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

Infinity and Kalam

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

  • Originally posted by Machinist View Post
    "Again, from Vilenkin’s Stanford article: “the universe is created by quantum tunneling from "nothing", where by "nothing" I mean a state with no classical space time”. And, as he says, the ‘laws of physics’ require “space/time” to be meaningful."


    Could this state be a Mind?
    Don't tell Tass that - his head will explode...
    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


    • I guess there is a belief among atheists that A stops equaling A at some point. I can appreciate how that belief could come about too with all this quantum business. If it's possible for one thing to go down two different paths at the same time (google sum over histories), then that sort of pokes holes in my notion of the absoluteness of A=A ness. There is much talk in that field that one thing can be in two places at the same time. If that's true, then how are we to think about A=A?



      I know there is much lost in translation between the actual research and the articles that you read in scientific American. I get that. But that is the level I am on. And on this level, from this perspective, I discern that the underlying belief in that field is that A does not equal A. And I guess if you can dismantle that pillar of reality, then anything goes. There seems to be a huge effort to bring this about.





      Comment


      • Originally posted by Machinist View Post
        If it's possible for one thing to go down two different paths at the same time (google sum over histories), then that sort of pokes holes in my notion of the absoluteness of A=A ness. There is much talk in that field that one thing can be in two places at the same time. If that's true, then how are we to think about A=A?
        I don't think the same particle goes down two different paths at the same time. If true that might bear on the law of non-contradiction, but not the law of identity. A would still equal A even if it takes two paths.


        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


        • Originally posted by seer View Post

          I don't think the same particle goes down two different paths at the same time..

          It's the word on the street.

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Machinist View Post

            It's the word on the street.
            Here is an interesting description:

            Obligate Pedestrian
            ,
            PhD Mathematics, The University of Western Australia

            I am unaware of any version of quantum theory that says that a particle can exist in two places at once in the sense of a billiard ball being on the Earth and on the Moon at the same time. If the experiment is designed to detect the particle as being a hard lump, then it will find the particle in one and only one place. The Born interpretation says that the particle has a chance of being found on the Earth and a chance on the Moon - but no chance of being found at both places at once. Like a coin has a chance of showing heads and a chance of showing tails - but no chance of showing both at once. Bohm said that the particle actually does have a specific position. Heisenberg said it had none. Quantum field theory says that the particle is a field that is distributed through all of space. But this is like saying that the atmosphere is distributed around the Earth. The atmosphere is simply something that is large and spread out: like the quantum field for a particle. This is not what is meant by being in two places at once. Schrödinger would have said that a particle is like a king wave standing out above the background - but not that it could be in two places at once. If global relativistic effects are included, then time travel could mean that a particle was at two places at once - but only in the sense that some other observer would see the particle twice. And this is not a quantum question. And the particle would still not be at two places at once in terms of its own proper time - which in this context would be the time field that applies validly to the question.
            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


            • Well this whole time i've been running around in circles thinking that things can be in two places at the same time...like the universe is weird like that or something.

              Comment


              • Originally posted by mattbballman31 View Post

                You're actually making the point for me. I'm arguing that if the universe were past-eternal, then actual infinities would result and all the absurd ontological consequences we'd be stuck with if we admit them into our metaphysics. But then you just reiterate the claim that if the universe were past-eternal, then the past would constitute an actual infinite. Well, yea!

                Always distinguish between infinite multitudes and infinite magnitudes. Aristotle kept this in mind. Even if you had an infinite multitude, if the whole is logically prior to the parts, the infinite magnitudes won't permit infinite multitudes to be denominated in them, even if you had infinite time.

                The way you get to the universe's beginning is through the informal structure of a reductio: assume the universe didn't have a beginning, observe the ontological consequences of admitting an actual infinite into your metaphysic, perform a cost/benefit analysis about what you're willing to pay for the theses you're willing to bite the bullet on (David Lewis has a method like this), and if you think the price tag is too high, then drop the thing that gave the undesirable consequences, and go with the opposite of the thing that gave you those consequences; namely, the thesis that the universe had a beginning.

                There's no shame in this, honestly. You could be an atheist and believe it. Lots of physicists and philosophers believe it.
                Your neglecting the fact that regardless of whether 'actual infinities' exist our physical existence is 'potentially infinite' as defined by Aristotle. By the way Aristotle proposed that 'actual infinities' do not exist.

                Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Actual_infinity



                Aristotle distinguished between infinity with respect to addition and division.

                But Plato has two infinities, the Great and the Small.

                — Physics, book 3, chapter 4.
                "As an example of a potentially infinite series in respect to increase, one number can always be added after another in the series that starts 1,2,3,... but the process of adding more and more numbers cannot be exhausted or completed

                © Copyright Original Source

                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

                widgetinstance 221 (Related Threads) skipped due to lack of content & hide_module_if_empty option.
                Working...
                X