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 seer View Post
    Please Boxing, I think we both know what I mean by supernatural, cause or exist. Standard dictionary definitions would do.
    That really doesn't help. Dictionary definitions tend to be terribly insufficient to philosophical discussion. For example, we have:

    exist: to have real being, whether material or spiritual

    I understand what it means to have real material being. I do not know what it means to have real spiritual being. This, in turn, causes problems with the dictionary definition of supernatural, and similarly causes issues for "supernatural cause."

    You are correct, I still can't understand why our limited, finite experience is in a position to decide such questions. What justifies that claim?
    If you don't believe that it is justifiable to decide whether a rigorously defined proposition is possible or not possible, we should probably be having a discussion about Logic rather than the nature of time, since we would seem to have a fundamental disagreement.
    "[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 understand what it means to have real material being. I do not know what it means to have real spiritual being.
      Again Boxing, why does your lack of knowledge have bearing or be the benchmark?

      If you don't believe that it is justifiable to decide whether a rigorously defined proposition is possible or not possible, we should probably be having a discussion about Logic rather than the nature of time, since we would seem to have a fundamental disagreement.
      Sorry Boxing, there was nothing ambiguous about my definitions. They were straight forward. Whether you can understand the concepts is a different story, and not relevant. As far as logic goes, I did ask you what law of logic the idea of God creating the universe violated.
      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
        Again Boxing, why does your lack of knowledge have bearing or be the benchmark?
        Because it is unreasonable to expect me to simply accept a concept which is undefined. Again, you might as well ask me to consider the possibility of the floobergast.

        Sorry Boxing, there was nothing ambiguous about my definitions. They were straight forward. Whether you can understand the concepts is a different story, and not relevant.
        They are not straightforward at all. The phrase "being beyond, or exceeding, the power or laws of nature" is meaningless. The word "beyond" is a spatial concept, and "exceeding" is a concept of measurement. So, "beyond" or "exceeding" by what measure?

        As far as logic goes, I did ask you what law of logic the idea of God creating the universe violated.
        Non-contradiction. Creatio ex nihilo would require that time simultaneously exist and not exist.
        "[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
          Because it is unreasonable to expect me to simply accept a concept which is undefined. Again, you might as well ask me to consider the possibility of the floobergast.
          Listen Boxing, you seem like an honest guy so please stop. You know perfectly well what exist and cause mean. You know perfectly well what supernatural means as a concept. Sure, we may not know how the supernatural, or rather God, does things or interacts with the material world, but that doesn't mean we can't understand the concept.

          They are not straightforward at all. The phrase "being beyond, or exceeding, the power or laws of nature" is meaningless. The word "beyond" is a spatial concept, and "exceeding" is a concept of measurement. So, "beyond" or "exceeding" by what measure?
          Again saying that the supernatural is not a part of nature, something different than nature, or the thing that created nature, is not meaningless. As a concept that is understandable - even if we don't know the mechanics.

          Non-contradiction. Creatio ex nihilo would require that time simultaneously exist and not exist.
          What? How would that work if time was an illusion? And why couldn't time come into existence with the physical creation? How would it simultaneously exist and not exist at that point?
          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
            Listen Boxing, you seem like an honest guy so please stop. You know perfectly well what exist and cause mean. You know perfectly well what supernatural means as a concept. Sure, we may not know how the supernatural, or rather God, does things or interacts with the material world, but that doesn't mean we can't understand the concept.
            "Exist" and "cause" are spatio-temporal concepts. I honestly do not know what these things are meant to mean in the absence of space and time.

            Again saying that the supernatural is not a part of nature, something different than nature, or the thing that created nature, is not meaningless. As a concept that is understandable - even if we don't know the mechanics.
            If "nature" is defined as "the whole of material reality" (as it usually is in cosmological discussions) I honestly do not know what is meant by "not a part of nature" or "different than nature." Those phrases are meaningless without first clarifying how something can "exist" in the absence of space-time.

            What? How would that work if time was an illusion? And why couldn't time come into existence with the physical creation? How would it simultaneously exist and not exist at that point?
            If time is an illusion, then there can be no action. Action requires time. Therefore, time would simultaneously exist and not exist, which violates non-contradiction.

            If time is not an illusion, then the creation of time from nothing would first require a time when time did not exist. That's a fairly obvious violation of non-contradiction.
            "[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
              "Exist" and "cause" are spatio-temporal concepts. I honestly do not know what these things are meant to mean in the absence of space and time.
              Ok, have it your way.

              If "nature" is defined as "the whole of material reality" (as it usually is in cosmological discussions) I honestly do not know what is meant by "not a part of nature" or "different than nature." Those phrases are meaningless without first clarifying how something can "exist" in the absence of space-time.
              Again you are appealing to ignorance. You do not understand how something can exist apart from nature so it can't exist. So again, I have to play by your rules, I must describe in materialistic terms what is decidedly not material. And I will ask again, why is our limited, finite knowledge the benchmark for understanding such things?

              If time is an illusion, then there can be no action. Action requires time. Therefore, time would simultaneously exist and not exist, which violates non-contradiction.
              What? Not according to Greene (or the physicists that Greene interviewed) or Carroll. They all held that time may in fact be an illusion and none of them believed in a static universe. How do you prove that action requires time?


              If time is not an illusion, then the creation of time from nothing would first require a time when time did not exist. That's a fairly obvious violation of non-contradiction.
              No it wouldn't. There would be a state or condition where time did not exist. Not a time where time did not exist.

              Tell me Boxing - how old is this universe and how do you know that?
              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
                Again you are appealing to ignorance. You do not understand how something can exist apart from nature so it can't exist. So again, I have to play by your rules, I must describe in materialistic terms what is decidedly not material. And I will ask again, why is our limited, finite knowledge the benchmark for understanding such things?
                Again, I'm not asking you to play by my rules. I'm not asking you to describe in materialistic terms what is decidedly not material. I'm simply asking you to define what "exists" means in the absence of space-time. I am, once again, asking you to define the rules; I am most certainly not requiring that you play by mine.

                What? Not according to Greene (or the physicists that Greene interviewed) or Carroll. They all held that time may in fact be an illusion and none of them believed in a static universe.
                The link you provided from Greene et all suggested that our perception or experience of time is illusory, not that there is no temporal dimension by which to measure the universe (as on Barbour's model).

                How do you prove that action requires time?
                Action is a temporal concept. It is meaningless in the absence of time.

                No it wouldn't. There would be a state or condition where time did not exist. Not a time where time did not exist.
                A state or condition of what?

                Tell me Boxing - how old is this universe and how do you know that?
                I don't know how old the universe is. I suspect it is about 14 billion years old, based on current cosmological data, but I don't pretend to know its age.
                "[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

                  Action is a temporal concept. It is meaningless in the absence of time.

                  A state or condition of what?
                  Let's focus here since this seems to be the sticking point. Could time be static, i.e. no arrow of time. Then the arrow of time, or flow of time, comes into existence with creation? So time always exists, but the flow of time is conditional.
                  Last edited by seer; 08-28-2014, 12:22 PM.
                  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

                    How do you prove that action requires time?
                    Well, ah . . . the long standing Theory of Relativity establishes that space/time are intimately related and you have to have space (dimensions that events and actions take place) with time for actions to take place. Actions nor events cannot take place without time. Our universe has a three dimensional space where events take place in time.

                    Careful about the use of proof. Again this only applies to math and philosophy, not science.
                    Last edited by shunyadragon; 08-28-2014, 08:25 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 seer View Post
                      Let's focus here since this seems to be the sticking point. Could time be static, i.e. no arrow of time. Then the arrow of time, or flow of time, comes into existence with creation? So time always exists, but the flow of time is conditional.
                      That'd certainly be an interesting possibility, somewhat along the lines of the Cosmic Egg hypothesis of cosmology. I could certainly imagine a cogent mathematical model for such a situation. It would pose an issue for classical creatio ex nihilo, still, but it's a concept which could certainly be explored.
                      "[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
                        That'd certainly be an interesting possibility, somewhat along the lines of the Cosmic Egg hypothesis of cosmology. I could certainly imagine a cogent mathematical model for such a situation. It would pose an issue for classical creatio ex nihilo, still, but it's a concept which could certainly be explored.

                        I'm not sure why it would pose a problem for the Christian understanding of creation. God "dwells in eternity" perhaps eternity is just another way to say that time is static with God, or that there is no flow of time.
                        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'm not sure why it would pose a problem for the Christian understanding of creation.
                          It would if you’re adopting the Cosmic Egg hypothesis of cosmology because in the eternal multiverse hypothesis, which increasingly seems to be the accepted model, there would be an infinite number of “cosmic eggs” and therefore no one single creation event.

                          God "dwells in eternity" perhaps eternity is just another way to say that time is static with God, or that there is no flow of time.
                          Whatever that means! Why introduce a deity into the equation at all. It adds nothing.
                          “He felt that his whole life was a kind of dream and he sometimes wondered whose it was and whether they were enjoying it.” - Douglas Adams.

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Tassman View Post
                            It would if you’re adopting the Cosmic Egg hypothesis of cosmology because in the eternal multiverse hypothesis, which increasingly seems to be the accepted model, there would be an infinite number of “cosmic eggs” and therefore no one single creation event.
                            No I'm not adopting the Cosmic Egg model, I'm only speaking of the possibility of static time.


                            Whatever that means! Why introduce a deity into the equation at all. It adds nothing.
                            Unless God is a necessary Being. Necessary for creation. Which you have not shown is not the case.


                            And as far as the multiverse option, did Steinhardt's objection go over your head?

                            http://www.math.columbia.edu/~woit/wordpress/?p=6921

                            Yet some proponents of inflation who celebrated the BICEP2 announcement already insist that the theory is equally valid whether or not gravitational waves are detected. How is this possible?

                            The answer given by proponents is alarming: the inflationary paradigm is so flexible that it is immune to experimental and observational tests. First, inflation is driven by a hypothetical scalar field, the inflation, which has properties that can be adjusted to produce effectively any outcome. Second, inflation does not end with a universe with uniform properties, but almost inevitably leads to a multiverse with an infinite number of bubbles, in which the cosmic and physical properties vary from bubble to bubble. The part of the multiverse that we observe corresponds to a piece of just one such bubble. Scanning over all possible bubbles in the multi*verse, every*thing that can physically happen does happen an infinite number of times. No experiment can rule out a theory that allows for all possible outcomes. Hence, the paradigm of inflation is unfalsifiable
                            Last edited by seer; 08-30-2014, 09:22 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


                            • Originally posted by seer View Post
                              No I'm not adopting the Cosmic Egg model, I'm only speaking of the possibility of static time.

                              Unless God is a necessary Being. Necessary for creation. Which you have not shown is not the case.
                              Demanding evidence for a negative proof, a fallacy


                              And as far as the multiverse option, did Steinhardt's objection go over your head?

                              http://www.math.columbia.edu/~woit/wordpress/?p=6921
                              Steinhardt's objection is within another model for our universe, cyclic, which is described as eternal. Does that go over your head? Your unethical selective quoting cosmologists to support your theistic agenda continues.
                              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 seer View Post
                                No I'm not adopting the Cosmic Egg model, I'm only speaking of the possibility of static time.

                                Unless God is a necessary Being. Necessary for creation. Which you have not shown is not the case.
                                Well then, it's up to you to show that God is "necessary for creation", isn't it.

                                And as far as the multiverse option, did Steinhardt's objection go over your head?

                                http://www.math.columbia.edu/~woit/wordpress/?p=6921
                                Are you being deliberately misleading?

                                I said multiverse theory "increasingly seems to be the accepted model", not that it was the only model. But, as shunya reminds you, Steinhardt's 'cyclic model' is also described as eternal, which doesn't help your "necessary for creation" scenario one little bit.
                                Last edited by Tassman; 08-31-2014, 04:25 AM.
                                “He felt that his whole life was a kind of dream and he sometimes wondered whose it was and whether they were enjoying it.” - Douglas Adams.

                                Comment

                                Related Threads

                                Collapse

                                Topics Statistics Last Post
                                Started by shunyadragon, 03-01-2024, 09:40 AM
                                160 responses
                                505 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post JimL
                                by JimL
                                 
                                Started by seer, 02-15-2024, 11:24 AM
                                88 responses
                                353 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post shunyadragon  
                                Started by Diogenes, 01-22-2024, 07:37 PM
                                21 responses
                                133 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post shunyadragon  
                                Working...
                                X