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

  • #46
    Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
    Our universe likely had a beginning, constantly changes and has a cause, but the Quantum World of the Greater Cosmos likely does not change and a cause is not necessary to explain its existence. The Natural Law that underlies all of our physical existence would not change nor have a cause.
    I don't get this. Something in the greater cosmos must change to produce this present universe for instance.
    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


    • #47
      Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
      I do not consider this a rational response. Aquinas was not remotely aware of the consequence of Quantum Physics, and modern concepts if infinities. To best of the knowledge of modern science and physics the Quantum world does not change, nor is it known to have a cause, it simply exists. What does rationality and reason have to do with the Physics of the Quantum World? Neither is Natural Law potentially known to have a cause nor change.
      More hand-waving... ...I'm beginning to suspect you don't really have any substantial understanding of Thomist metaphysics. Not that that will stop you from telling others what it is, and saying it's all wrong anyhow...



      You're still appealing to the fallacious idea that 'Newer ideas are more correct than older ones' rather than actually demonstrating where Leonhard (or Aquinas) is wrong about causation.

      If at the fundamental (i.e. quantum) level material reality has no causal structure (that is, things just happen without any cause at all) then there is no reasonable basis for making causal connections ('If A, then B') at any higher level.



      Source for your claim that the 'Quantum World of the Cosmos' doesn't change? Are you saying that it is eternal (it has always existed and will always exist)? If so, how do we know that?



      What exactly do you mean by "Natural Law"? Does it exist? Where, and how?
      Last edited by MaxVel; 04-11-2014, 12:56 PM.
      ...>>> Witty remark or snarky quote of another poster goes here <<<...

      Comment


      • #48
        Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
        Our universe likely had a beginning, constantly changes and has a cause, but the Quantum World of the Greater Cosmos likely does not change and a cause is not necessary to explain its existence. The Natural Law that underlies all of our physical existence would not change nor have a cause.
        This notion of a Quantum World is not particularly well-defined with you, so you'd have to explain more carefully what you're talking about. If you're talking about the quantum vacuum giving rise to the Big Bang, then I'm afraid that's still something with actuality and potentiality, namely its empty space filled with quantum fields who have the potential to give rise to certain effects.

        This reflects an old world Newtonian Physics of the nature of our physical existence,
        Nope, this is actually wrong, there's nothing here that conflicts with either General Relativity theory, or with Quantum Mechanics.

        I do not believe that these assumptions have any validity in the Quantum World of modern physics and cosmology.
        I'm not interested in what you personally believe Shunya, can you argue this?

        Comment


        • #49
          Originally posted by seer View Post
          I'm not sure what your point is Leonhard. I believe that Christ had a fully human body and mind.
          Then I misread you seer, my apologies.

          Comment


          • #50
            Originally posted by Leonhard View Post
            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.
            So much for revelation! But if that is the truth seer is trying to prove then the conclusion should read that "therefore the past is finite" and not that "therefore energy/matter should not presently exist. If the past is infinite then it is just as likely that energy/matter is infinite and therefore not being subject to non existence.

            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.
            Well, that would be true, because beings themselves are temporal and are caused but you can't make that same argument for the substance out of which they are made, i.e. energy/matter.
            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.
            Thats a problem, because then you could make the same argument about God or the Cosmos both of which could be said to show both actuality/existence and potentiality/creation neither of which could be argued any more the one than the other to have been caused.
            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.
            That would be great, sounds interesting.
            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.
            I find fault with each of the propositions. 1. you just pointed out. 2. it doesn't necessarily follow from 1. and 3. it isn't a proof of anything because neither premise 1 or 2 are known to be true.

            Comment


            • #51
              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.

              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.
              The Cosmos would simply be the self existing substance out of which our universe and everything else that comes into existence is born of.

              Comment


              • #52
                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.
                You would need then, afaics, to apply this same case to God, or explain how it is that God unlike the Cosmos has no actuality or potentiality.

                Comment


                • #53
                  Originally posted by Leonhard View Post
                  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.
                  But therein lies the problem. The premise that it is possible for energy/matter to not exist is not known to be true with high confidence. At least not as far as I am aware of.

                  Comment


                  • #54
                    Originally posted by Leonhard View Post
                    This notion of a Quantum World is not particularly well-defined with you, so you'd have to explain more carefully what you're talking about. If you're talking about the quantum vacuum giving rise to the Big Bang, then I'm afraid that's still something with actuality and potentiality, namely its empty space filled with quantum fields who have the potential to give rise to certain effects.
                    Your describing attributes of Quantum Mechanics. The quantum world I am referring to is Greater Cosmos from which all possible universes arise and return.
                    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


                    • #55
                      Originally posted by seer View Post
                      I would say that is correct. God is "Spirit" and I don't think it matters what that "Spirit" inhabits, it remains the same. We Christians for instance believe that the "Spirit" of God, in some very real way, inhabits us. That cohabitation, if you will, does not sully or change the character or nature of the "Spirit."
                      Then, according to this view, we are God in the same sense that Jesus was God, no?

                      Comment


                      • #56
                        Originally posted by MaxVel View Post
                        You're still appealing to the fallacious idea that 'Newer ideas are more correct than older ones' rather than actually demonstrating where Leonhard (or Aquinas) is wrong about causation.
                        I have no problems with 'Newer ideas are more correct then older ones.' It is of course a problem with those living in the past.

                        If at the fundamental (i.e. quantum) level material reality has no causal structure (that is, things just happen without any cause at all) then there is no reasonable basis for making causal connections ('If A, then B') at any higher level.
                        The cause is Natural Law, not magic.

                        Source for your claim that the 'Quantum World of the Cosmos' doesn't change? Are you saying that it is eternal (it has always existed and will always exist)? If so, how do we know that?
                        First, 'How do you know God is eternal, doesn't change? the only thing I see is that is how you define God. Kind of circular. Isn't it. Were not talking about knowing on either side of the issue. 'It is a matter of is it possible?,' and it is the way many of the multi-verse models are considered. If you want to start a thread on this. . .

                        Check out the Sean Carroll vs. William Lane Craig. Sean Carroll makes it clear there are many models by physicists and cosmologists model the multi-verse as possibly eternal.

                        What exactly do you mean by "Natural Law"? Does it exist? Where, and how?
                        Simply, the Natural Laws that govern our physical existence. They determine everything that happens in our universe and every possible universe.
                        Last edited by shunyadragon; 04-11-2014, 08:36 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


                        • #57
                          Originally posted by seer View Post
                          I don't get this. Something in the greater cosmos must change to produce this present universe for instance.
                          Thats true, so why do you deny the same of a creative act of a God? You will argue that the nature itself of God doesn't change I suppose, but neither would the nature of the universe change when it creates.

                          Comment


                          • #58
                            Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post


                            Check out the Sean Carroll vs. William Lane Craig. Sean Carroll makes it clear there are many models by physicists and cosmologists model the multi-verse as possibly eternal.
                            And be honest Shuny - what did Carroll say - that none of them worked, or could be demonstrated - not even his.
                            Last edited by seer; 04-12-2014, 06:14 AM.
                            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


                            • #59
                              Originally posted by JimL View Post
                              Thats true, so why do you deny the same of a creative act of a God? You will argue that the nature itself of God doesn't change I suppose, but neither would the nature of the universe change when it creates.
                              The nature or character of a carpenter doesn't change when he makes a chair. And the problem with change according to Aquinas is infinite regression. For even in a multi-verse there must be a physical change or force that created this universe for instance. But some force or change must have preceded the force or change that created this universe, the movers and the moved, cause and effect, into infinity past.
                              Last edited by seer; 04-12-2014, 06:16 AM.
                              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


                              • #60
                                Originally posted by seer View Post
                                The nature or character of a carpenter doesn't change when he makes a chair. And the problem with change according to Aquinas is infinite regression. For even in a multi-verse there must be a physical change or force that created this universe for instance. But some force or change must have preceded the force or change that created this universe, the movers and the moved, cause and effect, into infinity past.
                                A change is a change, and a force is a force no less so for a thought than for a physical change, so the problem of infinite regression isn't solved by the God hypothesis. Besides, if either the universe or God is infinite, what is the problem with infinite regression? Was there a certain point within infinity when God decided to create the universe? Did he have infinite many thoughts previous to that thought?

                                Comment

                                Related Threads

                                Collapse

                                Topics Statistics Last Post
                                Started by shunyadragon, 03-01-2024, 09:40 AM
                                50 responses
                                209 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post JimL
                                by JimL
                                 
                                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