question on existence

Originally posted by LemonJello
No, your presentation doesn't "threaten" my worldview in any sense of that word because you've presented nothing I haven't already seen in much more articulate form and because, until I see some evidence otherwise, I hold that there are simply no warranted positive beliefs concerning cosmological origins.

Your talk about the infinite is just plain goo. ion (a) of the existence of any being AND (b) of any positive fact whatever'.

If one were to say that this fact is simply brute, that doesn't commit one to your conclusion that 'existence is uncaused'. How many ways can I try to make that clear? LEMON

One cannot make a positive statement but one can rule out existence being caused , therefore the logic is one of elimination. If I tell you that I am thinking of a number bigger than 1 and smaller than 4 but it's not 2 then you know it must be 3. Logical enough?

I'm afraid you are going to have to use plain english a bit more as well . My knowledge of philosophy and mathematics is not as extensive as yours. I think you are far too complicated with this to see the point. I too would like to drive to the heart of the issue.

Are you saying that because you are able to push back the causality issue into infinite regress that you have somehow shown that existence is caused? If so what caused it? More existence? The only thing we can say for sure about an infinite regress of causal events is that we will never be able to reach a cause for all existence . We can go back as far as we like in the chain and we will never find a cause , it's logically impossible. There is a 100% logical guarantee that no first cause of all existence can be found , because.....erhem...as soon as you find it.....cough...it stops being an infinite regress of causal events and becomes a finite one.

So logically we can eliminate any possibility of finding a cause of any sort. We could say existence caused itself but this would just be the same as saying that existence is uncaused and would be paradoxical because existence would have to pre-exist itself in order to bring itself into existence. Existence in this case would be non-contingent , which is basically my point.

So having logically eliminated a cause for existence within the infinite regress model what options are left? Do you deny that existence must be either caused or uncaused? Once you eliminate the other options then the last remaing option however shocking it may be , must be true.

Existence in the infinite regress model would be beginningless and eternal and as such would not need a cause to come into existence because existence has not "come into existence" but has always been. Even if you were right , existence would have no need of a cause because it just is and always has been. Only finite things with beginnings need causes. Your idea of existence being caused would be redundant anyway.

Originally posted by knightmeister
If one were to say that this fact is simply brute, that doesn't commit one to your conclusion that 'existence is uncaused'. How many ways can I try to make that clear? LEMON

One cannot make a positive statement but one can rule out existence being caused , therefore the logic is one of elimination. If I tell you that I am thinking of a number bigge h beginnings need causes. Your idea of existence being caused would be redundant anyway.

I'm going to leave this discussion here. When I try really hard to understand what the hell you're talking about, I think I largely agree with you. It must just be me, KM, but I simply cannot follow your discussions clearly.

I mean, let's just consider your first post, as an illustration of what I'm talking about. Your argument is basically as follows:

[no initial clarifications on terminology]
1 (something that appears to be logically necessary)
2 If P, then Q (more or less definitional to how you use 'finite'😉.
3 If ~P, then ~Q (as before, more or less definitional).
4 (really makes little sense because 2 and 3 are both conditional statements)
5 A conclusion that doesn't follow from 1-4

Now how am I supposed to work with that? Based on our subsequent exchanges, I think I understand more about your conclusion and what you substantively base it on, and that's about all I can say.

Originally posted by knightmeister
However , unless you are able to offer me a framework and language that would enable me to express this concept adequately then your objection is meaningless. You criticise whilst offering no alternative. Because of this I can only assume that there probably is no adequate way of expressing the something from nothing idea because language itself breaks down.

You continually insist that if time has a beginning then there exists a place that is before that beginning. And in that place you put your famous 'nothing'. The real problem is that you fail to understand the concept of time (and other dimensions) and therefore cannot see that there is no such thing as before the beginning and it is meaningless to talk about it. It is not as you claim due to a lack of language but simply that it is meaningless.

Originally posted by twhitehead
You continually insist that if time has a beginning then there exists a place that is before that beginning. And in that place you put your famous 'nothing'. The real problem is that you fail to understand the concept of time (and other dimensions) and therefore cannot see that there is no such thing as before the beginning and it is meaningless to talk a ...[text shortened]... it. It is [b]not as you claim due to a lack of language but simply that it is meaningless.[/b]

and therefore cannot see that there is no such thing as before the beginning and it is meaningless to talk about it WHITEY

And this is where I totally disagree. I see no reason to assume at all that talking about the non-existence of anything at all in no dimensions (ie nothingness) is meaningless. What is your logic for this? Are you saying that because it doesn't exist it's not worth dicussing? The non-existence of anything is an incredible idea and quite a radical concept. Why is it meaningless to talk about it? Just because it's the absence of existence? Is antimatter not worth talking about because it is the opposite of matter? Minus numbers? Qunatum singularities? What criteria do you use for decieding what is meaningful to discuss?

I sepculate that the real reason for labelling it "meaningless" to talk about is because actually it's an inconvenient implication of finite existence , an implication that you have already admitted you find illogical. What better way out of a bind than to refuse to discuss it.

Originally posted by LemonJello
I'm going to leave this discussion here. When I try really hard to understand what the hell you're talking about, I think I largely agree with you. It must just be me, KM, but I simply cannot follow your discussions clearly.

I mean, let's just consider your first post, as an illustration of what I'm talking about. Your argument is basically as fol ...[text shortened]... t your conclusion and what you substantively base it on, and that's about all I can say.

When I try really hard to understand what the hell you're talking about, I think I largely agree with you.LEMON

It will make your brain hurt , it's supposed to because it's beyond what we can barely imagine.

Originally posted by knightmeister
When I try really hard to understand what the hell you're talking about, I think I largely agree with you.LEMON

It will make your brain hurt , it's supposed to because it's beyond what we can barely imagine.

God, you're such a smug twit. It's not the subject matter (i.e., cosmological origins), per se, that is making my head hurt. It's the trying to parse and decode the "arguments" that you present bit that hurts. 😵 Whatever.

Originally posted by LemonJello
God, you're such a smug twit. It's not the subject matter (i.e., cosmological origins), per se, that is making my head hurt. It's the trying to parse and decode the "arguments" that you present bit that hurts. 😵 Whatever.

Maybe I should simplify it further , just for you , eh? Either existence has existed for a finite amount of time or it has always existed. If always existing (including infinite regress of causal) then it needs no cause to exist because it's always existed. If not always then it existed "from" nothing and as such is caused by nothing (= uncaused).

My main objection to your argument is that although infinite regress of causal events looks like it solves the problem it actually doesn't because all that happens is existence logically becomes eternal and without beginning (=uncaused)

Originally posted by knightmeister
I sepculate that the real reason for labelling it "meaningless" to talk about is because actually it's an inconvenient implication of finite existence , an implication that you have already admitted you find illogical. What better way out of a bind than to refuse to discuss it.

As usual you failed to understand what I was talking about.
What I am saying is meaningless is to speculate that there is a point on a line that is not actually on the line. You are saying that there is a point in time that is outside time, there is a point in space that is outside space etc etc. That is meaningless. You cannot place an object in a dimension while simultaneously claiming it has not position in that dimension.
I am not refusing to discuss anything as you claim but rather trying to help you understand what a dimension is (something you seem to have enormous trouble grasping).

Originally posted by twhitehead
As usual you failed to understand what I was talking about.
What I am saying is meaningless is to speculate that there is a point on a line that is not actually on the line. You are saying that there is a point in time that is outside time, there is a point in space that is outside space etc etc. That is meaningless. You cannot place an object in a dimen ...[text shortened]... help you understand what a dimension is (something you seem to have enormous trouble grasping).

I disagree . I see no reason why one can't talk meaningfully about a point on a timeline without having to refer at all to an outside time reference. By this logic it would be impossible to talk meaningfully about points on our own timeline , but we can do this quite easily . It is 2007 now and there is a point on this timeline 1937 for example. Easy , no need for external points of reference just use the internal one. What's the problem?

Originally posted by knightmeister
I disagree . I see no reason why one can't talk meaningfully about a point on a timeline without having to refer at all to an outside time reference. By this logic it would be impossible to talk meaningfully about points on our own timeline , but we can do this quite easily . It is 2007 now and there is a point on this timeline 1937 for example. Easy , no need for external points of reference just use the internal one. What's the problem?

That post reaches a new level of dumbness.

To say this point is 2007 is already using an external point of reference.

Originally posted by knightmeister
I disagree . I see no reason why one can't talk meaningfully about a point on a timeline without having to refer at all to an outside time reference. By this logic it would be impossible to talk meaningfully about points on our own timeline , but we can do this quite easily . It is 2007 now and there is a point on this timeline 1937 for example. Easy , no need for external points of reference just use the internal one. What's the problem?

Again you fail understand. What I said is that you cannot talk about a point on a timeline while simultaneously saying that the point is not on the timeline. What is the date of your nothingness? You simultaneously placed your nothingness on a timeline (by stating that it was "before" the start of time) and also placed it off the timeline (by claiming it was dimensionless in all respects). Meanwhile you simultaneously place it outside the universes time dimension while simultaneously placing it "before" the beginning of said time dimension. But "before" is a relative term that only has meaning when referring to the relationship between two points on a directional dimension.

Originally posted by twhitehead
As usual you failed to understand what I was talking about.
What I am saying is meaningless is to speculate that there is a point on a line that is not actually on the line. You are saying that there is a point in time that is outside time, there is a point in space that is outside space etc etc. That is meaningless. You cannot place an object in a dimen ...[text shortened]... help you understand what a dimension is (something you seem to have enormous trouble grasping).

What I am saying is meaningless is to speculate that there is a point on a line that is not actually on the line. You are saying that there is a point in time that is outside time, there is a point in space that is outside space etc etc. That is meaningless. You cannot place an object in a dimension while simultaneously claiming it has not position in that dimension. WHITEY

If this was what I was saying then it would be meaningless. However, this is not what I am saying. It is meaningful to talk about the non-existence of anything (nothingness)

You are saying that there is a point in time that is outside timeWHITEY

No I am not. I am saying that time has a finite beginning and that this implies a state of affairs we can only call "no-time" . I have not said that "no time" exists "in" time , only that it is the absence of time. One could say that it is also meaningless to talk about time "beginning" or time having a "start" because in order to have a beginning one must reference time itself up against "no time" . It would be like trying to talk about darkness without any reference to light. It would be like saying black is a meaningless word because it is the absence of light. It makes no sense to talk about time being finite unless you are prepared to contemplate the absence of time. If one says "the absence of time itself is an impossibility" then time cannot be finite because time cannot not exist ..ever.

So do you think the absence of time , space and dimensions impossible? If so why?

If you think it's impossible for existence to not exist then how can existence be finite either in size or time dimension?

How can you say time has a beginning without refering to the non-existence of time? Do you think time has a beginning or an end? When /if time runs out then what , no time?


Bear in mind that I kind of agree with you but from a different angle. It is meaningless to talk about existence not existing because existence is not finite but infinite. It's just you simply won't accept the implication of finite existence.

Originally posted by twhitehead
Again you fail understand. What I said is that you cannot talk about a point on a timeline while simultaneously saying that the point is not on the timeline. What is the date of your nothingness? You simultaneously placed your nothingness on a timeline (by stating that it was "before" the start of time) and also placed it off the timeline (by claiming it ...[text shortened]... meaning when referring to the relationship between two points on a directional dimension.

Ignore most of that post I thought you were on to circles again and I was tired.

Originally posted by knightmeister
So do you think the absence of time , space and dimensions impossible? If so why?

Yes I do. Because a dimension is by definition a measure of everything. There cannot be a point of existence that does not have an exact value in every dimension. Your nothingness fails this test and is therefore impossible. Also although you repeatedly claim it is dimensionless you repeatedly place it at a point on a dimension.

You are incorrect in thinking that all dimensions must be infinite and have repeatedly shied away from the agreed fact that spacial dimensions are finite.

Originally posted by twhitehead
Yes I do. Because a dimension is by definition a measure of everything. There cannot be a point of existence that does not have an exact value in every dimension. Your nothingness fails this test and is therefore impossible. Also although you repeatedly claim it is dimensionless you repeatedly place it at a point on a dimension.

You are incorrect in th ...[text shortened]... infinite and have repeatedly shied away from the agreed fact that spacial dimensions are finite.

There cannot be a point of existence that does not have an exact value in every dimension. Your nothingness fails this test and is therefore impossible.WHITEY

This to me is just like saying " existence cannot not exist" . Nothingness would of course fail any test that we would normally apply to existence because nothingness is ...erhem... non-existence. This seems very circular and like saying "Nothingness (non-existence) cannot be possible because it fails the test of existence , therefore because nothingness cannot exist it doesn't exist". What you fail to realise is that if nothingness ever passed any test at all it would prove that it wasn't nothingness afterall. The question is not whether nothingness fails a test that it should always fail (that of existing) , but whether it passes the test of non-existence.

However , if you are saying that it's impossible for existence to non-exist then there can be little point in saying that existence has a beginning . Things that have beginnings move from a state of non-existence to a state of existence. You must believe existence to be beginningless.