Scope, which means extent of, can be applied to the inclusivity of a set. Example: the universe is the set of all existing things. Why do you deem this usage nonsense? — ucarr
No. See past posts for what that means.
Logical possibilities are potential outcomes conceived in the mind. Given non-existence, no minds, no logical possibilities as potential outcomes. — ucarr
And again, if a tree falls in the forest and no one hears it, it still falls and vibrates the air. This is my point. My point is that the reality of physics does not disappear if no one is around. This is a simple concept to grasp, so if you're not addressing this point, then I don't see how your point is helpful.
When you make a declaration that puts "uncaused" next to "existences," as you do above, and then declare, "It simply was not, then it was." you are the entity -- a human doing abstract thinking -- getting involved with language and creating a linguistic situation that describes something existentially impossible — ucarr
Incorrect. You have no proof that it is impossible. You not having observed it does not make it impossible. If you can prove that its impossible, then you would have a point. Do that, and you'll be right. But if you can't, then this isn't a counter argument against my post.
"It simply was not, then it was." is what we're examining here for its connection to reality out in the world. However, we can neither experience non-existence nor the origin of existence. We therefore must use our abstractly reasoning minds to examine your statement as we try to determine if it refers to something consistent with what we can experience. — ucarr
First, you are correct in stating this is an argument purely from logic, not experience. Second, your second statement of "consistent with what we can experience," is actually 'consistent with what we have experienced'. You have not given any argument to demonstrate that an uncaused existence is impossible, only that you haven't personally experienced one. The former is a viable line of argument, the later is not.
When you make a declaration that puts "uncaused" next to "existences," as you do above, and then declare, "It simply was not, then it was." you are the entity -- a human doing abstract thinking -- getting involved with language and creating a linguistic situation that describes something existentially impossible. — ucarr
No, I am using language to describe a logical conclusion. You have not proven that it is impossible.
Language, you acknowledge, empowers you to say things existentially impossible, and that's what we're dealing with in our debate. — ucarr
Feel free to prove why its existentially impossible. I'm able to demonstrate why a thing cannot exist and both not exist at point X in Y moment for example. You have not demonstrated the impossibility of an uncaused existence.
However, we can neither experience non-existence nor the origin of existence. We therefore must use our abstractly reasoning minds to examine your statement as we try to determine if it refers to something consistent with what we can experience. — ucarr
I agree with you until the last part. Logic does not ever have to be consistent with what we experience if we have not experienced it yet. That's a poor approach to new discoveries. The first person who invented flight was doing something people didn't think was possible. Many times in new fields of chemistry the normative expectation of outcome is not delivered where the logical expectation did because of our experienced ignorance at the time.
What we can both agree on is that none of us have experienced the origin of existence. So all we have to go on is logic. Logically, my conclusions currently stand invalidating all other logical conclusions to the contrary. You cannot cite existence as we understand it through causation as evidence that uncaused existence cannot be, because we're talking about an existence that isn't caused. Saying, "Caused existence does X, therefore uncaused existence can't be" is irrational. We're talking about something new beyond the horizon Ucarr. All we have is logic, so presented 'evidence' of causal reality is moot in proving whether uncaused existence is existentially impossible or not.
If you show us how you follow a chain of reasoning that correctly evaluates to "It simply was not, then it was." as a logically necessary conclusion, then you will have made a valid case for the acceptance of your theory as a working hypothesis that physicists can use in the doing of their work. — ucarr
Already did in the OP. You still haven't countered it yet and keep going on other tangents. Feel free to indicate why the OP's conclusion is wrong.
Repetition of your declaration takes the form of circular reasoning that declares, "It simply was not, then it was. 'because I say so.'" — ucarr
No, its the conclusion of the OP not circular logic. I get to declare my conclusion as long as you haven't countered the logic that leads to that conclusion.
The Big Bang is presented as fundamental truth about a universe that oscillates between a Big Bang and a Big Crunch. Since it excludes non-existence, there's no looming question about what powered the existence of the universe. — ucarr
And what caused this oscillation? And what caused that to cause the oscillation? And we're right back to my point which you still have not disproved.
My premise is that you cannot exclude, "'...connect'. Or 'cause' or 'lead to' or 'movement' or anything else that links." when you talk about two different states. — ucarr
Because you are talking about causal relationships. You can't include a connection in an uncaused relationship because there isn't any. Are you trolling me at this point? Any honest person would concede you can't place a causal connection in an uncaused existence.
The continuity that describes the change from an initial state to a final state lies at the core of science, math and logic in all of their varieties. — ucarr
Causality, not 'uncausality'. I'm getting tired of repeating a very basic premise and you either ignoring this or not even attempting to comprehend it. This is coming across as contrarian because you don't like it personally, not because its illogical.
Now to the question "What is it for something to be uncaused?" I think being uncaused means an existing thing pre-existing causation. — ucarr
Thank you for answering this so I can understand how you're seeing it. Your way of seeing things doesn't work because once a thing exists, it now has causation from it. You can't pre-exist causation. Something either exists, or it does not. It either exists in a state caused by something else, or uncaused by something else.
If we reason from the premise of eternal universe, we avoid non-existence and also we avoid origin of existence. — ucarr
Not at all. What caused an eternal universe to be Ucarr? There is no prior cause, therefore it is uncaused. And if it is uncaused its not bound by any rules as to what have been, or could not have been. If we agree that an uncaused existence exists, then the second part is what has be addressed.
I do acknowledge an eternal universe is uncaused. — ucarr
Good. Now we can eliminate a lot of this back and forth and focus the argument down. We both agree that ultimately there is uncaused existence. What logically does this mean? Doesn't this mean that just as easily the universe could have not existed eternally and simply incepted one day? Why or why not if an uncaused thing has no causal limitations or rules behind it?
Your uncaused universe, if it isn't eternal, participates in a couplet expressing a change of state from non-existence to existence. Since your uncaused universe makes the change of state — ucarr
No. There is no couplet of expression. There is no, 'thing that makes the change of state." There is nothing, then something. "But what about the inbetween?" There is no inbetween. "But what about..." No. "But how..." No. That's what uncaused means Ucarr. It means "not caused". There is no reason or explanation for its being besides the fact that it is.
I'm being completely fair here. Apply every criticism you applied to a finite universe to an infinitely existing universe. What caused the state to be forever? Where did the energy come from? Why is it this type of universe and not another type? The same answer. "It just is". There is no link, nor cause. It just is.
The problem of your uncaused universe is that it can't power up in the absence of necessary prior conditions for its existence. — ucarr
Just like an eternally existing universe. There is no prior condition for its eternal existence vs finite existence. There is no reason why its always been. That's the entire point. That's what uncaused means.
Regarding first causes, we know the symmetries and their conservation laws prohibit inception from empowering agencies not pre-existent with respect to the things they empower. — ucarr
So that applies to an eternal universe? So there was something pre-existent to an eternal universe that created an eternal universe? Again, you're not using uncaused, but 'caused'. Uncaused has no pre-existence. Symmetry and conservation laws are all causal laws from what currently exists.
Since you observe time by watching things change, your experience of time is always linked to you. Regarding the reality of the nature of time apart from human observation, we don't know. — ucarr
So when you go to sleep at night and lose sense of time, time stops? Lets not resort to silly arguments to avoid the real ones Ucarr. Time exists, just like you believe the universe eternally existed prior to humans being alive.
You know you have a problem with universe incepting from nothing. You try to solve this problem by moving to uncaused universe. — ucarr
Its as if I've given a very specific argument, told you that argument, then asked you to address that argument.
:) Of course something can't incept 'from' nothing. That's causation. I'm demonstrating that all causality leads to a logical end point where something is uncaused. It so happens that if something uncaused is possible, then we know there can't be any limitations as to what specifically must have existed. Thus a universe that incepted uncaused vs always existed uncaused have the same underlying reasons for their existence if they did exist.
Your maneuvering around the circularity of identity is an extreme version of fine tuning a theory to explain why its parameters have precisely the rules they return: unexplainable (beyond "It is what it is." ) — ucarr
Your attempt to not address the actual argument is a clear sign that the argument is pretty tight isn't it? If its so simple to refute, why haven't you done it yet Ucarr? I fail to see this circularity you keep claiming. You already believe in an uncaused eternal universe, so you're in the exact same boat I am.
These parameters of unexplainable have no known mechanism for explaining why a dynamic material universe with respect to mass, energy, motion, space and time is unexplainable regarding why these resources are not necessary pre-conditions for the existence of the dynamic material universe. — ucarr
Exactly like an eternally existing universe. You've already agreed uncaused existences logically are. Now you have to indicate why it must necessarily have always existed vs finitely existed.
Why don't you re-write, "It simply was not, then it was." so that it doesn't imply non-existence prior to existence? My responses to your argument key off of this statement. Wait a minute. When you're talking about the beginning of the totality of existence, you can't do that without implying non-existence before existence, can you? — ucarr
My repeated attempts are to get you from thinking in terms of causality and into 'uncausality'. You keep implying something comes before an uncaused existence. It doesn't. You keep thinking things exist in non-existence prior to existence. They don't. You keep thinking there is something that compels or explains an existence that incepts despite it being uncaused. It doesn't. If you can't understand these basic premises at this point, then this discussion is likely beyond you.
I acknowledge uncaused existence with the stipulation that it always be paired with eternal existence. This is the crux of our disagreement. We agree on uncaused eternal universe. We disagree on uncaused non-eternal universe. — ucarr
Fantastic! Lets lose all the silly parts then. Just focus on this part. I've mentioned above a few reasons why your idea of an eternal universe has the same 'problems' you've noted for a finite universe. Your part next should be to demonstrate why an uncaused existence must necessarily be eternal vs have finite existence. I look forward to this!