More on Infinity

Mac
Offline
Platinum Member

21 years 9 months ago #5228 by Mac

Replied by Mac on topic Reply from Dan McCoin

I would have to say that to state that "Something has always existed without ever having been created" is in of itself a miracle.

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

Enrico
Offline
Senior Member

21 years 9 months ago #4922 by Enrico

Replied by Enrico on topic Reply from

.........................................
A beginning is a miracle. No beginning means no miracle. Are we experiencing a miracle here and now? If the universe has always been just as it is here and now, it follows that if we need no miracles here and now, there was never a need for a miracle. -|Tom|-
.........................................

This argument above takes the value or truth or false depending on the value of the premise:

Miracles are needed here and now

which can be true or false

One can define as miracle the fact that the universe exists here and now and make the proposition false, i.e. a beginning is a miracle.

How can one prove that we are not experiencing continuously the effect of a primary miracle? Nobody can and that is why religions exist and so many people belive in it.

The above argument is called a "straw man argument" in philosophy. It has a hidden assumption about the value of a premise that proving it is equivalent to proving the argument conclusion. It is more than a circular argument so. It is called a fallacious argument. This is because premise and conslusion is the same thing. It is known lawyers use this type of argument often but it is rare to see an argument like that made from a scientist or philosopher.

I must point you to an introductory text on categorical logic in your local library and look under the subject of "fallacious arguments".

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

1234567890
Visitor

21 years 9 months ago #4923 by 1234567890

Replied by 1234567890 on topic Reply from

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>
<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>[123...]: So existence need not have a cause?<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>

Of course not. A cause would itself have to exist, and that would lead to circular logic. A Fisrt Cause would require a miracle. In MM, what is occupied exists, and what exists is occupied. And every moment of time, no matter how far back, is just like the present, with an infinite before and after.

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>If there are infinite forms of substances, why do we only observe a special set of forms?<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>

Because we are creatures finite in time, space, and scale.

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>Where is the rest of the universe? In the 5th dimension no doubt.<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>

Elsewhere in time, space, and scale. It is not hiding.

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>My disagreement is with the idea that we live in a universe having a finite set of substances but having an infinite number of them.<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>

That makes no sense to me either. All assemblages of substance are finite. The number of assemblages is infinite. If you have a problem with that, explain your problem to me using integers. They have the same property ... all finite, but an infinite number of them exists.

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>If the universe was just this set of substances that result in our observations, it would have a property of not having a cause- these substances would have to spontaneously be generated.<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>

I don't see where you get these conclusions. I'm saying just the opposite -- Nothing is ever spontaneously generated from nothing. Substance is existence, its absence is non-existence. (Note: The absence of substance is not vacuum. It is non-existence. Every bit of what we call "vacuum" is filled densely with substance at some scale. If the scales are far enough apart, the substances don't interfere with each other. But a cause of substance or existence violates the very idea that there are no miracles, so there could not have been a First Substance. Every time, every place, every scale looks essentially the same, differing only in the details.)

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>Saying they have existed forever does not remove the fact that they were an effect without a cause.<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>

No such thing. Substance is not an effect. No process led to substance or existence. It simply always was and always will be.

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>But if this were possible, eventually, all forms will be spontaneously generated, leading to the original assumption of infinite unique substances.<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>

No forms are ever spontaneously generated. There are no effects without causes. The chain of cause and effect is infinite in both directions. Each link in the chain is finite in time, space, and scale. Like integers.

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>If the universe had infinite unique substances to start however, we can imagine a substance that can cause our universe, which can also be caused by something else, ad infinitium.<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>

"To start"??? That describes a miracle. No miracles needed in MM.

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>Whether its by spontaneous generation or having always existed, there are infinite forms of substances.<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>

Their count is infinite. Each form is finite. Like integers.

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>So in summary, I can agree with you. But whether our present universe had a beginning or had always been, both processes are nothing short of miracles.<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>

I don't see that. A beginning is a miracle. No beginning means no miracle. Are we experiencing a miracle here and now? If the universe has always been just as it is here and now, it follows that if we need no miracles here and now, there was never a need for a miracle. -|Tom|-

<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>

I guess a way to look at the logic behind existence having always existed is that, literally, nothing is also something. So "nothing" is impossible.

I wholly agree with this axiom. In my remarks above about something coming from nothing, I was speaking in terms of rules. Anarchy vs. law = nothing vs. something. So forgive me for the confusion. During the anarchic state, there were no rules (or every rule possible coexisted rather), but after trying many possibilities, a set of rules were assembled which we now observe as our universe. In the anarchic state, even a void- a nothing- is just one of the infinite possible forms, so in the sense of forms, my assumption was that it was infinite. So, when I speak of a beginning, I imagine a time when all forms were possible which, then evolved to the forms we observe now as our universe. I think this is the Big Bang theory basically.

I can easily agree with your model though since the above scenario could work just as well if there were no "evolution" of forms but that all those forms are just in different dimensions- or scales and
we are just one set of forms in an infinite set. Then, the only difference between my view and yours here is that I consider everything imaginable as a form- even something abstract. But since you hinted that "cause" may also be a form, I think there we are in agreement.

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

Mac
Offline
Platinum Member

21 years 9 months ago #5166 by Mac

Replied by Mac on topic Reply from Dan McCoin

i STILL HAVE TWO HANGUPS.

1 - To claim perpetual existance and then deny origin simply does not compute. It seems more scientific to conclude we do not understand the origin and may never do so than to invoke infinity. Infinity is an escape goat arguement.

2 - Existance cannot be infinite since there are rules, many of which we have derived from observation, such as the Pauli Exclusion Principle, that prohibit certain assemblages.

If even one assemblage is prohibited then existance cannot be claimed as infinite.

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

Jeremy
Offline
Elite Member

21 years 9 months ago #5036 by Jeremy

Replied by Jeremy on topic Reply from

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>
1 - To claim perpetual existance and then deny origin simply does not compute. It seems more scientific to conclude we do not understand the origin and may never do so than to invoke infinity. Infinity is an escape goat arguement.
<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>

Infinity is not an escape goat argument. If you posit an origin you are left holding the bag of explaining how things arrive from nothing. If the universe is infinite in time there is no beginning and there is no end, there is also no causality issue.

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>
2 - Existance cannot be infinite since there are rules, many of which we have derived from observation, such as the Pauli Exclusion Principle, that prohibit certain assemblages.
<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>

Why is this a conflict? Of course not all forms occur, how does this prohibit an infinite universe? I can have an infinite array of iron spheres going outward everywhere. This would be a rather dull universe but there is no reason it couldn't be infinite even though it only had one form in it.

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>
If even one assemblage is prohibited then existance cannot be claimed as infinite.
<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>

I don't see how this conclusion logically follows. I just gave an example of an infinite universe with one form in it. Why do you think an infinite number of forms is necessary?

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

Larry Burford
Offline
Platinum Member

21 years 9 months ago #5038 by Larry Burford

Replied by Larry Burford on topic Reply from Larry Burford

FYI - a "scapegoat" is someone that has been framed for the transgressions of someone else.

LB

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

Time to create page: 0.272 seconds