Originally posted by Machinist
View Post
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
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
-
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
-
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 PostIf 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?
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 Machinist View Post
It's the word on the street.
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
-
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.
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
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.
Many and painful are the researches sometimes necessary to be made, for settling points of [this] kind. Pertness and ignorance may ask a question in three lines, which it will cost learning and ingenuity thirty pages to answer. When this is done, the same question shall be triumphantly asked again the next year, as if nothing had ever been written upon the subject.
George Horne
Comment
-
Originally posted by mattbballman31 View Post
Oh my goodness, I kind of missed responding to this incessant inanity. Duh, Shunya. No one denies the 'existence' of potential infinities. What does this have to do with anything? Go to the past and decide upon a metric with the following boundary conditions: it has to be a metric with intervals that are equal, arbitrary, finite, and non-zero. If you do that, you're only going to get a finite number of them. According to that metric, the universe isn't potentially infinite to the past. It had a beginning. Now, apply the metric to the future. It'll go on and on forever and no actual infinite will ever instantiate. So, what the heck is your dumb point here, dude? None of what you said undermines Kalam's second premise, and everything I said gives it support.
You have failed to present any objectively verifiable evidence of any sort of absolute beginning that would justify the KCA.Last edited by shunyadragon; 08-31-2022, 07:37 AM.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
First, naturally, there are no metrics in time forward, backward or whatever. Humans assign metrics in time for our purposes. Second, Aristotle was correct there is no such thing in reality as actual infinities observed in nature. It is simply a math concept of closed set infinities. Third, There is no known evidence of any sort of absolute beginning in time. Our physical existence is potentially infinite and eternal regardless. Going backward or forward in dimensions if you think you come to any sort of limit it is possible to be potentially infinite by just adding our units of distance. The past cannot be defined as a closed set of infinity.
You have failed to present any objectively verifiable evidence of any sort of absolute beginning that would justify the KCA.
Second, NO ONE IS DISPUTING ARISTOTLE'S POINT. Craig CITES ARISTOTLE in making his case for the past-finitude of the universe. Why do you keep citing him, weirdo? If Aristotle is right, yes! THERE ARE NO ACTUAL INFINITIES IN NATURE. Yes! Yes! Amen! Duh! You're preaching to the choir, dude. That's WHY the universe is past-finite. AND, the only way to squeeze out a POTENTIAL infinite is if you illicitly tinker with the metric. I have no idea why you are too dense to get this. MOREOVER, Craig has said OVER AND OVER that actual infinities are "MATH CONCEPTS". Why do you keep arguing for things that Craig actually believes in? Is English your second language?
Third, Craig has said OVER AND OVER again that the Kalam demonstrates that METRIC time had a beginning. The cosmological evidence provides reason for thinking that this is MORE PLAUSIBLY TRUE THAN NOT; it was NEVER MEANT to be a DEMONSTRATION for the INELUCTABLE conclusion that Absolute Time had a beginning (that's the job of the philosophical arguments). Next!
FOURTH, you keep saying that "OUR EXISTENCE" is potentially infinite. This is dumb and unclear, per usual. If you go BACKWARD, no it is not IF YOU IMPOSE THE RELEVANT METRIC; if you go FORWARD, it doesn't freaking matter; the Kalam is only talking about PAST finitude, weirdo.
Your last sentence "The past cannot be defined as a closed set of infinity." is the REASON WHY, when you impose on the past a particular metric, it is PAST FINITE. How in the world is your brain not seeing how obvious this is?Many and painful are the researches sometimes necessary to be made, for settling points of [this] kind. Pertness and ignorance may ask a question in three lines, which it will cost learning and ingenuity thirty pages to answer. When this is done, the same question shall be triumphantly asked again the next year, as if nothing had ever been written upon the subject.
George Horne
Comment
-
Originally posted by mattbballman31 View Post
Wow. Just, wow. First sentence. Duh. Duration has no metrics. Metrics are something we impose on duration for purposes of measurement. If a certain metric is finite to the past, then duration is finite to the past. Consider the human body. Hmmm. I don't see any measurements called 'feet' on the human body. Do I? No! It's a metric we impose on the human body for purposes of measuring height. After settling on a metric, if you're 6 feet tall, it's pretty clear you're not infinitely tall, no? It's the same with duration!
Second, NO ONE IS DISPUTING ARISTOTLE'S POINT. Craig CITES ARISTOTLE in making his case for the past-finitude of the universe. Why do you keep citing him, weirdo? If Aristotle is right, yes! THERE ARE NO ACTUAL INFINITIES IN NATURE. Yes! Yes! Amen! Duh! You're preaching to the choir, dude. That's WHY the universe is past-finite. AND, the only way to squeeze out a POTENTIAL infinite is if you illicitly tinker with the metric. I have no idea why you are too dense to get this. MOREOVER, Craig has said OVER AND OVER that actual infinities are "MATH CONCEPTS". Why do you keep arguing for things that Craig actually believes in? Is English your second language?
Third, Craig has said OVER AND OVER again that the Kalam demonstrates that METRIC time had a beginning. The cosmological evidence provides reason for thinking that this is MORE PLAUSIBLY TRUE THAN NOT; it was NEVER MEANT to be a DEMONSTRATION for the INELUCTABLE conclusion that Absolute Time had a beginning (that's the job of the philosophical arguments). Next!
FOURTH, you keep saying that "OUR EXISTENCE" is potentially infinite. This is dumb and unclear, per usual. If you go BACKWARD, no it is not IF YOU IMPOSE THE RELEVANT METRIC; if you go FORWARD, it doesn't freaking matter; the Kalam is only talking about PAST finitude, weirdo.
Your last sentence "The past cannot be defined as a closed set of infinity." is the REASON WHY, when you impose on the past a particular metric, it is PAST FINITE. How in the world is your brain not seeing how obvious this is?
Our universe and all of our physical existence is potentially past infinite by definition,.
There are a number of academic from major universities that refute Craig's arguments on infinite regression
The following is published in a Cambridge University journal
https://www.cambridge.org/core/journ...C6AC837AF09AA9Glendower: 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
This gets more bizzaro every time you post, and very difficult to respond to. No, naturally there are no metrics on time.
Our universe and all of our physical existence is potentially past infinite by definition,.
There are a number of academic from major universities that refute Craig's arguments on infinite regression
As with any extremely popular argument, something Craig accomplished and something you know nothing about, you'll get a lot attempts at falsification. On top of a billion other things Craig has on his plate, he has kept abreast of the latest replies and replied in turn. Only a bedwetting partisan like you looks at this as anything other than what happens to ANY OTHER PHILOSOPHER in the history of any other publication history you care to look at. Zooming in on this ONE string of dialectic and calling it unique tells me loud and clear that you have no clue about the sociology of the discipline at all.
The Morriston essay you link is from 2002, idiot. Really? 2002? 20 darn years ago? Next time, when you go to Google to cherry-pick, try to pick something more recent to bamboozle your unsuspecting audience. Not gonna work with me. I've read everything there is to read on the Kalam. Been reading it for over 20 years. I remember discussing this with Morriston online when I was in Graduate school and he admits there were a number of things that needed tweaking.
On top of all this, look at the bold. Morriston contradicts you, weirdo. You've said over and over again that Aristotle proved that actual infinites can't be found in Nature. And then you quote a darn Morriston article where Morriston argues that actual infinite sets are possible in Nature. If OUR PAST can be BEGINNINGLESS, then OUR NATURE is beginningless. Morriston DISAGREES WITH YOU, dude. Craig agrees with US and ARISTOTLE, that if actual infinites can't be found in nature, then the universe can't be beginningless. Can't you see this??? Seriously, is English your second language?
The context of Morriston's article has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING TO DO with the beginningless universe being a POTENTIAL infinite. At all. Nothing. Provide a DIRECT QUOTE to prove otherwise. All you do is block quote paper abstracts. Sooooo lazy, man.
The following is published in a Cambridge University journal
https://www.cambridge.org/core/journ...C6AC837AF09AA9[/QUOTE]
Many and painful are the researches sometimes necessary to be made, for settling points of [this] kind. Pertness and ignorance may ask a question in three lines, which it will cost learning and ingenuity thirty pages to answer. When this is done, the same question shall be triumphantly asked again the next year, as if nothing had ever been written upon the subject.
George Horne
Comment
-
Originally posted by mattbballman31 View Post
Amazing refutation, dude. You're a freaking genius.
I guess you're just going to ignore everything I said and repeat your unsupported claim. Cool.
I've read them all and they're all wrong. I've talked to Morriston face to face. Yes, he disagrees with Craig, Craig and I disagree with the rationale behind Morriston's disagreement.
As with any extremely popular argument, something Craig accomplished and something you know nothing about, you'll get a lot attempts at falsification. On top of a billion other things Craig has on his plate, he has kept abreast of the latest replies and replied in turn. Only a bedwetting partisan like you looks at this as anything other than what happens to ANY OTHER PHILOSOPHER in the history of any other publication history you care to look at. Zooming in on this ONE string of dialectic and calling it unique tells me loud and clear that you have no clue about the sociology of the discipline at all.
The Morriston essay you link is from 2002, idiot. Really? 2002? 20 darn years ago? Next time, when you go to Google to cherry-pick, try to pick something more recent to bamboozle your unsuspecting audience. Not gonna work with me. I've read everything there is to read on the Kalam. Been reading it for over 20 years. I remember discussing this with Morriston online when I was in Graduate school and he admits there were a number of things that needed tweaking.
On top of all this, look at the bold. Morriston contradicts you, weirdo. You've said over and over again that Aristotle proved that actual infinites can't be found in Nature. And then you quote a darn Morriston article where Morriston argues that actual infinite sets are possible in Nature. If OUR PAST can be BEGINNINGLESS, then OUR NATURE is beginningless. Morriston DISAGREES WITH YOU, dude. Craig agrees with US and ARISTOTLE, that if actual infinites can't be found in nature, then the universe can't be beginningless. Can't you see this??? Seriously, is English your second language?
The context of Morriston's article has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING TO DO with the beginningless universe being a POTENTIAL infinite. At all. Nothing. Provide a DIRECT QUOTE to prove otherwise. All you do is block quote paper abstracts. Sooooo lazy, man
The following is published in a Cambridge University journal
https://www.cambridge.org/core/journ...C6AC837AF09AA9
This does not address the fact that the past is 'potentially infinite' based on Aristotle's definition, and present view of science and modern math. You are ignoring the fact that we are in agreement that 'actual infinities' do not exist in nature, but have no relevance to whether the past is 'potentially infinity.' Objectively it is likely that the question can never be in reality be answered, because if Quantum Mechanics is valid basis for our physical existence therefore continuous time and space only exists in our universe and all possible universes.Last edited by shunyadragon; 04-17-2023, 08:20 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
Related Threads
Collapse
Topics | Statistics | Last Post | ||
---|---|---|---|---|
Started by shunyadragon, 03-01-2024, 09:40 AM
|
172 responses
595 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by seer
04-15-2024, 11:55 AM
|
||
Started by Diogenes, 01-22-2024, 07:37 PM
|
21 responses
138 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by shunyadragon
03-25-2024, 10:59 PM
|
Comment