Repeating nonsense & error doesn't make your point. Likewise, repeated philosophical & scientific objections to your nonsense & error merely bounce off of your incorrigibility. Says the fly to the flypaper.

So you are saying I'm wrong but refusing to say why I'm wrong. :sad:

IMO, I've satisfactorily addressed all your points already.

IMO, I've satisfactorily addressed all your points already. — Devans99

:lol:

↪180 Proof So you are saying I'm wrong but refusing to say why I'm wrong. — Devans99

(You're right!) Res ipsa loquitur ...

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/367663

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/367676

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/367693

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/367710

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/371250

... complains ( :sweat: ) the fly to the flypaper.

You are failing completely to understand the dynamics of causal regresses. I have given you examples that I child could follow. I am almost at a loss. — Devans99

I just happened to run across this article this very morning.

In the quantum realm, cause doesn’t necessarily come before effect

https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg24532650-700-in-the-quantum-realm-cause-doesnt-necessarily-come-before-effect/

People's mental model of there being a first moment of time then a next then a next and always going in one direction, is something they picked up when they were eight years old. The very idea of sequential time doesn't even hold up to the scrutiny of modern physics.

There is simply no reason at all that time and causation couldn't be modeled as the integers. Or maybe even as the real numbers ... one moment smearing into the ones nearby, with the concept of "next" being nonexistent.

How do you know causality is discrete at all? Maybe it's continuous. You have no way of knowing what's true. You just cling to an outmoded idea because you won't step back a level of indirection to see the perfectly reasonable alternatives. Buddhists don't agree with your concept of time. Quantum physics doesn't agree with your concept of time.

Why won't you recognize that you have and opinion, and not a fact?

Is infinity a Western Concept? I wasn't aware of that? Anyway...here's a simple argument: — TheMadFool

As Bernie said to Liz last night, "I did not ever say that!"

I said that the concept of the world as having had a distinct moment of beginning is a western concept. It's not even my idea. Someone else replied to one of my posts noting that Buddhists would have a very different concept of time and a different mathematical model. So the idea that causation is a well-ordered collection, with a first element, is an assumption that derives from the West's Christianity. That seems to be a nice explanation for why people cling so deeply to the idea that "there can be no infinite regress." As a math major I immediately think of the integers. They have infinite regress.

And for that matter, why are the people opposed to finite regress not also opposed to infinite progress? Why shouldn't there be a maximum integer going to the right? After all to get to 5 from the right we have to get to 6, but first we have to get to 7 ... and that process could never start. So there must be a maximum integer.

You see how ridiculous that argument is. But if you go from left to right, suddenly it's meaningful?

Says who?

But more to the point ... how on earth did you misquote and misconstrue me like that?

if we travel from our past which is negative infinity to the present, point 0 on the integer number line, then we would have to traverse a positive infinity of time to reach the present, point 0 on the integer number line. However, positive infinity is, by definition, an interminable quantity and a task that cannot be completed. — TheMadFool

If you allow infinite movement to the right, why not to the left? The situation is perfectly symmetrical except for your irrational attachments to false and confused beliefs about time.


To get to the number 5, we have to traverse infinity from the right! That's exactly as sensible as what you're saying. You are saying that left and right are asymmetrical. That's a belief, not a fact.

If I travel from Istanbul to New York by plane the distance is 8,065 km. If I return from New York to Istanbul, again by plane and on the same route the distance will again be 8,065 km right?

If I travel from Istanbul to New York by plane the distance is 8,065 km. If I return from New York to Istanbul, again by plane and on the same route the distance will again be 8,065 km right? — TheMadFool

Uh ... yeah, is this a trick question? I don't see the relevance. But yes, I'd say so. Of course tiny fluctuations in the shape of the earth mean that the distance wouldn't be exactly the same. And since all measurement is approximate, we can never know for certain if the distances are the same!

It's a rule of the mathematical idea of a metric space that the distance from A to B is exactly the same as the distance from B to A. But in the real world it's an approximation. You might be a few molecules off.

Uh ... yeah, is this a trick question? — fishfry

Why would I ask a trick question? I'm just trying to figure things out.

You might be a few molecules off. — fishfry

:rofl: I think I'm missing more than a "few" molecules but that's beside the point. What I want to know is whether the distance AB is the same as the distance BA where A and B are the same points. If the past stretches to negative infinity from the present wouldn't that mean the universe would've to experience positive infinity to reach the present? If B = past and A = the present then the time AB = negative infinity and the time BA = positive infinity. If you agree with me so far and I see no reason to not do so then that would mean a positive infinity of time should've elapsed to reach the present i.e. a completed infinity is require and we know that completed infinity is an oxymoron or, to be explicit, a blatant contradiction. However, I keep an open mind about this: there are more things in heaven and on earth than can be dreamed up in your philosophy

2. The fine tuner’s environment must be fine tuned for life so that implies another fine tuner — Devans99

Am I dumb or how is the second proposition valid at all? If the fine tuner is an omnipotent deity (and take any form), why would it need to be "fine tuned for life"?

In the quantum realm, cause doesn’t necessarily come before effect — fishfry

We are talking about the origin of everything; IE huge amounts of matter; IE a macro, not micro problem. In the macro world the cause always comes before and determines the effect.

People's mental model of there being a first moment of time then a next then a next and always going in one direction, is something they picked up when they were eight years old. The very idea of sequential time doesn't even hold up to the scrutiny of modern physics. — fishfry

Again we are talking about a macro problem in the macro world. Science does not dispute that time is fundamentally sequential at a macro level and micro considerations are not relevant to this discussion.

Besides, I think you are letting fringe scientific ideas about time and causality override your common sense understanding of such ideas. I put more weight in 1000s of years of common sense and experience than one article about what science may have discovered in the murky world of QM.

We can be sure that nothing comes from nothing so macro level causality is unaffected by QM - if something comes from nothing naturally and time was infinite then matter density would be infinite - so the conservation of energy rules.

Why won't you recognize that you have and opinion, and not a fact? — fishfry

All 'facts' are 'opinions', just some have more weight than others. Causality based arguments have a huge amount of weight because causality indisputably rules the macro world.

A. Assume an infinite causal regress exists
B. Then it has no first element
C. If it has no nth element, it has no nth+1 element
D. So it cannot exist

And actual infinity is impossible (see https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/7379/infinite-bananas/p1).

So we have proved twice that infinite causal regresses are impossible.

That means reality must be a finite causal regress. That means there must be an uncaused cause.

It's like Sherlock Holmes says 'when you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth?' - there must be an uncaused cause because we have eliminated every other possibility.

Am I dumb or how is the second proposition valid at all? If the fine tuner is an omnipotent deity (and take any form), why would it need to be "fine tuned for life"? — Pelle

A fine tuner does not have to be an omnipotent deity. I am not proposing an omnipotent deity, just a deity of some form.

We are talking about the origin of everything; IE huge amounts of matter; IE a macro, not micro problem. In the macro world the cause always comes before and determines the effect. — Devans99

Did you get that from God's lips to your ear? You have an opinion, nothing more.

A. Assume an infinite causal regress exists
B. Then it has no first element
C. If it has no nth element, it has no nth+1 element
D. So it cannot exist — Devans99

C is confused. The integers have no first element. But every element has a successor. For every n there's an n+1. It does not have "n-th elements" because it's not a well-ordered set. There's no fifth member of the integers. What of it?

I think I'm missing more than a "few" molecules but that's beside the point. What I want to know is whether the distance AB is the same as the distance BA where A and B are the same points. — TheMadFool

If they are points in an abstract mathematical metric space, yes. If they are physical points, no, for two reasons. One, the earth is constantly changing shape. The effect is tiny but you're asking if the two distances are exactly the same. Second, you have two measurements. Each is only an approximation. You could and most likely would measure two different lengths, that are within error tolerance of each other.

Of course for all practical purposes, we regard the two distances as the same. Why are you asking?

If the past stretches to negative infinity from the present wouldn't that mean the universe would've to experience positive infinity to reach the present? — TheMadFool

No. The past does not stretch to negative infinity any more than 1/x is defined at negative infinity as in your other thread. It's the same model of the integers. Or if time is continuous, the real number line. It doesn't start anywhere. It just is.

If B = past and A = the present then the time AB = negative infinity and the time BA = positive infinity. — TheMadFool

No. Just as in your 1/x thread, there is no point at -infinity. There is no left hand endpoint to the number line, nor a right hand endpoint. And you see on the number line a point marked 2020? That's where we are. How did we get here? Nobody knows. It's a great mystery. But I see no reason that there must, by logical necessity, be a leftmost point on the real number line. Mathematically there isn't. Nor do I see why time or causation should be any different.

If you agree with me so far — TheMadFool

I disagree with your thought process entirely. There is no point at minus infinity, either in the integers, as in this thread, or in the real numbers, as in the 1/x thread. You have an incorrect picture of the integer and real number lines. They keep going forever to the left and to the right. It's perfectly symmetric.

If the universe is eternal, then your model fails. Would you agree with that?

So you are making a metaphysical claim, that the universe (or time, or causality, etc.) is not eternal. That's an opinion. You can't possibly claim to know for sure unless God sent you an email about it.

and I see no reason to not do so then that would mean a positive infinity of time should've elapsed to reach the present i.e. a completed infinity is require and we know that completed infinity is an oxymoron or, to be explicit, a blatant contradiction. However, I keep an open mind about this: there are more things in heaven and on earth than can be dreamed up in your philosophy — TheMadFool

Your premises are wrong, your reasoning is wrong, your conclusion is wrong.

But I hope you will answer my question: How do YOU know that the universe is not eternal? Has God spoken to you? Does she have a hot tip for the Super Bowl?

"We are talking about the origin of everything; IE huge amounts of matter; IE a macro, not micro problem. In the macro world the cause always comes before and determines the effect.
— Devans99

Did you get that from God's lips to your ear? You have an opinion, nothing more. — fishfry

My opinion is at least based on common sense/experience; not on something from nothing hocus-pocus.

C is confused. The integers have no first element. But every element has a successor. For every n there's an n+1. It does not have "n-th elements" because it's not a well-ordered set. There's no fifth member of the integers. What of it? — fishfry

Yes and the integers can't exist as an infinite regress with each element defined by its predecessor because there is no ultimate predecessor, that's why we right:

{..., -5, -4, -3. -2, -1 }

It is impossible to start at '...' and define the rest of the sequence.

Compared to something that does have a start, the naturals:

{1 , 2, 3, 4, 5, ... }

We see because there is a first element, it is possible to right out the rest of the sequence starting at the first element. So the naturals could represent a valid causal regress.

How do YOU know that the universe is not eternal? — fishfry

The arguments you have already been given, plus:

1. Assume time has no start
2. The state of the universe is given by the precise positions and velocity vectors of all its particles (10^80 or so in the observable universe I read)
3. Call the current state of the universe X
4. How many times has the universe been in state X in the past?
5. A greater than any finite number of times
6. Reductio ad absurdum. [1] is wrong. Time has a start.

My opinion is at least based on common sense/experience — Devans99

"Common sense" intuits That I am the center of the universe ... That the earth is flat ... That the sun goes around the earth (rising, moving east to west, setting) ... That the earth does not turn on an axis ... That hammers fall faster than feathers because they are heavier ... That a vacuum is impossible ... That willing is free ... That self is continuous ... That one's memories do not change ... That what is familiar is usually safer or better than what is unfamiliar ... That there are no coincidences ... That tradition or authority or popularity or mystery justifies beliefs ... That time "flows" ... That quantum actions/events are not (really) real ... :roll: The very parochial, myopic, biased scope of "common sense" engenders the need for the uncommon sensibility of scientific inquiries, aesthetic exercises & philosophical reflections. So full of incorrigible doxa, D99, you are - what Plato says philosophers must strive not to become - a sophist (of a fideistic sort, no doubt).

What bothers me most is better conveyed as a story. Suppose there are two friends, A and B on the integer number line. If A says to B, "let's travel together from zero and go right of zero and when we reach the largest number we'll talk". Do you think A and B will ever talk? No, since the positive integers are infinite they'll never reach the largest number.

Suppose B suggests to A that instead of going in the positive direction they should go left, in the negative direction and as and when they reach the smallest number they should talk to each other. Given this new scenario will A and B ever speak? No, for the simple reason that the negative integers are infinite.

Imagine now that A tells B that they should go left, along the negative numbers and once they reach the smallest negative integer they should turn back towards zero and when they return to their starting point, zero they'll have a conversaton. Will A and B manage to talk to each other? No, since they would fail to get to the smallest negative integer; after all negative integers go on to infinity. In very simple terms A and B would fail to reach the starting point for their return journey to zero. My question is that if there is no starting point in negative infinity how can any other point on the number line be reached? If the past is infinite, then time has no beginning. If time has no beginning how can any point in the temporal sequence be attained? Viewed differently, any specific point in time can be considered an end with a point in the past as the beginning. If there is no beginning then there can be no end. Yet, here we are in the early months of 2020. Clearly time must have a beginning.

"Common sense" intuits That I am the center of the universe ... That the earth is flat ... That the sun goes around the earth (rising, moving east to west, setting) ... That the earth does not turn on an axis ... That hammers fall faster than feathers because they are heavier ... That a vacuum is impossible ... That willing is free ... That self is continuous ... That one's memories do not change ... That what is familiar is usually safer or better than what is unfamiliar ... That there are no coincidences ... That tradition or authority or popularity or mystery justifies beliefs ... That time "flows" ... That quantum actions/events are not (really) real ... :roll: The very parochial, myopic, biased scope of "common sense" engenders the need for the uncommon sensibility of scientific inquiries, aesthetic exercises & philosophical reflections. So full of incorrigible doxa, D99, you are - what Plato says philosophers must strive not to become - a sophist (of a fideistic sort, no doubt). — 180 Proof

Nothing in science contradicts the statement 'the macro world is ruled by causality' and the origins of everything is a macro question so my proof holds.

You are living in an atheist fantasy land where actual infinity is possible (it is not) and where something comes from nothing (it does not).

6. Reductio ad absurdum. [1] is wrong. Time has a start — Devans99

I'm satisfied to agree to disagree.

If the past is infinite, then time has no beginning. If time has no beginning how can any point in the temporal sequence be attained? — TheMadFool

I don't think I can logically argue against strongly held metaphysical beliefs. Many people find it impossible to accept, even for sake of argument , that there was no first moment of time or first cause. For me, I find myself in 2020 and can clearly remember having once been in 2010. I got here just fine, took me ten years. I don't know how I got here. I was born and found myself at a certain point on the number line; and now lo these many years later, I'm in 2020. That's how it works.

How can you imagine that this somehow proves that causality had a beginning? You are here. That's a given. And later you'll be in the future, though when you get there it will feel like the present. You're just making metaphysical assumptions based on your Western upbringing. God was there "in the beginning." Buddhists don't believe that.

You're perfectly right that you can go as far as you like to the right on the number line and never reach the end, because there is no end. Likewise you can move as far as you like to the left, because there's no end in that direction either.

That's beautifully symmetric. Why do you think the past and the future are asymmetric? There's no evidence for it. Even if you take the big bang, I'll just consider an endless succession of big bangs. Nobody knows the truth about these things.

You are living in an atheist fantasy land ... — Devans99

That's Freethought Materialist Land to you, kid. :naughty:

where actual infinity is possible (it is not)

Strawman. Not only are infinite regresses AND egresses "possible" along circumferences of FINITE YET UNBOUNDED surfaces, they are actually extant (e.g. the Earth's equator). :yawn:

... and where something comes from nothing (it does not).

Strawman redux. The vacuum is not "nothing" ... :roll:

Strawman. Not only are infinite regresses AND egress "possible" along circumferences of FINITE YET UNBOUNDED surfaces, they are actually extant (e.g. the Earth's equator). — 180 Proof

We are talking about infinite causal regresses in time. I fail to see how the earth's equator has anything to do with it.

Strawman redux. The vacuum is not "nothing" ... — 180 Proof

The vacuum respects the conservation of energy. No new net matter/energy is created. If matter/energy was created naturally somehow (quantum fluctuations etc...) and time was infinite, infinite matter/energy density would result. So you cannot get something from nothing.

We are talking about infinite causal regresses in time. I fail to see how the earth's equator has anything to do with it. — Devans99

Particularly it doesn't. Finite Yet Unbounded paths, however, do. Just ask Euclid ...

So you cannot get something from nothing.

The vacuum is NOT "nothing". 99.9999...% of every THING is empty space, or vacuum. Things (i.e. patterned structures of mass-energy) are created via conserved transformations of mass-energy (e.g. nucleogenesis), even though mass-energy itself is not created (i.e. gained or lost), remaining constant in total.

Caveat: Wikipedia only gives breadth of data, not depth of comprehension. Take a course or two, kid. :confused:

Still doesn't follow:

A. Assume an infinite causal regress exists
B. Then it has no first element
C. If it has no nth element, it has no nth+1 element
D. So it cannot exist — Devans99

D. So A cannot be numbered so

Repeating a non-sequitur doesn't somehow make it so.

So you believe that energy is conserved? That matter/energy has therefore 'always' exists? What is your explanation for the Big Bang?

Why can we not number the elements in a causal regress?

A non-cognitive explanation for holding a belief describes a cause for it but is not a justification.
— fdrake
Who said it has to be justified? A belief is essentially a hypothesis. Justification goes beyond the hypothesis to its proof. Again, per Popper, the origin of a hypothesis doesn't matter. — Pantagruel

From what I see here in the forum, "a justified belief" is a "belief" being described by the person offering it...and an "unjustified belief" is the one his/her opponent is offering.

In a discussion regarding the existence or non-existence of gods...EVERY "belief" that "at least one god exists" or that "no gods exist" seems to be nothing more than a blind guess disguised by use of the word "belief."

Why can we not number the elements in a causal regress? — Devans99

Didn't you show with B and C?
We can label events (A) in whichever way we standardize/choose, indexically, but not non-indexically.

↪180 Proof So you believe that energy is conserved? — Devans99

Believe? No, kid; we know it is.

That matter/energy ... therefore 'always' exists?

:confused: This question makes no sense. "Always" implies temporality, and time is a metric description of entropy, or changing densities (i.e. complexities) of mass-energy. "Always" only has meaning in terms of mass-energy.

What is your explanation for the Big Bang?

Not my "explanation" :roll: ... We've done this 'reframing the BB in terms of the no boundary conjecture dance' before, kid.

:yawn:

And previously on this thread I've addressed your more egregiously not-even-wrong 'physical' assumptions & invalid arguments.

180 Proof So you believe that energy is conserved?
— Devans99
Believe? No, kid; we know it — 180 Proof

No

:sweat: :shade: No global warming either, huh?