Do they?
What happens to the the matter/energy phenomena of which they are made?
Does it vanish into nothingness? Or is the “end” of such merely a dissolution, a change, a Becoming disunified? And then?
The extent of one’s ignorance need not necessitate that final wall, that End that does not exist…
It is to do with the assumed gap between cause/effect… and the assumed linearity. I prefer the term “process” at the moment.
“Flux” is ideal, but that is being used by someone else…
You are stating that, by my reasoning, it follows that the universe does not exist because it has no beginning and end?
What I seek to do here is to refute any such notions…
That the theory for God is dismissed as being contradictory does not follow into the universe not existing. It is simply that I postulate it being infinite because it has not been created and will not end… because there are no 1st causes or final ends which would necessitate something-from-nothing or nothing-from-something.
To assume that God would be infinite but necessarily external to a finite universe is to accept my reasoning but to nevertheless still posit an exception which breaks the premise - but in reverse this time.
The purpose of a God is to represent an external creator. With infinity, there is no external and no act of creation.
Not only is data not available for your theory, your theory is flatly contradicted by the data that is available.
How do you explain the presence of microwave background radiation and why quasars and radio galaxies only appear at vast distances from us and not in local galaxies, both of which are predicted by the Big Bang theory?
1)what i meant by destroyed was merely that they are no longer what they once were. An example being a nebula that forms a star, The nebula no longer exists, though it still contains the same matter and what have you, it becomes something else, “destroying” what it once was. Essentially we just classify the same material by a different name. On a side note, the studies of black holes and what happens to matter after entering one is fairly interesting. It could be destroyed or transported somewhere else!
2)Im saying that that’s what your reasoning seems to imply. By saying that God defies the first proposition of causality then causality is not an absolute, which makes it possible for the universe to be infinite, which makes God non-existent. The universe then defies the first proposition as well(which was only refuted by the existence of a God, which is later denied because of the contradiction of premise 1). It would entail either that the universe does not exist because of its contradiction to premise 1(due to the fact that once God is denied the result is that the contradiction to premise one no longer arises which would be saying that the universe is infinite without God and that results in the same contradiction as God does to the first premise), or that God is equally as plausible as the universe being infinite because the first proposition no longer stands.
Another interesting thing about your argument is that it would result in a paradox.
God defies causality(premise 1) which results in God not existing, making the universe infinite and the rules of causality no longer needing to apply to anything. From this it follows that since causality is no longer a constant, God does not need to not exist(God is not eliminated) Resulting in a paradox where God both exists and doesn’t exist: ~G iff G
I think you are assuming that I am refuting the notion of causality itself… rather than disposing of it as an inaccurate and useless concept. I am not not stating that because I abandon the concept of causality in this way that I in turn posit phenomena manifesting into and out of existence spontaneously. All present manifestation is the consequence of past interaction.
So, how does an infinite regress of causality contradict a concept of causality?
Are you suggesting that because there is no beginning or end… that this suggests a contradiction of causality?
Do you understand now why I prefer the term “process”? It is the very concept of causality itself which demands external causes for phenomena.
For example: God–>Reality. Here, the links in the causal chain are separate. 1 events 2, yet is distinct and separate from 2. This is similar to Platonic Form/Idealism where reality is divided into constantly appearing and disappearing Forms such that a Thing appears to flow and change but in “reality” consists of rapidly switching/alternating states… states which exist beyond human perception in a more real netherworld.
You are demanding to be provided with what you presuppose, seeing contradictions where your preconceptions cannot be provided.
What I am saying here is that reality is not the product of a separate phenomena, a God, a Substance or whatever, but is the continuing manifestation of a process of interactivity which did not arise out of nothing as a Thing and which did not require a separate Thing to bring it about.
The universe can be infinite only in the sense that the process consists of infinite activity.
Causality, which does not apply since it is an abandoned concept, implies gaps between distinct “events” where there are none.
A process is fluidity; constant motion and activity.
This is meaningless given that you don’t seem to understand the argument.
God is contradictory simply because he is an immutable Thing (and/or arose from nothing) which is separate to the universe yet caused it … somehow. That this concept of causality demands an external cause to produce an effect (the universe) presupposes what it looks for in the concept of a God… but necessarily contradicts this concept through ex nihilo.
Your mind is mired in the dualistic thinking of cause/effect, something/nothing… therefore you find it difficult to conceptualize this argument.
The infinite regress of causality, or more accurately, the infinite process, theorizes that every phenomena that is perceived is the manifestation of past events and did not arise from nothing.
These past events regress backwards in time (a measure of change) infinitely … as to assume otherwise -noninfinite regression- is to assume an arbitrary point at which reality simply appeared.
Because this something-from-nothing concept seems illogical, a 1st cause is invented to explain it. This 1st cause is considered other-than the universe, an outside instigator, a creator. At the heart of this is the gap between cause/effect and the assumption that there is such a separation. That there must be -something else- which caused the universe… rather than the universe being the current manifestation of an ongoing process… a temporary congruency of mutability.
My position is that the universe is the current expression of past (inter)activity … and that it continues to move and change as a consequence to it’s shifting nature. However, the concept of a God attempts to freeze a “preceding” process, the past, into an absolute, separate Thing which is regarded as the origin of the ever-moving present.
Under my logic, there is no separation… the past exists in different form, expressed in different ways; activity is essence, essence is added to through present interaction, therefore changed, but it is otherwise immutable in the sense that past interactions cannot be altered…
Given that language demands certain conventions… the best way I can put is that the present is the manifestation of an ongoing and infinite process of activity.
This is where your mind expresses it’s simplistic view:
There is a Thing; from this Thing another Thing appears. And then another.
Like this:
Thing–>gap–>Thing
Did you catch that?
I am positing an infinite process where there are no static, frozen immutable Things which somehow disappear and cause other, distinct Things to appear in their place.
Fluidity, motion, activity, change.
An ongoing process which will not reach completion and did not arise spontaneously but is the consequence of past interactivity which will in turn eventuate future phenomena…
Therefore, infinity is not contradictory to the process but merely extends it logically by refuting an extent or origin point to the process itself.
This idea opposes God because God is the absolute, the Immutable, the Thing… while reality is never fixed, everchanging, mutable.
The Big Bang… suggests that all matter/energy occupied a single “point” a long time ago … and exploded outwards.
Did this appear from nothing? What, then?
You don’t know the answer to that either, so the only recourse is to speculate based upon known principles.
We do know the answer because that’s exactly what science suggests, although it should be noted that the word ‘nothing’ is not a technical word in this sense and is irrelevant to empirical reality.
Do you plan on actually explaining at some point what the past “(inter)activity” is?
also you say activity is essence? essence of what? existence? so activity is existence? what do you mean by “activity”?
You nicely proved that existence must be eternal (that there cannot be beginning).
Well, proving that existence is eternal is even simpler than via cause and effect chain: That we exist proves eternity of existence, eternity of something, since we couldn’t come out of non-existence, out of nothingness .
IMO you brought us to believing that it’s highly more probable that there is God (highest state of awareness-beingness) than there being none.
So, given eternity of existence God either evolved or was there since ever, as everything else was/is. With everything eternaly existing I mean every state of existence-awareness-beingness.
Are we to continue to ignore Kant’s lesson in all this? Lets summarize, and expand where Kant left off.
First-
Time and space are not separable. Where there is one there is another, necessarily. The concept of time cannot be applied to a totality of any kind, it always supposes that which is beyond the confines of what is to be said to be existing in time, that which time applies to. Time and space are relative concepts only, and can therefore only be applied relatively, that is, within a context that supposes necessarily something other than that to which the time/space is being applied.
We cannot understand the concepts of time/space when we either abstract them from one another, or when we attempt to apply them to “existence itself”, no matter how vaguely defined.
Second-
The concept of infinity is a human abstraction and contains a contradiction when supposed to apply to an existent. There is nothing more to existence than energy. Energy is necessarily a sum, some quantity within a relativistic context. The concept of infinite energy is a contradiction. Since time and space (spacetime) is nothing more than energy, this same contradiction applies therein. The idea of infinite space is nonsensical. The idea of infinite time is nonsensical. Because these “infinities” contradict the relative nature of time and space. They only have meaning relatively.
We dont need to posit infinite regress of causality merely because the existence of a First Cause is nonsensical. Any attempt to abstract time or space into these infinitudes is self-refuting, is contrary to the meaning of time and space, to the meaning of existence, which is nothing more than energy.
Energy exists relatively. Energy is a finite sum within a relativistic context. Ergo energy cannot be infinite, as this contains contradiction. We cannot understand the nature of this “existence” in itself; we cannot know where it came from, we cannot know if it came from nowhere, because either of these contradicts itself. Therefore, as Kant stated quite clearly, and which I have already posted here, our Reason (and of course our empiricism as well) has absolutely no way to deal with this question. The question itself is meaningless.
.:
All philosophy which does not begin with the acknowledgment of the meaninglessness of this question is in error, and merely conceals and perpetuates the contradiction, making that philosophy itself contradictory and invalid.
If the fact that a given concept is a human abstraction would be an argument against it, there would not be much use in language.
Regardless, human abstraction/conception lures you into making a mistake here - existent energy is not necessarily a sum. Your statement about this contradicts what you have said about relativistic conceptions.
my problem is that you are using too much a priori to account for stuff that science does a better job at explaining. why not leave it to the physicists?
One should note that the OP is obsolete and should be ignored at this point. I need to start a new thread. See here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=169564&start=125#p2144859 … and the following posts.
It is the evasiveness of theists in their refusal to define their concept of God distinctly which is wearying. God, under the arguments of this thread, is an external creator of the universe, ex nihilo.
Omniscience and/or omnipotence, your definition, is something else; the absolute… which is not something I’m interested in in the context of this thread.
But for the second time we are not ignorant, empirical evidence supports the Big Bang theory. Speculative physics is only that without empirical evidence.
And you are assuming that I am rejecting that theory?
It seems reasonable and does not refute anything I say. I am concerned primarily with something-from-nothing… the big bang does not address this, merely approaching the singularity without attempting to describe it.
Do you mean where he supposedly disproved infinity by asserting that it is “successively synthesized” by the present?
What does that even mean?
That every moment constitutes a creation/destruction of Form in the manner of platonic idealism?
We’ve been through this, darling. I already noted how strange a position this was for you, given your otherwise dislike of such Form…
This argument does not even apply to mine, as I posit a process for a reason… that there are certainly no Things or Forms which must be created/destroyed in order for activity to occur.
I have defined time as the measure of change… no more no less. Space is the extent in which activity may occur. Given that it would otherwise imply limits, I have stated that both of these are infinite.
This entire thread is about refuting limits, extents, borders. Which is why you find it difficult. Reality must be simplified to conform to your preconceptions; only then is it conceivable.
We’ve been through this already.
Is time a Thing; is that your simplicity?
But this is your reasoning, precious. That there is an immutable substance in existence, the monad, the Thing, which necessarily performs activity… though itself being removed from perception in some sort of higher plane beyond reality.
Do you remember? I can quote you if you like…
The reason you cannot understand this theory is a result of the preconceptions you are operating from, which assume a certain mechanism and see a contradiction where this assumption is not found.
… like when “we” attempt to search for the immutable Substance of existence, the Actor which performs Activity, or the static state… and find the universe lacking?
Indeed, because a static, unchanging object would “complete” an infinite process, wouldn’t it?
Where have I posited any such object, or any such static state? Where?
You are projecting your own limitations upon my reasoning, imagining holes where your mind fails you.
Substance. Yeah, wonderful.
Is it immutable?
There you are looking for those limits again…
I believe you.
Time is a Thing, distinct from Space, which is also a Thing. Nice one.
Unknowability.
Also, your “contradictions” are stemming from your preconceptions… not my reasoning.
What the hell does this mean?
Relative to what? The observer?
Energy is not infinite because it is finite? This is the extent of your reasoning?
Infinity, as I use the term darling, refers to the extent of activity and duration during which phenomena are becoming; activity.
I have already dealt with your parroting of Kant, pages ago. Your declarations that none of it applied were pathetic and you didn’t address anything I said.
So, operating from a perspective wherein there is no something/nothing duality, where there is simply phenomenal activity indicating existence, one is forced to the conclusion that reality is a process, an infinite process given that there is no extent implied by the rejected duality.
This theory is very simple… it is not my concern if you cannot understand it and resist it.
What error? What contradiction?
What has any of your participation been in this thread but non-comprehending cognitive dissonance?
Does the big bang state a beginning to existence, a something-from-nothing ex nihilo, or does it attempt to describe the past up until a certain arbitrary point… at which we are forced to begin speculation based upon known principles, namely that something/nothing is illogical and that therefore the present is a manifestation of past processes and is ongoing?
Do I accept it as the absolute truth… such that it is irrefutable… as you see it, perhaps?
Do you think the big bang theory postulates a beginning to the universe… rather than a point in time at which fluidity exploded outward? What preceded this explosion? What brought it about?
Did it appear from nothing? I refute this.
I do not attempt to describe how the big bang occurred… merely that it did not appear from nothing. That is the extent of my reasoning.
I don’t think we have much more to say to eachother…
I certainly have no problem with that. But the thing is that science cannot address these problems at present, and we are left with our reason in order to try and extrapolate the truths of science as best we can. I have already noted that modern science seems to affirm a lowest limit to energy, a smallest unit, with regard to Planck energies - but this is merely the smallest possible observable unit of energy at present. . . it is not a statement that “there is nothing more”.
The point is that we need science, yes, but it will not give us all the answers. Science and philosophy augment each other, and need to be used together.
Science does not tell us about “where the universe came from”, “what caused existence”, “is existence or time infinite”. Only our logic can address these. And only in the sense that these contain contradictions within the ideas themselves, which means that our logic must disaffirm the notion altogether. And with regard to “infinite time”, we realise that the notion is nonsensical because time is only a relative concept, only a finite notion. Where does this leave us regarding existence “as a whole”, or “in total”? Nowhere, because this question of existence is meaningless from a logical perspective. That was Kant’s point: that time/space cannot be understood at these “extremes”, with regard to existence; these concepts only have meaning relatively, contextually, because a relativistic contextualism is contained necessarily within the notion of time/space.
Do you wish to address what I said? No? Okay then.
How strange a position this is for you, to attribute to my comments things which I have not said.
Then its a good thing I am not talking about Things or Forms.
Blatantly circular.
Your definition amounts to “time is time”.
This is why time is not something for you to “define”. It is not a “thing” at all, despite that you (unbeknownst to yourself) treat it as one. Time is merely the notion of perspectival experiencing of energetic transfer of quantities, always within a subjective and relativistic contexct.
It is you who makes a “Thing” out of time, by “defining” it in this circular manner.
Get it yet?
More circularity. “Space is the extent”. In otherwords, “space is space”.
When you “define” time and space in these manners, you falsely concretize them, rob them of their relativistic and subjective meaning.
That makes no sense at all. “Otherwise imply limits”? Time is a measure, like you say, then this means a quantity. The concept of an infinite quantity is nonsense, because infinity cannot be halted so as to be quantified. Likewise with space.
Your irrationalism, your smuggling in of the contradiction inherent within the notions of time/space abstracted from their only meaningful context (a finite, relativistic one) is amusing. Especially considering that you genuinely think yourself rational here.
Indeed.
And you still miss it.
You miss it. As usual.
It is you who makes a “Thing” of time with your circular definitions and your contradictory subtraction of “limits”. If you read what I said, I clearly stated “the concept of time”.
And as before, you completely refuse to even address my point. Logic escapes you. You know not how to think rationally here. It seems you have been infected with Satyrs metaphysical mysticisms regarding these ideas. Since you are merely repeating everyting that he has written in his lengthy essay, and with the same smug and hilariously ironic inability to see how you contradict yourself and evade the points I am making.
Time is merely the experience of a change in quantity from one perspective to another. It is an experience. It is not a thing, it is not an existent, it is not a “definition” of reality. The concept of time necessarily contains the notions of relativity and finitude. That you cannot see this is indication of your inability to think logically and rationally, and your acceptance of mystical metaphysics which explain absolutely nothing at all, but merely create abstract fairy tales in lieu of rational explanation.
Actually no, precious, its the logic of what time and space mean. And you cannot refute it, you must fall back on your metaphysics.
Im sure you can. You undoubtedly think that grabbing unrelated and out of context statements from different conversations is a good substitute for rational and logical argument.
Nope. Try again.
More psychogenetic fallacies.
Demonstrate my mechanism, if you can. Demonstrate how we can think logically without generating a contradiction within the notions of time and space as you use them. You cannot. Because what time/space mean is precisely that they are relativistic (contextual, perspectival, subjective, experiential) and finite (quantified, measurable).
Precious, I realise its no use trying to talk a child into rational thinking, precious, or expect a child to meet me in the realm of rational argumentation and logic, but at least I can reveal to everyone else here your mysticism and absurdity, precious. Precious, and perhaps someday, precious, if you can get out of the shadow of your master, you can learn to think for yourself and understand the idiocy, precious, of what you are saying here.
Try, precious, to think about what you are saying. Or better yet, precious, about what you are thinking, rather than on your childish immature rhetoric, precious
Rhetoric at the expense of logical demonstrability is merely sophism. Even (and especially) when the sophist doesnt even realise it himself.
Only you posit those infinite and absolute concepts. You, like your master, fail to realise that activity necessarily implies that which acts. This is what activity means. Take away the ‘that which acts’ and you take away the activity. Obviously.
And once again you evade my point without addressing it. As is to be expected.
Again, like your master whom you are merely a puppet of (judging by what you are spouting here), you run to the farthesrt opposite extreme as a defense, to hide behind the false notion that I am stating some absurd absolutist claims. I am not. My claims are entirely rational, the logic applies to the contexts in discussion. I make no claims about “static, unchanging objects”. Only you, precious, invoke such absurdities.
Your entire argumentative method is straw man. Its hilarious really. Especially because you consider yourself the pinnacle of rational thinking.
You are really no different from your beloved RU.
Where have I? Where does that have anything to do with anything I am saying here? No where.
You are so lost. Ive rarely seen a mind as confined in its own self-contradictory fantasies and irrational mysticisms. You are incapable of even seeing what I am saying, despite that I state it openly and plainly. You simply cannot see it, it is as if I speak a different language. And I do, really. One which you will never see.
I doubt if you will ever find your way out of the maze you have created for yourself.
Nope. I am pointing out the obvious contradiction in “infinite time” or “limitless space”. Kant pointed out that same contradiction.
Try thinking. If you can.
Does that have any bearing at all upon anything I am saying here? Nope.
Do you continue to deliberately evade my points and refuse to address them? Of course. It is your method. The method of a spoiled child unused to encountering others who encompass and surpass him.
There you are refusing to address my point again…
Merely restating my point as if it is incorrect does not, in fact, demonstrate that it is incorrect. But I certainly wouldnt expect a child to understand such a difficult concept as rational argumentation or sufficiency of logical demonstrability.
Pure straw man.
Address what I wrote. Or continue to show yourself as a spoiled child. I care not, rather it is quite entertaining. And I am sure to others as well, who read your metaphysical nonsense and your inability to even see, let alone address, what I am saying.
The best part is that you still think your the rational one. Ah, the ascetic lifestyle, the religious instinct of the metaphysician, the need to idolize the teachings of the master. Yes, self-repression is a virtue, is it not?
Meaningless.
Prove it.
Talk is cheap. I am making specific logical claims. Demonstrate that logic wrong, rather than merely say that it is wrong. If you can.
Indeed.
You have so much to learn.
It is when you deliberately dismiss the logic of my arguments, which I have stated repeatedly here. You need to construe my point into such a simplification in order to “address” it at all.
Darling, infinity is not an extent. It has nothing to do with becoming. Your fetish for Heidegger is showing, darling. Better cover that up, darling, the master might see.
Darling, you ignore my points again, darling. Energy implies quantity, transfer of quantity. You cannot quantify, nor can you transfer, an “infinity”, because an infinity never ceases or stops in order to let itself be quantified, be transfered. The entire notion of experience itself makes your “infinities” nonsense.
Your metaphysics is laughable, darling.
Interesting, because you did no such thing. You merely posited more straw men, and went on ignoring the content of what I was saying.
You miss it.
Must I repeat myself constantly, merely because you refuse to listen? But then again that is what we must do with children.
The contradiction is contained within the notion that time/space can be infinite. Time/space are merely experienced quantities, they obtain only within relativistic contexts from one perspective to that which is without (outside) of itself. Time/space supposes the existence of multiplicity with regard to that which the time/space applies. And time/space has no meaning in itself, it is merely a notion we use to demonstrate how one perspective experiences others. This means, how one energetic state interacts with others, and of course it is always from within a limited and relativistic context. Energy transfer implies quantification, thus implies finitude, measurability. Infinity doesnt stop to let you measure it, darling.
Getting it yet, darling, precious? No? Ah well, is to be expected, of course.
And then you throw a nice gem in at the end like this, almost as a reward. The gesture is appreciated, but unnecessary, considering the extent of your previous idiotic metaphysics, mystical irrationalisms and inability to understand what rational thinking and logical demonstrability entail.
](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/uploads/default/original/2X/7/7c349bf1053f368a5729d053e1e91215f22ce66c.gif "Brick wall"){kind=small}
