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

  • Originally posted by Leonhard View Post
    I know you think its clever, but double negations are always ugly.
    I was using the language previously used. Nonetheless it is possible that our physical existence is infinite and eternal. and other then possible universes, such as ours timeless.
    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


    • Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
      . . . wouldn't an infinite past indicate that Christ died and came back to life an infinite amount of times? Is indeed a religious assumption on your part, that IF there is an infinite past then you assume . . .
      No Shuny, an implication is not an assumption.
      -The universe begins to look more like a great thought than a great machine.
      Sir James Jeans

      -This most beautiful system (The Universe) could only proceed from the dominion of an intelligent and powerful Being.All variety of created objects which represent order and Life in the Universe could happen only by the willful reasoning of its original Creator, whom I call the Lord God.
      Sir Isaac Newton

      Comment


      • Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
        If our physical existence is eternal and infinite, it is not necessary that anything 'makes' it so.
        I wouldn't be so sure about that.

        Two people are walking across a grassy field. Suddenly they come upon a bizarre scene. There's a canvas with a paintbrush painting something, but the paintbrush isn't supported by anything. They both later ponder how this could be. One of them says that clearly something must have been moving the brush. The other then goes "Oh no, that's not nescessary maybe the brush was merely infinitely long!"

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Quantum Weirdness View Post
          No Shuny, an implication is not an assumption.
          The implication remains a religious assumption on your part. There is no other basis to support your statement.
          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


          • Originally posted by Leonhard View Post
            I wouldn't be so sure about that.

            Two people are walking across a grassy field. Suddenly they come upon a bizarre scene. There's a canvas with a paintbrush painting something, but the paintbrush isn't supported by anything. They both later ponder how this could be. One of them says that clearly something must have been moving the brush. The other then goes "Oh no, that's not necessary maybe the brush was merely infinitely long!"
            Steven King mischief
            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


            • Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
              Fine, it is possible that our physical existence has never not existed, unbounded and extends everywhere.
              It is possible, and it is also probable that there is no stop sign saying existence ends here. What would non-existence, nothingness, look like? Non-existence, Nothingness is an illogical concept being that the term itself is discriptive of something.

              Comment


              • Originally posted by JimL View Post
                It is possible, and it is also probable that there is no stop sign saying existence ends here. What would non-existence, nothingness, look like? Non-existence, Nothingness is an illogical concept being that the term itself is discriptive of something.
                Agree.
                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


                • Originally posted by JimL View Post
                  Non-existence, Nothingness is an illogical concept being that the term itself is discriptive of something.
                  You're 'mistaking the map for the territory' here, a descriptive term is not the same as the thing itself. The word nothingness refers to a particular abstract concept, namely something that lacks absolutely everything. Its a perfectly valid and coherent concept, because if we couldn't sensible talking about any one thing not being there, all things would have to be there and they aren't. Nothingness would just be applying this notion, to all things whatever it is.

                  But that description, though it takes up space doesn't mean that nothingness is something. That would be saying a blank books has words, because you described it with words.

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Leonhard View Post
                    The word nothingness refers to a particular abstract concept, namely something that lacks absolutely everything.
                    That seems incoherent, to me. If "nothingness" lacks absolutely everything, then it must lack existence. However, if "nothingness" lacks absolutely everything, it must also lack nonexistence. Thus, in order to adopt this definition for "nothingness" we would need to abandon the Law of Non-Contradiction. Of course, if we were to do that, we'd simultaneously be throwing away all of Logic.
                    "[Mathematics] is the revealer of every genuine truth, for it knows every hidden secret, and bears the key to every subtlety of letters; whoever, then, has the effrontery to pursue physics while neglecting mathematics should know from the start he will never make his entry through the portals of wisdom."
                    --Thomas Bradwardine, De Continuo (c. 1325)

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Boxing Pythagoras View Post
                      If "nothingness" lacks absolutely everything, then it must lack existence. However, if "nothingness" lacks absolutely everything, it must also lack nonexistence.
                      Kant's famous argument against Anselm's argument for God's existence, was simple that 'being' was not a property. You can talk about an object having all its properties, including the property of existing. If you think about it, if existence was a property, then your house is full of bananas, they'd just have their existence property set to false.

                      Secondly, yes, nothingness has no being. If nothingness had being, then yes it would be incoherent to define it as 'that which lacks all being'. So obviously it doesn't have any. You'd have to argue that the very notion of non-being is incoherent. Yet we can sensible talk about a the fact that there doesn't exist a friendly rainbow colored dragon in this world. So something can not-be. Apply this notion to everything, and you'd have the abstract concept we call nothing.

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Leonhard View Post
                        Kant's famous argument against Anselm's argument for God's existence, was simple that 'being' was not a property. You can talk about an object having all its properties, including the property of existing. If you think about it, if existence was a property, then your house is full of bananas, they'd just have their existence property set to false.

                        Secondly, yes, nothingness has no being. If nothingness had being, then yes it would be incoherent to define it as 'that which lacks all being'. So obviously it doesn't have any. You'd have to argue that the very notion of non-being is incoherent. Yet we can sensible talk about a the fact that there doesn't exist a friendly rainbow colored dragon in this world. So something can not-be. Apply this notion to everything, and you'd have the abstract concept we call nothing.
                        I certainly agree with that much. I simply do not think that this sort of "nothingness" constitutes a possible state of reality.
                        "[Mathematics] is the revealer of every genuine truth, for it knows every hidden secret, and bears the key to every subtlety of letters; whoever, then, has the effrontery to pursue physics while neglecting mathematics should know from the start he will never make his entry through the portals of wisdom."
                        --Thomas Bradwardine, De Continuo (c. 1325)

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Boxing Pythagoras View Post
                          I certainly agree with that much. I simply do not think that this sort of "nothingness" constitutes a possible state of reality.
                          Reality would be something. And we definitely agree that absolute nothingness is not metaphysically possible, though it is a logical possibility (all that means is that the notion is not self-defeating).

                          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