Does antitheism exist?

[Stranger]

If you stop before you meet necessity then you won't end up there. As long as we end with something that has no external explanation, In outriders case, ''reality'' we have come to the necessary whether we wanted to or not. The trouble is reality is at least partly contingent which logically makes something in ''reality'', Necessary.

Not until you made necessity (or even 'Necessity') a logically self-consistent concept. Why and how does it have to be its own explanation, rather than having no explanation? Until you have explained exactly how something can be its own explanation, we have no means to judge whether something fits into the category or not.

You seem to want to rule out the universe (as a whole) and 'reality' and then rule in your god.... for what reason? Because it's what you want (by assertion)? Because you're going to define it that way (circular)? Why?

[Stranger]

If you are saying that emergent properties are not dependent on anything then it's you who doesn't understand emergence.

Woosh. The universe as a whole is not like an emergent phenomenon.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Not until you made necessity (or even 'Necessity') a logically self-consistent concept.

It's been done. It's contingency only that is suspect mate. If reality really needs no explanation then that is a quasi mystical understanding which ignores the sea of contingency around us. I am not saying realty isn't necessary but part of it is contingent and not necessary. That is unavoidable.



 

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Woosh. The universe as a whole is not like an emergent phenomenon.

But since there are laddies around here who say that the deterministic universe is contingent but the universe as a whole might not be what are they talking about, apart from emergence?

[Stranger]

But since there are laddies around here who say that the deterministic universe is contingent but the universe as a whole might not be what are they talking about, apart from emergence?

I have absolutely no idea what possible depth of convoluted misunderstanding has led you to even suggest emergence. As and example (that I've already been through), the structure of the space-manifold means that causation happens within it, along timelike directions. The manifold itself does not an cannot change because it contains time. The manifold and its contents aren't emergent, they are the basics of what exists (as far as we can tell from current science).

Since you haven't defined how anything can be its own explanation, we can only guess if the manifold and its contents might be necessary even though its contents aren't, in much the same way as its contents are subject to time and causation but the manifold itself isn't.

Emergence has nothing to do with it.

It's been done.

Where? Exactly how is it possible for something to be its own explanation?

It's contingency only that is suspect mate.

Is it, why? Regardless, I don't think anybody is arguing for contingency only. As I keep saying: I don't know. What's more I can't possibly know until you properly define the concepts.

You still don't seem to grasp that it's you who are trying to make a case for something.

[Nearly Sane]

I

You still don't seem to grasp that it's you who are trying to make a case for something.

Vlad is making an excellent case that he believes his arse and his elbow are interchangeable.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

I have absolutely no idea what possible depth of convoluted misunderstanding has led you to even suggest emergence. As and example (that I've already been through), the structure of the space-manifold means that causation happens within it, along timelike directions. The manifold itself does not an cannot change because it contains time. The manifold and its contents aren't emergent, they are the basics of what exists (as far as we can tell from current science).

Since you haven't defined how anything can be its own explanation, we can only guess if the manifold and its contents might be necessary even though its contents aren't, in much the same way as its contents are subject to time and causation but the manifold itself isn't.

Emergence has nothing to do with it.

Where? Exactly how is it possible for something to be its own explanation?

Is it, why? Regardless, I don't think anybody is arguing for contingency only. As I keep saying: I don't know. What's more I can't possibly know until you properly define the concepts.

You still don't seem to grasp that it's you who are trying to make a case for something.

Causation happening within something? By George, I think he's got it although no doubt he will assail me with several posts to argue he hasn't.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad is making an excellent case that he believes his arse and his elbow are interchangeable.

They are in my expressing my feelings for you guys......I need to give you guys either the arse or the elbow.

[Nearly Sane]

They are in my expressing my feelings for you guys......I need to give you guys either the arse or the elbow.

because logic and arguments are not available to you.

[Stranger]

Causation happening within something? By George, I think he's got it although no doubt he will assail me with several posts to argue he hasn't.

This is far from the first time I've explained this to you, so I have no idea what you think I've 'got'. Is there any chance at all you will now come up with an actual argument? Any chance you will explain how anything can be its own explanation?

[jeremyp]

Look around you. We are surrounded by contingency.

This 'universe as a whole' shite doesn't go anywhere near saying why the universe or reality requires no explanation (which FYI would make it Necessary) because that sounds like emergence...which is always contingent.

If it isn't an issue for you you must be the victim of some kind of Numbness.

We can’t observe the Unicerse as a whole. We can only observe the things in it, and then only things that are less than 13 billion light years away.

We don’t seem to be able to observe your god either, so postulating God doesn’t get us anywhere.

[Outrider]

Then you have really stated that there is something about reality which is necessary that is it has to be, is no ways contingent and has no possible explanation itself.

I've said no such thing - I've not said that reality is necessary, I've said that it is.  And, again, the concept of there being an explanation for an infinite thing is meaningless; there is nothing 'beyond' or 'outside', and therefore nothing to have caused it, and therefore no explanatory mechanism - it didn't start, and therefore something didn't start it.  It simply is.

You cannot avoid necessity with hand waving Outrider.

I've not done so, I've explained in a logical fashion why the concept of something being 'necessary' to explain an infinite thing doesn't make any sense.

So once again if there is something in the universe which is necessary what  must it be like.

How have we gone from the reality outside of the universe to something of necessity within the universe?

So reality must have something in it which is necessary. What then is it?

For the universe to happen? I've no idea; potentially any number of things, from complex powerful intelligences to entirely natural fluctuations in a quantum foam.

And lastly that classic 70s hit its magic by pilot is going through my head and lastly ....in an infinity of lastly.....An infinity is unfalsifiable.

Which would be important if I were trying to prove it, but all I'm doing is pointing out that it's a viable explanation which means we don't need to argue about what the necessary is because there may not ultimately be one.

O.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

We can’t observe the Unicerse as a whole. We can only observe the things in it, and then only things that are less than 13 billion light years away.
.

That statement suggests that the necessary might not be in this part of the universe. Is that what you wanted to convey?

Could we observe the necessary whatever it is in any case? Since were tuned to observe change and that is contingent? just a thought.   

[Walt Zingmatilder]

I've said no such thing - I've not said that reality is necessary, I've said that it is.  And, again, the concept of there being an explanation for an infinite thing is meaningless;

O.

Then you have arrived at your necessity. However Infinite things have huge issues as discussed to which we can add the question ''if they become something else then in what way are they infinite?''

[Walt Zingmatilder]

For the universe to happen? I've no idea; potentially any number of things, from complex powerful intelligences to entirely natural fluctuations in a quantum foam.

Since you have moved us onto infinities in an attempt to escape necessity( failed i'm afraid because you still promote something that apparently needs no explanation and that is definitionally a Necessity) I'm not sure that I would use the term the universe to happen, happen suggests a beginning.

One could say for the universe to be. That avoids time altogether......oh oh that includes infinite time.

Another quezzy for you ''Is infinite time actually time?''

[Outrider]

Since you have moved us onto infinities in an attempt to escape necessity( failed i'm afraid because you still promote something that apparently needs no explanation and that is definitionally a Necessity) I'm not sure that I would use the term the universe to happen, happen suggests a beginning.

Firstly, you are again conflating the terms 'universe' and 'reality' - the universe is the observable, measurable space-time that we are demonstrably existing within.  It does not appear to be infinitely old, although it may potentially continue infinitely into the future; reality, in the context that has been made clear in this thread, is the postulated extra-universal 'place' in which some unknown physics holds sway which may well potentially be infinite in age, or may not exist in a state where time has any meaning whatsoever.

Secondly, as a postulated thing which is timeless or infinite, to suggest that anything is necessary for it to exist makes no sense, because necessity implies a time prior to for the necessary elements to array; if it's timeless, or infinite, there is no such time/space, and therefore there is no necessity.  An infinite reality makes the concept of a necessary cause meaningless.
 

Another quezzy for you ''Is infinite time actually time?''

I've tried to be careful to separate time - a measurable demonstrable part of the space-time of the universe - from any corollary to time in the broader reality, but I can't promise that I've always been successful, it's a difficult concept to try and get an in-universe brain around.  Is a potentially infinite time-corrolary outside of the universe actually time (or an equivalent) - of course, it's sort of in the definition.  If it's not time, or a time-corrolary, then it's not time.

O.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Firstly, you are again conflating the terms 'universe' and 'reality' - the universe is the observable, measurable space-time that we are demonstrably existing within.  It does not appear to be infinitely old, although it may potentially continue infinitely into the future; reality, in the context that has been made clear in this thread, is the postulated extra-universal 'place' in which some unknown physics holds sway which may well potentially be infinite in age, or may not exist in a state where time has any meaning whatsoever.

Secondly, as a postulated thing which is timeless or infinite, to suggest that anything is necessary for it to exist makes no sense, because necessity implies a time prior to for the necessary elements to array; if it's timeless, or infinite, there is no such time/space, and therefore there is no necessity.  An infinite reality makes the concept of a necessary cause meaningless.
 
I've tried to be careful to separate time - a measurable demonstrable part of the space-time of the universe - from any corollary to time in the broader reality, but I can't promise that I've always been successful, it's a difficult concept to try and get an in-universe brain around.  Is a potentially infinite time-corrolary outside of the universe actually time (or an equivalent) - of course, it's sort of in the definition.  If it's not time, or a time-corrolary, then it's not time.

O.

So basically your saying it's shaped like a bassoon?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Firstly, you are again conflating the terms 'universe' and 'reality' - the universe is the observable, measurable space-time that we are demonstrably existing within.  It does not appear to be infinitely old.

An infinite reality makes the concept of a necessary cause meaningless.

But if it is the explanation for the universe then it is necessary for the universe without needing an explanation for itself. If you say no, the universe is covered by the infinity of reality it is you who is conflating reality with the universe.

I've tried to be careful to separate time - a measurable demonstrable part of the space-time of the universe - from any corollary to time in the broader reality.

Well then we might well be on the same page on that.

[Outrider]

Then you have arrived at your necessity.

No, there's absolutely nothing in that which says any of it was 'necessary'.  It is, nothing more, nothing less.

However Infinite things have huge issues as discussed to which we can add the question ''if they become something else then in what way are they infinite?''

You've vaguely hinted at some cataclysmic issue with the concept of an infinite reality, but none of those hints have extended into an actual  issue that hasn't been fairly easily addressed.

To which we can add - who said reality 'became' anything else?  A universe may or may not have emerged within a broader reality, but reality need not be a static entity.  Cells emerge, die and are replaced within me, but I'm still me. People are born, live and die on the Earth, but the Earth remains the Earth.

O.

[Outrider]

Since you have moved us onto infinities in an attempt to escape necessity( failed i'm afraid because you still promote something that apparently needs no explanation and that is definitionally a Necessity)

That's, unusually for you, not a definition of 'necessity' that anyone else is using.

I'm not sure that I would use the term the universe to happen, happen suggests a beginning.

I suspect you are, once again, conflating 'universe' and 'reality'.

One could say for the universe to be. That avoids time altogether......oh oh that includes infinite time.

One could say any number of things, but it would help if they parsed into a meaningful sentence.

Another quezzy for you ''Is infinite time actually time?''

By definition, yes, to my view - see my previous reply to this question.

O.

[Outrider]

But if it is the explanation for the universe then it is necessary for the universe without needing an explanation for itself.

We have no way of knowing if it's 'necessary' for the universe - we have one instance of universe which may or may not have emerged within a broader reality, of which we can deduce nothing whatsoever.  Given that time, as we understand it, may not be a part of that reality, concepts like necessity which are predicated on sequential events differentiated with respect to time may be meaningless.

It may be that reality is a necessary element for the universe, it may not - we have no way of knowing at this time, we may never know.

If you say no, the universe is covered by the infinity of reality it is you who is conflating reality with the universe. Well then we might well be on the same page on that.

Again I have no idea what you're driving at here.

O.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

We have no way of knowing if it's 'necessary' for the universe - we have one instance of universe which may or may not have emerged within a broader reality, of which we can deduce nothing whatsoever.  Given that time, as we understand it, may not be a part of that reality, concepts like necessity which are predicated on sequential events differentiated with respect to time may be meaningless.

It may be that reality is a necessary element for the universe, it may not - we have no way of knowing at this time, we may never know.

Again I have no idea what you're driving at here.

O.

necessity as a concept is not predicated on sequential events.

[Gordon]

necessity as a concept is not predicated on sequential events.

But if there are no sequential events (i.e. nothing that is contingent on this 'necessity') then what conceptual value does 'necessity' have?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

But if there are no sequential events (i.e. nothing that is contingent on this 'necessity') then what conceptual value does 'necessity' have?

Not all explanatory chains are sequential events Gordon.
For example consciousness as a brain function. We arent talking Brain" then "brain function" then Consciousness. We are talking about this explanatory hierarchy happening simultaneously.

As a concept Time is irrelevant to Necessity as colour is to the concept of  cars.

[Outrider]

Not all explanatory chains are sequential events Gordon.

Yes, they are - if cause does not predate effect, how can it be considered a cause.

For example consciousness as a brain function. We arent talking Brain" then "brain function" then Consciousness.

Who isn't?

We are talking about this explanatory hierarchy happening simultaneously.

No. Brains happened - until there was a brain, there was no possibility of brain function.  Until there was brain function there was no possibility of consciousness.  The timeframes might be miniscule, but they have to happen in that order, you can't have consciousness from a brain that's not there yet.

As a concept Time is irrelevant to Necessity as colour is to the concept of  cars.

No, time is a necessary concept for necessity to be; you couldn't have a car without space-time for it to exist within, without a need to navigate a four-dimensional area in the first place.

O.