This is because logical possibility is based on the nature of being, not on contingent restrictions as physical possibility is. For example, the reason for the logical principle of noncontradiction is that it is impossible to instantiate a contradiction in reality. On the other hand, the laws of nature are contingent and need to be discovered empirically. — Dfpolis
the fact(s) that make some state of affairs be as it is. (We may or may not know these.) This is the sense I am using. — Dfpolis
Proofs show us how to assemble facts we already know to see something we may not have noticed. — Dfpolis
I have not said that God is unexplained, but self-explaining. — Dfpolis
Then your "proof" would be superfluous — Fooloso4
Your appeal to intuition is a dodge and circular - God is only self-explaining to those to whom this is intuitively evident. — Fooloso4
I would assume that your infinite God could explain itself to everyone without your help! — Fooloso4
With regard to your distinction between essence and existence, what is the essence of what is not? — Fooloso4
How do you explain the claim that if a being exists, its explanation must exist? There is nothing self-evident about this claim. — Fooloso4
Science does not explain existence in toto. — Fooloso4
Your claim that an explanation means the fact(s) that make some state of affairs be as it is does not explain those fact(s). — Fooloso4
To claim that the fact(s) are self-explaining because without the fact(s) we can't explain anything does not show that the fact(s) exist. It may be that at some point we reach the limit of explanation. — Fooloso4
This does not imply the quantum system itself is necessarily explainable by something external. — Relativist
Your first sentence is a definition: a brute fact is something that exists without a reason for existing. But why believe that brute facts can only exist "outside of time"?There must be an explanation for everything that is not a brute fact. Brute facts can only exist outside of time. — Devans99
The sort of thing that clearly has had a "start" are merely configurations of fundamental stuff. The fundamental stuff itself has no apparent "start", and I see no justification for believing it necessary had one.Anything that exists within time must have a start — Devans99
The terminology is confusing in this regard, because metamathematics is defined as a subdivision of mathematics, while metaphysics is defined as non-physics. — alcontali
metaphysics is defined as non-physics. — alcontali
Metaphysics does NOT use the same scientific method (of experimental testing) as physics. Hence, physics is a subdiscipline of science, but metaphysics is not. — alcontali
The ideal of the ToE is to discard the scientific method, i.e. experimental testing, and be able to do science using the axiomatic method, i.e. proving by axiomatic derivation. The reason why science is not axiomatic, is because the axiomatic base for physics is lacking. — alcontali
Science does not use the scientific method because it wants to, but simply because the desired alternative, i.e. axiomatic provability, is not attainable. — alcontali
The ToE is exactly about replacing the scientific method by the axiomatic one. Stephen Hawking explores this possibility at length in his lecture, Gödel and the End of Physics. — alcontali
Again, you are confusing methodologies. Natural science uses the hypothetico-deductive method, while metaphysical proofs often use strict deduction. — Dfpolis
Well, the ToE is exactly about replacing the one by the other, and the very reasons why this is not possible. In the discourse on the ToE, the confusion is simply deliberate. — alcontali
This impossibility does not prove anything about the real world, but about the relationship between us and the real world. — alcontali
It just means that we do not have access to a copy of the axioms from which the real world has been/is being constructed. — alcontali
The nature of knowledge as a justified (true) belief, JtB, requires that it has the shape of an arrow. — alcontali
So if there are mathematical results that can not be proved, there are physical problems that can not be predicted. — alcontali
If Q can be justified from P, then Q is knowledge. Having access to Q is insufficient. It is not knowledge, until the necessity of the arrow, i.e. the justification, has been demonstrated. — alcontali
You consider Q to be knowledge in and of itself. That is contrary to the Platonic definition, JtB — alcontali
Well, this is exactly what Gödel tries to achieve in his incompleteness theorems. — alcontali
We already know that such procedure cannot exist. — alcontali
That is a very constructivist remark — alcontali
In the philosophy of mathematics, constructivism asserts that it is necessary to find (or "construct") a mathematical object to prove that it exists. — alcontali
I consider constructivism to be heretical — alcontali
Gödel proves that there is no knowable procedure possible to discover new knowledge. — alcontali
In other words, it will indeed never be possible to explain (as in knowledge) why humanity has managed to discover its existing stock of knowledge. If the human brain were just some kind of biological computer, it would not have been possible at all. — alcontali
At the same time, there is absolutely no input that you could ever feed to a computer, short of the undiscoverable ToE (Theory of Everything) that will allow it to decide this question. — alcontali
Matter and energy (which are interchangeable) are just configurations of fundamental stuff. The intuition (which is not a proof) is rooted in our experiences with configurations of stuff having a "start." This leads to the conclusion there is a past infinite series of configurations (every configuration "started", having been caused by a prior configuration), but even so - this doesn't entail a beginning for the fundamental stuff itself - just a beginning for any particular configuration.IMO matter/energy has to have a start too — Devans99
Matter and energy (which are interchangeable) are just configurations of fundamental stuff — Relativist
This leads to the conclusion there is a past infinite series of configurations (every configuration "started", having been caused by a prior configuration) — Relativist
Why believe the fundamental stuff required a start in time? Your intuition about the need for a start is based on experience with configurations of the fundamental stuff, and when you extrapolate this to the fundamental itself, you commit the fallacy of composition.The 'fundamental stuff' must of had a start in time. Else how did it come about? — Devans99
Quanta are disturbances in a quantum field. Fields are fundamental (or at least, MORE fundamental), so quanta are just configurations of the more fundamental field.A quanta of energy remains a quanta of energy even if it s form can change.
Why believe the fundamental stuff required a start in time? Your intuition about the need for a start is based on experience with configurations of the fundamental stuff, and when you extrapolate this to the fundamental itself, you commit the fallacy of composition — Relativist
Quanta are disturbances in a quantum field. Fields are fundamental (or at least, MORE fundamental), so quanta are just configurations of the more fundamental field. — Relativist
It does not help you case to equivocate on the two meanings of "explanation" (verbal vs effective) that I carefully distinguished. — Dfpolis
There are logically possible acts that the universe cannot do. — Dfpolis
If there are facts with no underlying dynamics/explanations ("brute facts" that "just are"), then the logic of science fails. — Dfpolis
As I explain earlier, essences specify possible acts, while existence makes powers operational — Dfpolis
Essence, what a thing is, is the specification of its possible acts — Dfpolis
No, mathematics has quantitative relations as its subject matter — Dfpolis
No, mathematics has quantitative relations as its subject matter — Dfpolis
It's bad logic. If the past is finite, then something existed without "coming into existence" because that would entail a state prior to its existence, and this is logically impossible.Also, It is not intuition; it is logic: things must first come into existence in order to exist - the alternative is just a belief in magic — Devans99
If the fundamental stuff exists then its composition exists as well. So both basis are covered and I am not committing the fallacy of composition. — Devans99
If there is fundamental stuff, it is metaphysically impossible for it not to exist (i.e. its existence is metaphysically necessary). A finite past implies the fundamental stuff was in an initial state (configuration) and perhaps this state could have been different (i.e. the specific state is contingent), but why think that it impossible for an initial, uncaused, contingent state to be impossible? You need to provide a justification for this that is not based on the subsequent temporal states and the composition fallacy.If you prefer to view it that way, then I would say those fields and the disturbances in them need a temporal start too. One configuration of the field is caused by a previous configuration of the field. If there is no first configuration of the field, there is no second configuration, no third, and by induction, no configurations at all. — Devans99
1. Assume a particle does not have a temporal start point (IE its existed ‘forever’)
2. If the particle does not have a start, then it cannot have a ‘next to start’ (because that would qualify as a start and 1 says that it does not have a start)
3. So particle does not have a next to start (by Modus Ponens on 1 and 2).
4. etc… for start+2, start+3…
5. Implies particle does not have middle
6. etc… unto start+∞ (now)
7. Implies particle does not have a (temporal) end
8. Implies particle never existed — Devans99
Again, you just seem to be asserting (without support) that contingent things cannot exist uncaused. My response is the same: any initial state will necessarily have contingent properties. This is true even if there is a God. A God that exists in an initial state would have had had an uncaused plan for a universe in his mind - i.e., an intent to create THIS contingent universe rather than all other metaphysically possible universes.And say we find X is actually fundamental (be it a string or whatever). X will have innate properties. That will require a temporal start at which these innate properties are acquired. Else X has no innate properties and X is null and void. — Devans99
It's bad logic. If the past is finite, then something existed without "coming into existence" because that would entail a state prior to its existence, and this is logically impossible. — Relativist
If there is fundamental stuff, it is metaphysically impossible for it not to exist (i.e. its existence is metaphysically necessary). A finite past implies the fundamental stuff was in an initial state (configuration) and perhaps this state could have been different (i.e. the specific state is contingent), but why think that it impossible for an initial, uncaused, contingent state to be impossible? You need to provide a justification for this that is not based on the subsequent temporal states and the composition fallacy. — Relativist
I don't follow your argument. It appears you're treating particles as fundamental. What do you mean by "next to start"? An eternal particle doesn't start to exist (nor cease to exist) but it exists in contingent relations to other eternal particles that collectively configure into higher level objects. These higher level objects are what come into existence. — Relativist
Again, you just seem to be asserting (without support) that contingent things cannot exist uncaused. My response is the same: any initial state will necessarily have contingent properties. This is true even if there is a God. A God that exists in an initial state would have had had an uncaused plan for a universe in his mind - i.e., an intent to create THIS contingent universe rather than all other metaphysically possible universes. — Relativist
The terminology is confusing in this regard, because metamathematics is defined as a subdivision of mathematics, while metaphysics is defined as non-physics. — alcontali
metaphysics is defined as non-physics. — alcontali
Metaphysics does NOT use the same scientific method (of experimental testing) as physics. Hence, physics is a subdiscipline of science, but metaphysics is not. — alcontali
The ideal of the ToE is to discard the scientific method, i.e. experimental testing, and be able to do science using the axiomatic method, i.e. proving by axiomatic derivation. The reason why science is not axiomatic, is because the axiomatic base for physics is lacking. — alcontali
Science does not use the scientific method because it wants to, but simply because the desired alternative, i.e. axiomatic provability, is not attainable. — alcontali
The ToE is exactly about replacing the scientific method by the axiomatic one. Stephen Hawking explores this possibility at length in his lecture, Gödel and the End of Physics. — alcontali
Again, you are confusing methodologies. Natural science uses the hypothetico-deductive method, while metaphysical proofs often use strict deduction. — Dfpolis
Well, the ToE is exactly about replacing the one by the other, and the very reasons why this is not possible. In the discourse on the ToE, the confusion is simply deliberate. — alcontali
This impossibility does not prove anything about the real world, but about the relationship between us and the real world. — alcontali
It just means that we do not have access to a copy of the axioms from which the real world has been/is being constructed. — alcontali
The nature of knowledge as a justified (true) belief, JtB, requires that it has the shape of an arrow. — alcontali
So if there are mathematical results that can not be proved, there are physical problems that can not be predicted. — alcontali
If Q can be justified from P, then Q is knowledge. Having access to Q is insufficient. It is not knowledge, until the necessity of the arrow, i.e. the justification, has been demonstrated. — alcontali
You consider Q to be knowledge in and of itself. That is contrary to the Platonic definition, JtB — alcontali
Well, this is exactly what Gödel tries to achieve in his incompleteness theorems. — alcontali
We already know that such procedure cannot exist. — alcontali
That is a very constructivist remark — alcontali
In the philosophy of mathematics, constructivism asserts that it is necessary to find (or "construct") a mathematical object to prove that it exists. — alcontali
I consider constructivism to be heretical — alcontali
Gödel proves that there is no knowable procedure possible to discover new knowledge. — alcontali
In other words, it will indeed never be possible to explain (as in knowledge) why humanity has managed to discover its existing stock of knowledge. If the human brain were just some kind of biological computer, it would not have been possible at all. — alcontali
At the same time, there is absolutely no input that you could ever feed to a computer, short of the undiscoverable ToE (Theory of Everything) that will allow it to decide this question. — alcontali
"Ex nihilo" = from nothing, implies a state of "nothingness" existed, a self-contradictory term ("nonexistence exists"). If x exists at all times, and the past is finite, then x did not "come into" existence - that would entail a prior existing state of affairs into which x appears, which is impossible because x exists at all times. Further, the scenario assumes x is fundamental to everything that exists - everything in existence is composed of x.Things came into existence/time at the point time started - either by creation ex nilhilo (see zero energy universe hypothesis) or because these things existed timelessly already (and they entered time at the start of time). — Devans99
What is your justification for believing something causally efficacious can exist outside of time, and can somehow reach into time and interact?I do not think an initial uncaused state is impossible - it is possible, but only possible outside of time. — Devans99
The fundamental stuff is necessary for all existence, since everything is composed of it. It therefore exists permanently. It can't have been caused, because all possible causal factors (like everything else in existence) are composed of this fundamental stuff. That's what it means to be fundamental. Your only optiob is to deny that there can exist some fubdamental stuff.Everything, including fundamental stuff, must be accounted for. IE it must either be created or exist permanently. — Devans99
You have provided no justification for believing this.As I've pointed out, it is impossible to exist permanently/'forever' in time - you simply cannot have a brute fact within time because causality (which is a feature of time) requires everything to have a both a prior and ultimate cause.
My point was purely and simply that completely unlimited being, by which you seem to mean completely unlimited capacity to do, cannot be the fact that makes some state of affairs be as it is.
It is logically incapable of being that fact because it is incapable of rendering any specific state of affairs necessary. Or perhaps to make things more concrete, I could say that it is incapable of rendering any specific state of affairs inevitable. — Theologian
The intro and section 1 of this article are quite readable and on point:
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/metaphysics/ — Theologian
There must be at least one timeless thing without at explanation and it must be capable of acting as a causal agent - the pyramid of causality within time requires a first cause. — Devans99
So I think the difference of opinion is that I have God as a timeless brute fact which clashes with your premise 4 - you have God as a 'self explaining being'. — Devans99
To be a being is to be composed of information - otherwise we have null and void. — Devans99
How is it possible to do anything possible and not be changed by the doing? — Devans99
There are things in the universe that are just plain bad for all intelligent beings. Black holes for example are purely destructive. — Devans99
If a proof leads to a conclusion that clashes with reality, one has to question the proof. One or more of these has to give:
- Omnipotence
- Omnipresence
- Omnibenevolence — Devans99
"Ex nihilo" = from nothing, implies a state of "nothingness" existed, a self-contradictory term ("nonexistence exists"). If x exists at all times, and the past is finite, then x did not "come into" existence - that would entail a prior existing state of affairs into which x appears, which is impossible because x exists at all times. Further, the scenario assumes x is fundamental to everything that exists - everything in existence is composed of x. — Relativist
What is your justification for believing something causally efficacious can exist outside of time, and can somehow reach into time and interact? — Relativist
The fundamental stuff is necessary for all existence, since everything is composed of it. It therefore exists permanently. It can't have been caused, because all possible causal factors (like everything else in existence) are composed of this fundamental stuff. That's what it means to be fundamental. Your only optiob is to deny that there can exist some fubdamental stuff. — Relativist
You have provided no justification for believing this. — Relativist
the fact that it may use mathematical methods does not make it mathematics anymore than the fact that physics uses mathematical methods makes physics a branch of mathematics. — Dfpolis
No, mathematics has quantitative relations as its subject matter — Dfpolis
What we now call "metaphysics" was called "first philosophy" by Aristotle because it deals with issues fundamental to all other areas of research, including physics — Dfpolis
Still, all three are sciences in the more traditional sense of rigorous systematic fields of study. — Dfpolis
It is absurd to think that any competent physicist would accept a proposed ToE absent rigorous experimental testing. — Dfpolis
I am not sure an axiomatic approach is the "desired alternative" in natural science. You'd need to make a case for that. It seems to me that many physics like the method of discovery they signed up for. — Dfpolis
I don't think that Hawking's view is widely shared. — Dfpolis
metaphysics is concerned with being as being, which is not subject to the vagaries of measurement. — Dfpolis
While I'm happy to admit that knowledge is a subject-object relation, I do not see that the admission precludes proofs about reality. — Dfpolis
I am sorry, but I do not see nature as an axiomatic construct. — Dfpolis
Rather, I see it as a complex, intelligible whole from which we may abstract some universal truths. — Dfpolis
At the simplest level, we understand being well enough to see that (1) Whatever is, is, (2) that a putative reality must either be or not be, and (3) that nothing can be and not be at one and the same time in one and the same way. — Dfpolis
I reject the thesis that knowledge is any form of belief. — Dfpolis
This analysis precludes any knowledge, for it leads to an infinite regress (How do we know P?). — Dfpolis
Also, I do not consider philosophy to be a closed axiomatic system — Dfpolis
He does no such thing. He only considers closed, formal systems, not empirically open systems. If your claim were true, we would never have made progress in any science. — Dfpolis
It is easy to show that the mind cannot be purely neurophysical. — Dfpolis
Your conclusion is a non-sequiteur, and it does logically not follow. You said something completely incongruent to my statement. You made an absolutely false claim because it does not pertain to my claim. — god must be atheist
This is actually not true. A lower-level movement can create a higher-level movement, and there need not be, there is no, actualization process. — god must be atheist
Just because something is not explained, (the finite to his self) AND assuming an explanation is possible, it does not necessarily follow that there is someone or something that can and will explain it.
— god must be atheist
...
My criticism stands both ways. Both if you consider explanation verbal, and if you consider explanation effective. — god must be atheist
The Euthyphro problem in a nutshell here is that either God could do things that are "logically impossible" if He were to choose to do so, or logic is primary/prior to God, who must obey it. — Terrapin Station
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.