Your trouble as always is demanding a condition and suspending it when it doesn’t suit.
So making all the concessions to your circularity. What is it about your circularity that has to exist?
-
But we are not talking about continuity but change and causation
Well no. You seem to be talking about composition as much as causation.
The questions remain
Why a circular and not linear order of causation?
Actually, the question is "why not?"
You seem to have forgotten that you are the one claiming that a circular causation cannot exist because it would undermine your argument for why there must be a god.
We only bring up the idea of a circular dependency because of your claim that there must be a necessary thing. It is for you to demonstrate that a circular dependency cannot exist.
-
But we are not talking about continuity but change and causationThat’s only if you can demonstrate one that actually exists and exists free of any explanation
You are, I'm not. In what way is a continuous cycle of activities not a continuity?
The questions remain
Why a circular and not linear order of causation?
Why this circularity and not another circular continuity?
Why anything at all?
And that's still begging the question. What makes you think 'why' is a valid question? How, fine. But 'why' implies a reason that you've no basis to presume, yet.
Your trouble as always is demanding a condition and suspending it when it doesn’t suit. So making all the concessions to your circularity. What is it about your circularity that has to exist?
I've never suggested that it has to, merely that it does. You're presuming from the existence of something that there must be a conscious creator with an intent on the basis... um... old book, waffle. I'm presuming from the existence of stuff that stuff exists, and might have done forever.
O.
-
Talking of circular causation loops, here's one in the real world. Each kid is the cause of the kid in front not falling to the ground, and is themself prevented from falling to the ground by the kid behind. Of course, Herr Zingmatilder is right to point out that causation loops don't explain why there's something rather than nothing, but what Walt disnae realise is that that's irrelevant: the point is not to disprove God, just to invalidate the "first cause" argument.
https://recordsetter.com/world-record/lap-circle/28600
-
You are, I'm not. In what way is a continuous cycle of activities not a continuity?
And that's still begging the question. What makes you think 'why' is a valid question? How, fine. But 'why' implies a reason that you've no basis to presume, yet.
I've never suggested that it has to, merely that it does. You're presuming from the existence of something that there must be a conscious creator with an intent on the basis... um... old book, waffle. I'm presuming from the existence of stuff that stuff exists, and might have done forever.
O.
I don’t think we can be averse to something being around forever because after all nothing is non existent. But what actually is it that is that fundamental and exists no matter what?
-
Talking of circular causation loops, here's one in the real world. Each kid is the cause of the kid in front not falling to the ground, and is themself prevented from falling to the ground by the kid behind. Of course, Herr Zingmatilder is right to point out that causation loops don't explain why there's something rather than nothing, but what Walt disnae realise is that that's irrelevant: the point is not to disprove God, just to invalidate the "first cause" argument.
https://recordsetter.com/world-record/lap-circle/28600
That things have to reset themselves in this model strongly suggests that such a universe would need some bizarre kind of antientropy not observed in this universe.
-
That things have to reset themselves in this model strongly suggests that such a universe would need some bizarre kind of antientropy not observed in this universe.
Ah - entropy. Good point. So much for that idea. Oh well.
-
That things have to reset themselves in this model strongly suggests that such a universe would need some bizarre kind of antientropy not observed in this universe.
Entropy is a statistical effect and it is related very much to time. It may be that the issues with it are due to our lack of knowledge about what is "outside" of the observable Universe.
-
I don’t think we can be averse to something being around forever because after all nothing is non existent. But what actually is it that is that fundamental and exists no matter what?
Energy, perhaps. I'm not sure there is a solid idea beyond that, but I'm equally not sure that, for the purposes of this argument, one is needed - the point is to demonstrate that there's a viable explanation that doesn't require a necessary entity, and particularly a sentient one, and therefore it's not valid to claim that a god of sorts is an inevitable conclusion.
O.
-
Energy, perhaps. I'm not sure there is a solid idea beyond that, but I'm equally not sure that, for the purposes of this argument, one is needed - the point is to demonstrate that there's a viable explanation that doesn't require a necessary entity, and particularly a sentient one, and therefore it's not valid to claim that a god of sorts is an inevitable conclusion.
O.
Energy, but energy that is independent of context perhaps since it is the basic something which has to exist and is fundamental to everything else.
-
Energy, but energy that is independent of context perhaps since it is the basic something which has to exist and is fundamental to everything else.
Perhaps, but if it's an infinite stretch back there is always a local context - there isn't a 'pure' unadulterated nascent 'energy' waiting to be manifested as something, there's just energy, and at different times it has different forms.
O.
-
Perhaps, but if it's an infinite stretch back there is always a local context - there isn't a 'pure' unadulterated nascent 'energy' waiting to be manifested as something, there's just energy, and at different times it has different forms.
O.
But then what you describe isn’t fundemental since why one context and not another.?
What decides that is more fundemental.
Ditto infinities, where the question is why this infinity and not another.
So for a fundemental thing infinities are not relevant. They do not need an infinity to exist.
There is nothing that has to exist or is necessary outside the fundemental thing.
As for nascent energy waiting? Why and what is it waiting for?
-
But then what you describe isn’t fundemental since why one context and not another.?
But the whole point is that I'm trying to show there might not be some 'fundamental', that it might be an eternal system of causes and effects.
Ditto infinities, where the question is why this infinity and not another.
Is there? Where you have justified the notion that there must be a reason, that it can't simply have always been. If there is not start, if there is no cause, if it's, I don't know, let's say INFINITE... in what way does 'why' make sense? How can there be an initial cause or reason if there is no start?
So for a fundemental thing infinities are not relevant. They do not need an infinity to exist.
And, conversely, infinities don't need fundamental things. You see where this is going?
There is nothing that has to exist or is necessary outside the fundemental thing.
You've yet to establish that there is a 'fundamental thing', or that there has to be.
As for nascent energy waiting? Why and what is it waiting for?
Christmas? Who knows. Who knows if there might have been long stretches when the energy was just sloshing around, punctuated by bursts of activity? I'm not definitively saying that there were such periods, just that it's a possibility.
O.
-
But the whole point is that I'm trying to show there might not be some 'fundamental', that it might be an eternal system of causes and effects.
Is there? Where you have justified the notion that there must be a reason, that it can't simply have always been. If there is not start, if there is no cause, if it's, I don't know, let's say INFINITE... in what way does 'why' make sense? How can there be an initial cause or reason if there is no start?
And, conversely, infinities don't need fundamental things. You see where this is going?
You've yet to establish that there is a 'fundamental thing', or that there has to be.
Christmas? Who knows. Who knows if there might have been long stretches when the energy was just sloshing around, punctuated by bursts of activity? I'm not definitively saying that there were such periods, just that it's a possibility.
O.
As I think i’ve Said before it’s not so much suspending an expectation of a reason, it’s where and when you do it and people do that when their atheist poSItion is threatened.
Not sure what you mean by infinities need no fundemental s.
I’m not sure you have properly acknowledged the difficulties with infinities and circularities but you have IMV shown the lengths to which atheists are triggered.
-
As I think i’ve Said before it’s not so much suspending an expectation of a reason, it’s where and when you do it and people do that when their atheist poSItion is threatened.
I don't know, that's the fundamental point. You don't know. None of us know. You're trying to put together an argument from pure reason that we must be able to draw a particular conclusion - I'm not making a case for an infinite backstory as a standalone explanation, I'm just positing the possibility as a counter to the suggestion that there must be a conscious, deliberate creator.
Not sure what you mean by infinities need no fundemental s.
If it goes back forever, if it has not definitive start-point, if there's no 'first', in what way is anything fundamental?
I’m not sure you have properly acknowledged the difficulties with infinities and circularities but you have IMV shown the lengths to which atheists are triggered.
And there's the little ad hominem that tells us you know this, you acknowledge this, you have no point, so you're going to attack the author instead of the point. But, hey, I'm the one that's triggered, right? Straight back at ya...
O.
-
I don't know, that's the fundamental point. You don't know. None of us know. You're trying to put together an argument from pure reason that we must be able to draw a particular conclusion - I'm not making a case for an infinite backstory as a standalone explanation, I'm just positing the possibility as a counter to the suggestion that there must be a conscious, deliberate creator.
If it goes back forever, if it has not definitive start-point, if there's no 'first', in what way is anything fundamental?
And there's the little ad hominem that tells us you know this, you acknowledge this, you have no point, so you're going to attack the author instead of the point. But, hey, I'm the one that's triggered, right? Straight back at ya...
O.
What is fundamental? Well, Science talks of fundamental particles
, quantum foam etc.
So are you now going to introduce yet another infinity to cover your embarrassment?
-
And there's the little ad hominem that tells us you know this, you acknowledge this, you have no point, so you're going to attack the author instead of the point. But, hey, I'm the one that's triggered, right? Straight back at ya...
O.
Can you deny suspending cause and effect, reason and ignoring the issues raised by infinities and circularities in order to avoid a necessary entity? I’m not sure you can.
-
Can you deny suspending cause and effect, reason and ignoring the issues raised by infinities and circularities in order to avoid a necessary entity? I’m not sure you can.
Well you are ignoring the issues raised by having a necessary entity that is God.
-
Well you are ignoring the issues raised by having a necessary entity that is God.
I think you mean empirical evidence here. That applies to infinities and circular causation.
Since quantum theory seems to demand that observation affects the observed, an observed necessary entity wouldn’t be necessary. We either can’t observe it or the thing that logic dictates exists doesn’t.
Therefore IMV the smart money is on it’s physical non observability.
-
What is fundamental?
Exactly. You tell me, you're the one that seems to feel a need for them.
Well, Science talks of fundamental particles
Within the context of our material universe, yes. Outwith of that, at the moment, science has very little to say and what it does have to say is unapologetically hypothetical
So are you now going to introduce yet another infinity to cover your embarrassment?
What embarressment would that be?
Can you deny suspending cause and effect,
Suspending it? I'm expanding on the possibility of it being inviolate. You're suggesting an uncaused cause, I'm suggesting an infinite chain of cause and effect - what sort of defect of cognition do you have to have to parse that into the one of us that's suspending cause and effect being me?
reason and ignoring the issues raised by infinities and circularities in order to avoid a necessary entity?
Yes, yes I can deny that, thanks for asking. Of course, it's easy to deny on the same basis you've asserted it, which is to say none. If you want to suggest there's a flaw in the reasoning you need to show what that flaw is, not just claim that it's there. If you want to suggest that I've overlooked some issues raised by infinities and circularities you need to elucidate upon what those might be.
I’m not sure you can.
That's OK, at the moment I'm quite sure I don't need to.
O.
-
I think you mean empirical evidence here.
No, I'm talking about the issues that the assumption of a god as a necessary entity raises. I thought that was pretty clear.
I'm quite happy for you to ignore the empirical evidence for your god, because, of course, there is none.
-
No, I'm talking about the issues that the assumption of a god as a necessary entity raises. I thought that was pretty clear.
I'm quite happy for you to ignore the empirical evidence for your god, because, of course, there is none.
It sounds as if you have nothing Against a necessary entity per se and that IMV is why. Some atheists imo think the necessary entity has the smell of God about it and they would be right...
But let us look at what our necessary entity entails...
It has always existed
It exists rather than nothing existing
There is nothing that can make it do anything...otherwise that would be the necessary entity.
Subsequently, it obeys no greater law, has no context in which to make an accidental or chance action.
Given that then it is not like a natural, unconscious thing.
-
It sounds as if you have nothing Against a necessary entity per se and that IMV is why. Some atheists imo think the necessary entity has the smell of God about it and they would be right...
But let us look at what our necessary entity entails...
It has always existed
It exists rather than nothing existing
There is nothing that can make it do anything...otherwise that would be the necessary entity.
Subsequently, it obeys no greater law, has no context in which to make an accidental or chance action.
Given that then it is not like a natural, unconscious thing.
Just a lot of assertions. No logic.
-
Just a lot of assertions. No logic.
Actually, it all follows from being that which exists independent of anything else.
-
Actually, it all follows from being that which exists independent of anything else.
That's a further assertion
-
It sounds as if you have nothing Against a necessary entity per se and that IMV is why. Some atheists imo think the necessary entity has the smell of God about it and they would be right...
I'm not ruling out the possibility of a necessary entity. I'm just saying that you haven't shown that there must be a necessary entity or that this necessary entity must be a god under the normal definition of a personal god.
But let us look at what our necessary entity entails...
It has always existed
That does not follow.
It exists rather than nothing existing
This is a tautology. If something exists then something exists. Well done. How profound.
There is nothing that can make it do anything...otherwise that would be the necessary entity.
Well that rules out your god as a necessary entity: humans forced your god to incarnate as a human.
Subsequently, it obeys no greater law, has no context in which to make an accidental or chance action.
Again, if true, your god cannot be a necessary entity, otherwise it would just have forgiven humans instead of going through all that death and resurrection nonsense.
Given that then it is not like a natural, unconscious thing.
Huh? That's a leap.
-
That does not follow. This is a tautology. If something exists then something exists.
It does follow that the necessary entity has always existed since had it not it would have come from nothing and nothing does not exist.
-
It does follow that the necessary entity has always existed since had it not it would have come from nothing and nothing does not exist.
How do you know there was never a time when nothing existed?
-
How do you know there was never a time when nothing existed?
Nothing, by definition doesn’t exist. You seem to be advocating something coming from nothing or something creating itself...an absurdity .
More over the existence of nothing you are suggesting seems to depend on a something... time.
-
Nothing, by definition doesn’t exist.
This is just word games.
How do you know there was never a time when nothing existed?
You seem to be advocating something coming from nothing or something creating itself
You mean like your god?
I'm not advocating anything. I'm asking you to justify the things you advocate.
-
This is just word games.
How do you know there was never a time when nothing existed?
You mean like your god?
I'm not advocating anything. I'm asking you to justify the things you advocate.
I’m not advocating anything creating itself just something always existing. When we observe entities which is it that has always existed and always will?
-
I’m not advocating anything creating itself just something always existing.
Yes and I'm asking you to justify that and also your insistence that the something that has always existed is your (or anybody's) god.
When we observe entities which is it that has always existed and always will?
I don't know. You tell e.
-
Nothing, by definition doesn’t exist. You seem to be advocating something coming from nothing or something creating itself...an absurdity .
More over the existence of nothing you are suggesting seems to depend on a something... time.
As I've pointed out previously on this thread, modern quantum physics, as I understand it (and it is quite likely that I've misunderstood it, but if you think so, references please) says that universes can indeed pop into existence without a pre-existent cause.
-
I’m not advocating anything creating itself just something always existing.
I’m not sure you have properly acknowledged the difficulties with infinities
Which is it, just so we're clear?
O.
-
Which is it, just so we're clear?
O.
Can a single entity be the same as an infinite regress of entities? I think not.
So both.
-
As I've pointed out previously on this thread, modern quantum physics, as I understand it (and it is quite likely that I've misunderstood it, but if you think so, references please) says that universes can indeed pop into existence without a pre-existent cause.
Reference please? Where are yours?
Trouble here is the ubiquity of energy. Since it is literally anywhere nothing now can be popping out of nowhere.
Moreover I’ve heard the effect of popping into existence is due to quantum fluctuations so presumably something has to fluctuate.
-
Reference please?
https://www.sciencefocus.com/space/what-caused-the-big-bang
-
Can a single entity be the same as an infinite regress of entities?
Your problem, you said, was with infinities.
I think not.
I get that distinct impression myself.
So both.
A, special pleading lives on. So good to see a classic.
O.
-
https://www.sciencefocus.com/space/what-caused-the-big-bang
https://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/25/books/review/a-universe-from-nothing-by-lawrence-m-krauss.html?_r=4
-
https://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/25/books/review/a-universe-from-nothing-by-lawrence-m-krauss.html?_r=4
Given that a universe exists, it has to have some set of quantum laws, so why not the set we actually have?