Space time curves around a central core consisting of immense negative energy.
That is called negative because it can negate it’s self by excluding It’s self from primary conflation.
And where is this central core?
Decision maker huh?
I always tell people what they think god is, is what they’d like people to treat them if they were god…
Let’s think of some: being bowed to, being saluted to, being worshipped, building a church, being prayed to, giving alms, giving sacrifices… etc…
By definition, the true god doesn’t need shit from us!
But god does need to be the one and only decision maker… !!! (The ultimate asshole!)… fortunately, for every being in existence, you are not god!
John asked, " And where is this central core? "
It is in the cerebral cortex and for man it is through this organ that all sensory data is interchanged.
I think it is appropriate that u take the road less traveled, and go into the reason able proof, as is, I could time travel to the age of reason, and argue myself out rather into reasonable assumptions.
If time travel was possible I could go back and try to prove the existence of God, through a disproof of analytical reasoning.Of. course they could not accept it on their terms, or any other terms, as You John as well, are perfectly able to reject any such as proof.
Its because both the theistic arguments and the atheistic arguments need to presuppose the hypothesis most favorable to a preferred particular conclusion.
That is why even Leibnitz could not disprove Aquinas, nor Nietzche either
Nietzche could only imply a godless universe, whereas it took Einstein to induce an opposing conclusion.
Nietzche rightly hypothesized an eternally recurrent elliptic universe, where even the cosmologically shaped galaxies resemble a non circular form , where the middle appears compressed .
That eternal continuum appears more rational now, then an idealized perfection, and appearances have mostly determined religious faith.
But underneath the.politics, the Moebius form is gaining formal recognition. Even the shape of the Ying/Yang appeals to conflict resolution, in which focus shifts in accordance with which side is considered.
The structure of the cognitive middle has been more able to mediate between those differing foci, but that determination is merely an approximation of where the trajectory can be projected. That uncertainty may lead to a total dissolution, but still, the old still of the movement can anchor the critical point.
It is the still that constitute the idea of the appeal of appearent movement, the time machine like a motion picture projection is still tied to the still , and that is the scintilla of difference when movement becomes perceptible.
Ok, John, I read your First Order argument as well as the Beginningless Time Paradox and Beginningless Cause Paradox. Here’s my initial thoughts:
If I can pick one line from your First Order argument that is the crux of it, it would be this:
Unfortunately, you didn’t really offer any justification beyond this so the reader is left to take it as a brute fact. For many, this would be fine considering many share your sentiment. But if you’re offering this as a response to someone who expressly states that he sees no problem with an infinitely regressive universe, it leaves something wanting. One is not apt to take bald assertions as evidence that one is wrong. So I’ll ask: can you explain why an infinite regress is impossible?
Having said that, you did say this:
Now this is just a trick. You drew the conclusion that without cause A, there could be no effect B, and without B, there could be no C. A series of causes and effects must have a first cause to start the whole chain, you said. The picture you end up planting in the readers mind is that absent cause A, there would be nothing to bring about B. But the picture of an infinite regress of causes is very different. We aren’t absenting anything. Whatever cause your heart desires–A, B, C … X, Y, Z–it’s all there and an infinity of others. There is always a cause A to bring about B. We don’t get to say cause A is the first–you got that right–but not by virtue of an absence of any cause preceding another, but because of a plethora, an infinity, of causes preceding every other. So the reason why your argument about A being required to bring about B, which in turn is required to bring about C, doesn’t carry over to the case of the infinite regression. There being no first cause means something very different in each case.
As to your Beginningless Time Paradox, here’s what I take to be the crux of the argument:
While this is true, it sort of presupposes that the traversing of time began at a certain point. Indeed, if we say time started marching forward at point t0, then how would it arrive at another point t1 an eternity away? You simply switched the roles of the two points in time, t1 being not an eternity away but now, and t0 being not at a certain point in time but an eternity back in time.
But the flaw in this thought experiment lies in the assumption that we can even talk about time beginning to march forward at a certain point. It doesn’t start marching forward, it was always marching forward–for an eternity as a matter of fact–and if it would take an eternity to traverse all of time in order to arrive at now, then we arrive at now because we’ve had an eternity.
^ I’ll take this snippet as summarizing your Beginningless Cause Paradox. Admittedly, I’m not 100% certain how to interpret this, but it sounds like the same argument behind the Beginningless Time Paradox. Instead of talking about having to traverse infinite points in time, here you talk about having to undergo an infinite number of causes. You say that such a chain of causes would have to be exhausted in order to get to now, but since an infinity of such causes could never be done unfolding, neither could they be exhausted. I think the same response I gave to the Beginningless Time Paradox can be given here.
The point for both is that it only seems impossible to traverse an infinity if we imagine starting from somewhere. Yes, if I start from here, I could never reach a point an infinite distance away. But the point of a beginningless universe is that there is no start. Rather, an eternity is already given, and therefore you can talk about being at any point in time just as you can talk about being at any point in space despite space being infinite.
He’s trying to Zeno you 
There’s an infinite number of halving fractions of the total distance that the arrow has to travel in order to hit the target - so it never gets there. Achilles never overtakes the tortoise etc.
Did you know that whole numbers don’t exist because it would take an infinite number of real numbers to get to one? 
This is how you translate sentiments such as these that you picked out:
Did you know that the present moment in time could never arrive if there was an eternity of prior moments in time to fully traverse? 
Did you know that the cosmos had to have a beginning because otherwise there would be infinite causes to exhaust? :-"
Yet arrows do reach targets, Achilles really does overtake the tortoise, and whole numbers do exist.
So what’s going on here?
A confusion between the discrete and the continuous.
Continuous causation is ongoing, which can be artificially broken down into a potentially infinite number of discrete events of cause and effect. I’m not sure if you’ve come across my own original philosophy yet, which I termed “Experientialism”? It resolves countless philosophical dilemmas such as this one. Experience has no gaps of “nothingness” to separate it: it is “Continuous Experience”. Such is the Truth, but the Truth alone is useless because it cannot be described without artificially breaking it down into “discrete experiences”, which can subsequently be re-linked by things like forces. If you do that, you can model it, but if you do so you leave yourself vulnerable to getting “Zeno-ed”. This can happen if you forget where you started, and instead count only discrete experiences as the starting point. Continuous Experience is the starting point, and it has no trouble transcending the “infinities of discretes”, because it just “is” Existence. Discretes “model” existence. Continuous Experience is the concrete version of the abstract notion of Existence, and since it’s continuous it doesn’t have a start or end. It even defies explanation until artificially broken down into discretes. Discretes positively correlate with explanatory power, and yet the more you break down Continuous Experience into discrete experiences, the more you distort the starting point.
That’s all John is doing, though he’s clearly demonstrated to me an inability to sufficiently pick apart his own arguments, so I expect no enlightenment on his part - doubt is a “sin”, afterall…
The brain cannot repeat time. The universe is not shaped like a moebius.
Time is discrete. That’s why you can get from t1 to t2. There is a finite number of moments of time between t1 and t2. Time is not continuous. And an infinite regress is impossible.
First, there is no scientific proof of an actual infinite in physical reality. Second, the universe began with the expanded singularity in Big Bang cosmology. Third, the paradoxes of infinitely regressive time and causation are clear.
Logically, an infinite regression of time could not traverse to the present moment. Moreover, because an infinite regression entails an infinite number of causes, then all causes would have been exhausted before we reached the present time. But, if causes are infinite then causes can’t ever become exhausted. Again, the need for a beginning point becones clear.
So, in observation, we have never seen an actual infinite. In science, we have discovered the beginning of spacetime. In logic and philosophy, an infinite regress is paradoxical. This trifecta clearly beats the unproven idea of infinite regress.
There is no infinity associated with discreteness. You got that wrong right there. The battle is between continuous and discrete nature. Between t1 and t2, there are either infinitesimals aka continuous or discrete finite moments aka discreteness. Don’t muddle the distinction.
The solution to Zeno is finite discrete units. Do not confuse math with physical reality.
If the universe is without a beginning, this means an infinite number of events took place in the past.
How is that possible? How is it possible to complete an infinite number of tasks? How is it possible to reach an end of something that is endless?
EDIT: Note that it does not matter WHERE you start traversing an infinite number of points and IN WHAT ORDER you traverse them. The point is that you traversed ALL of them and that you’re DONE traversing them.
God can argue ex-cathedra, but man is only an imperfect image.
An infinite beginning intrinsic in the mind of God, is extrinsic causally from Man, therefore consisting of a cyclically infinite Mobius return as dissimilar to a beginning infinite sequence .
Not merely by definition.
Does not anyone see this?
I can pull out the lengthy proof for this extrinsic argument.
It is not merely a demonstration of another intrinsic absolutel derived from an
extrinsic casual relationship.
And therefore a result of an effected intrinsic device to prove some kind of non referential argument is mistaken
This is analogous of political expediency to try to get out of a simple device, like referring to the ‘swamp’.
Silhouette,
My personal Solution to Zeno (because I think calculus is bullshit and I don’t believe in experientialism) is this:
All you have to do is double the length of the line, then they reach the old finish line in one step. In this way, you can use lesser fractions for different beings to create an actual race.
I don’t know how you manage to get things so backwards.
I am literally unmuddling the distinction between the continuous and the discrete by explaining their difference, and un-confusing math with physical reality by explaining how the former is built on the discrete when the latter is continuous.
I’m doing the exact opposite of how you seem to have interpretted me, and it’s honestly just weird how you managed to do that…
And the whole problem of Zeno in the first place are these “finite discrete units” imposed on continuity - the solution is to treat it in the opposite way: as continuous without arbitrarily imposing Zeno’s infinite discrete fractions of the total distance as conceptual obstacles. In reality, the space between the arrow and its target, or achilles and the tortoise is continuous, and it continues beyond the target and beyond the point where Achilles actually overtakes the tortoise. It’s breaking the problem down into finite discrete units that causes the conceptual problem in the first place. Likewise, you can interpret the time between t1 and t2 as either continuous or discrete - the former will be true to experience, and the latter will be useful for analysis of experience - that’s my whole point, why are you saying it back to me as though you’re correcting some error of mine when it was what I was saying in the first place?
It’s impossible to have a discussion with you because you demonstrate no capability to understand what I’m very clearly and logically explaining - don’t bother talking to me unless you’re going to make the effort to actually understand what I’m saying, I’m not made of straw.
What exactly is it about Experientialism that you “don’t believe”?
And I don’t understand what you’re saying for your personal solution to Zeno. What line are we doubling the length of? What finish line? What one step? What lesser fractions? What different beings? I assume you’re saying about Achilles and the tortoise for this race? I really can’t be sure though.
Sorry Silhouette, I thought it was obvious.
So, the way the paradox is set up… they take a step that’s half a distance to the finish line, then they take a step 3/4 to the finish line. Etc… and they never reach the finish line (absurd on its face if you think of a 100 meters and their first step is 50 meters! But whatever! Let’s go with it!
If you draw a 200 meter line, then the first step (by definition of the paradox construction must be 100 meters (which means they won the original race in one step).
Since the tortuous went first, the tortuous won.
Silhouette, the other way the paradox works is that by the tortuous taking the first step, the tortuous is the finish line!!! That means that Achilles can ever reach the tortuous.
Zeno’s argument is grounded on the premise that space is infinitely divisible. One can argue that the flaw in Zeno’s argument lies precisely in this premise (that this premise is false) and that the rest of his argument is fine. I think that’s John’s position.
My position, however, is that even if we accept that space is infinitely divisible, Zeno’s conclusion does not follow. In other words, his argument is logically invalid.
What Zeno has shown is that you cannot cross an infinitely divisible distance by following Zeno’s algorithm. Zeno’s algorithm consists of making sure that each one of our steps is equal to one half of the remaining distance. This is where I agree with him. You can’t cross a path if you’re trying to walk this way (in the same exact way you can’t cross a path if you’re simply standing in one place.) However, he goes further than this, as he takes this to mean that no other algorithm exists that can allow us to cross an infinitely divisible distance, which means that no motion is possible if space is infinitely divisible. That’s where I disagree.
I argue that one way one can cross an infinitely divisible distance is by making sure that all of our steps are equal in size. If each each one of our steps is (1cm) in size, and if we’re crossing a distance of (1m), it will take us exactly (100) steps to cross it. However, if space is infinitely divisible, this means that (1cm) consists of an infinite number of points, so in order to make a step that is (1cm) in size, one has to cross an infinite number of points.
The question is: is this possible?
The answer depends on one’s definition of the word “infinity”.
Depending on how one defines the word “infinity”, the answer can be either “Yes” or “No”.
If the meaning of the word “infinity” is captured by the contradictory statement “A number greater than every number (including itself)” (Sense A) then one cannot visit an infinite number of points because regardless of how many points one visits there is still more points to visit.
However, if the meaning of the word “infinity” is captured by the statement “A number larger than every integer” (Sense B) then it might be possible to visit an infinite number of points since there is more than one such number. A number greater than every number including itself is only one such number. If the number of points is equal to some other number greater than every integer (not the one greater than literally every number) then one can cross all of the points.
The word “infinite” in Sense A is not the polar opposite of the word “finite”. In other words, if something is not infinite in Sense A, it does not mean it is finite. It might actually be infinite in Sense B.
Gotta love that auto-correct: tortoise → tortuous 
Yeah, just change the metric that you’re dividing into fractions and the problem disappears - increase it from what Zeno stipulates by any amount and poof, gone, even though the scenario itself of Achilles racing a tortoise does not change.
It’s dubious to talk about which of the two takes the first step though. That’s not a part of Zeno’s paradoxes unless you make it one.
The paradox does actually have the tortoise as the finish line, by the way - the whole idea is that Achilles never overtakes it. But yeah, if you insert turn-based steps into the paradox and double the distance being divided into fractions, Achilles would never even move before he lost… but as I was saying - that’s not actually part of Zeno’s paradox, just a modification of it.
Btw, you didn’t answer my question about why you don’t “believe” in Experientialism.
Magnus,
You love that phrase “number greater than every integer”. Unfortunately for you, infinity is not a number, it’s an operator upon numbers.
And thus you are refuted.
You know, I have to say, I enjoy debating everyone in this thread. I think you guys are awesome.
Right. So “3 infinity 5” must be a perfectly sensible mathematical expression (: What’s the result of it?
You don’t enjoy debating, you enjoy talking.
Well…
3 infinity 5 (without parentheses) would mean an infinite number of 3’s with a five that’s separate from the infinite number of 3’s.
Not so hard is it.