Announcement

Collapse

Philosophy 201 Guidelines

Cogito ergo sum

Here in the Philosophy forum we will talk about all the "why" questions. We'll have conversations about the way in which philosophy and theology and religion interact with each other. Metaphysics, ontology, origins, truth? They're all fair game so jump right in and have some fun! But remember...play nice!

Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less

An Infinite Past?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    Originally posted by seer View Post
    Then Jim you would have to argue that it is impossible for matter and energy to go out of existence.
    No, I don't have to argue that seer, I can believe it, which i do, but I can't use it as a premise as if it were a fact because I don't know that to be the case.

    Comment


    • #17
      Originally posted by JimL View Post
      No, I don't have to argue that seer, I can believe it, which i do, but I can't use it as a premise as if it were a fact because I don't know that to be the case.
      Jim, this is a philosophy board. And my point is, with an infinite past there is enough time (for lack of a better word) for all possibilities to become actual. And in my OP, I did say that premise two was the questionable one. You still have to assert that it would not be possible for matter and energy to go out of existence, because if that was possible nothing would exist today. Just something to muse over...
      Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s

      Comment


      • #18
        I prefer the Grim Reaper Paradox, though it can be solved by assuming discretized time.

        Comment


        • #19
          Originally posted by Leonhard View Post
          I prefer the Grim Reaper Paradox, though it can be solved by assuming discretized time.
          Like we really know what the Grim Reaper Paradox is or what the heck discretized time is! Show off...
          Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...

          https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s

          Comment


          • #20
            Originally posted by seer View Post
            Like we really know what the Grim Reaper Paradox is or what the heck discretized time is! Show off...
            I just wanted to offer up something else, there's a lot of arguments about the finitude of the past. I might post this one tomorrow, its fun. I think your argument has some warrant seer, not sure what to add in the discussion though.

            Comment


            • #21
              Originally posted by Leonhard View Post
              I just wanted to offer up something else, there's a lot of arguments about the finitude of the past. I might post this one tomorrow, its fun. I think your argument has some warrant seer, not sure what to add in the discussion though.
              Well it is kind of from one of Aquinas' five ways. Which I started to read after I finished "The Last Superstition."
              Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...

              https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s

              Comment


              • #22
                Originally posted by seer View Post
                Jim, this is a philosophy board. And my point is, with an infinite past there is enough time (for lack of a better word) for all possibilities to become actual. And in my OP, I did say that premise two was the questionable one. You still have to assert that it would not be possible for matter and energy to go out of existence, because if that was possible nothing would exist today. Just something to muse over...
                Actually your proposing an argument about the nature of our physical existence, which is more then just a philosophy question, since you are proposing conclusions as to the possible nature of our physical existence over time which may not be possible. It is very legitimate to consider that Natural Law will limit the possibilities that may become actual.
                Last edited by shunyadragon; 04-10-2014, 05:06 PM.
                Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
                Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
                But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

                go with the flow the river knows . . .

                Frank

                I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

                Comment


                • #23
                  Originally posted by seer View Post
                  Jim, this is a philosophy board. And my point is, with an infinite past there is enough time (for lack of a better word) for all possibilities to become actual. And in my OP, I did say that premise two was the questionable one. You still have to assert that it would not be possible for matter and energy to go out of existence, because if that was possible nothing would exist today. Just something to muse over...
                  What you are assuming in your argument is that "all possibilities" is equivalent to "Anything is possible", which is why it can't be used as a premise. Some things are not possible no matter how much time it has to happen, so if you don't know whether or not your premise 2 is "possible or not possible" then your conclusion is either "possible or not possible" as well and so basically means nothing.

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Originally posted by JimL View Post
                    What you are assuming in your argument is that "all possibilities" is equivalent to "Anything is possible", which is why it can't be used as a premise.
                    Those two aren't equivalent. If you make a list of everything that is in fact possible it would not include things that are not possible for logical or metaphysical reasons.

                    Seer is simple listing Aquinas short argument for why its plausible that the past is finite. Actually its interesting to note that Aquinas himself didn't believe that it could be proved, but only rendered likely. That the past had a beginning he considered part of revealed truth.

                    This was one of the few mistakes I think he made, and as usual its fairly innocent and unimportant to his arguments. None of his five ways involve a finite past as a premise.

                    Actually now that I think of it Aquinas would hold premise 2 to be certain because of his first way. As a corollary it has that its possible for all beings not to exist and they have a cause that sustains them in existence.

                    In his metaphysics anything which shows both actuality (what it currently is - say an unlit match on the table) and potentiality (what it could be - say a lit match in your hand) have a cause for that enables them to be. That's because all possibilities are actualized by something else. So if the ultimate cause of the match ceased to keep it in being the match would wink out before our eyes.

                    We need to have this distinction of actuality and potentiality to solve some otherwise unsolvable mysteries about motion. I might make a thread on this.

                    Its premise 1 which is tricky, because its kinda hard to prove that in all eternity all possibilities would obtain. In a naturalistic universe this is certain, however its conceivably false in some other worldview and therefore only probably true.

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
                      Yes, this is true, but the uncaused self-existence may possibly be the cosmos it self governed by Natural Law.
                      You'll need to define your terms (e.g. what precisely do you mean by 'the cosmos' ?), but at face value I think your claim is wrong.

                      An uncaused self-existent whatever can't be contingent or dependent for it's existence in any way on anything else. It can't be something that can come into or go out of existence.
                      ...>>> Witty remark or snarky quote of another poster goes here <<<...

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
                        Yes, this is true, but the uncaused self-existence may possibly be the cosmos it self governed by Natural Law.
                        I would argue with Aquinas that this is impossible. The universe itself undergoes change, this means that it has both actuality and potentiality. However if that is the case then it cannot be self-sufficient and would have to be actualised by something else. So the ultimate cause of existence cannot be found in the universe itself.

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Originally posted by JimL View Post
                          No, I don't have to argue that seer, I can believe it, which i do, but I can't use it as a premise as if it were a fact because I don't know that to be the case.
                          Its sufficient for the premises to be known to be true with a high confidence. You're making a mistake between logical truth and empirical truth. If the premises are logically true, then the conclusion is logically true. However one can also ask whether we have warrant to believe the premises, which is a different question.

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Originally posted by Leonhard View Post
                            I would argue with Aquinas that this is impossible. The universe itself undergoes change, this means that it has both actuality and potentiality. However if that is the case then it cannot be self-sufficient and would have to be actualised by something else. So the ultimate cause of existence cannot be found in the universe itself.


                            {Amen}
                            ...>>> Witty remark or snarky quote of another poster goes here <<<...

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Originally posted by Leonhard View Post
                              I would argue with Aquinas that this is impossible. The universe itself undergoes change, this means that it has both actuality and potentiality. However if that is the case then it cannot be self-sufficient and would have to be actualised by something else. So the ultimate cause of existence cannot be found in the universe itself.
                              I have been interested in Aquinas' schema of potentiality and actuality, however I find the God described in it - a God who cannot change - is not the God of Scripture who became flesh and tabernacled amongst us. The schema appears to be a case of cart before horse - the creation a philosophical schema apart from Scripture (in this case an Aristotelian schema) and then attempting to shoehorn the God of Scripture into the schema. It doesn't seem to work.
                              Last edited by Paprika; 04-11-2014, 06:29 AM.

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Originally posted by MaxVel View Post
                                You'll need to define your terms (e.g. what precisely do you mean by 'the cosmos' ?), but at face value I think your claim is wrong.
                                simply all of the physical existence including our universe and all possible universes.

                                An uncaused self-existent whatever can't be contingent or dependent for it's existence in any way on anything else. It can't be something that can come into or go out of existence.
                                True, but it is possible that our physical existence did not come into being, nor dependent on anything else, and it may be self existent. This is also possibly true of God.
                                Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
                                Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
                                But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

                                go with the flow the river knows . . .

                                Frank

                                I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

                                Comment

                                Related Threads

                                Collapse

                                Topics Statistics Last Post
                                Started by shunyadragon, 03-01-2024, 09:40 AM
                                51 responses
                                212 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post shunyadragon  
                                Started by seer, 02-15-2024, 11:24 AM
                                88 responses
                                345 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post shunyadragon  
                                Started by seer, 08-29-2023, 08:00 AM
                                272 responses
                                1,517 views
                                1 like
                                Last Post shunyadragon  
                                Working...
                                X