• albie
    10
    He has a Greek sounding name beginning with A and all I know about him otherwise is that he pointed out that there are only two origins to the world and both are illogical. Being: A)the world came from nothing(which he points out is impossible) Also B) the universe always existed(which is impossible also because with an infinite past all things can happen earlier and hence never really happen)

    Can you help?

  • tim wood
    2.9k
    What's in a name? Whatever name you come up with it's likely he was not the first with the thought. More interesting is that notwithstanding the impossibility of us, here we are. What do you make of that?
  • Noah Te Stroete
    2.1k
    Anaximander? Anaximenes? Anaxagoras? All three had cosmogony theories. Also, of course, there was Aristotle.
  • hachit
    198
    Sounds like Aristotle or Charles Darwin (usually called Darwin pronounced d-AR-win).
  • albieAccepted Answer
    10
    It was definitely not Aristotle and I have considered the others postulated by Noah. I think it probably had an x in there somewhere. Problem is finding the right combination of words to google!

    I actually came up with his two causes idea independently and later found he already thought of it.

    As for its validity. I have brought up the problem on several sites and no one has debunked it to my satisfaction(indeed the more I present the idea the more convinced I am it is correct). The glitch is in making people understand that you cannot have an infinite past. I just know instinctively that it is illogical but everyone else seems to not see it. And try describing an instinct.

    I have found a problem with the notion of an infinite past which the philosopher in question did not cover. If the universe has existed for ever then that means it has crossed an infinite amount of time to get to NOW. But it is impossible to cross an infinite amount of time.

    What this means is that the universe has no logical genesis and we have to consider it as magical or miraculous and that science will never explain where it came from using the scientific method.

    People get very angry when I pose this conundrum, like their very sense of reality is under threat...which it is.
  • Mww
    855
    If the universe has existed for ever then that means it has crossed an infinite amount of time to get to NOW. But it is impossible to cross an infinite amount of time.albie

    So the conclusion is, there is no NOW? NOW is impossible because getting to it is impossible?

    So the real reason people’s sense of reality is threatened is because there is no NOW, rather than the two illogical origins of the Universe?
  • Echarmion
    476
    What this means is that the universe has no logical genesis and we have to consider it as magical or miraculous and that science will never explain where it came from using the scientific method.albie

    This is true, but science, as in empirical science, is not supposed to explain the origin of the world. That's the realm of metaphysics, of interpreting the pyhsical world and figuring out what it means.

    If you're interested in this particular dilemma, I found Kant's take on it convincing. He essentially argues that the dilemma is a result of the limits, or the form, of our experience. There cannot be a first cause because we cannot experience the absence of experience. There cannot be infinity because we cannot experience infinity. Instead, as a physical object, the universe simply goes on ad indefinitum in both time and space. Which is to say an arbitrarily large amount, but not an infinite amount, of time has passed.
  • albie
    10


    No, there clearly is a now therefore the past is finite which means we came from nothing. Which is far more practical than having an infinite past. Still impossible though.
  • albie
    10

    I don't think I agree with Kant that something doesn't exist unless we can fully encompass it with our minds. Maybe only in phenomenology is that true. I think logic dictates that certain things are true or not. People who hear my argument say "Well we just don't know enough yet." They do not understand the problem because the problem is absolute when understood.
  • Echarmion
    476
    I don't think I agree with Kant that something doesn't exist unless we can fully encompass it with our minds. Maybe only in phenomenology is that true.albie

    And the universe is not a phenomenon?

    I think logic dictates that certain things are true or not.albie

    Logic itself? How does it do that?

    People who hear my argument say "Well we just don't know enough yet." They do not understand the problem because the problem is absolute when understood.albie

    I don't say that though.
  • Mww
    855


    It does not follow from the Universe being finite that we came from nothing. Even if finiteness is a necessary, perhaps even primary, condition for existence, it is impossible to know whether it is entirely sufficient. It really makes no logical sense to say we came from nothing when the sufficient conditions for us are not entirely known.
bold
italic
underline
strike
code
quote
ulist
image
url
mention
reveal
youtube
tweet
Add a Comment