(September 23, 2016 at 1:31 pm)_Velvet_ Wrote:

(September 23, 2016 at 1:24 pm)Irrational Wrote: So you permit that God can do the illogical? So why appeal to logic at all? He's like the comicbook Superman (pre-crisis, especially). He'll do even the impossible.

Well i'm not favoring putting God in there tbh, I just think that something that can do the illogical fits well the problem of being a cause when there's no time to be a cause.

But let's say time has always been. So why must we presume no time?

(September 23, 2016 at 1:29 pm)Irrational Wrote:

(September 23, 2016 at 1:27 pm)_Velvet_ Wrote: 1: You're excuse is magic. Non-sensical magic. Operating on a preexisting temporal plane. Operating on a preexisting temporal plane. Orchestrated by a disembodied humanoid mind.

Yes it is, as to me the only reasonable explanation I could come with its to think that something exists that is different from everything else because this thing can, somehow, be non-sensical, to reconcile non-sensical things phenomena like something having no cause or having a "cause" concept without time aplying to it.

2: I can't reallly tell if you are right about the way i'm thinking, i'm not sure.

But i'm not commited to a way of thinking about it, I'm just favoring the ideas that seem to be more reasonable to me, and yeah I think (not completely linearly as I know that we don't have time before time, but I think the we might have things happening prior to the start of time, on that (as you said) preexinting temporal plane.

What if time is not at all linear? What if time is a dimension of infinite space? Then infinite regression is no longer a problem.

Infinite space filled with vibrating mass = eternal time. There is frequency of vibration but no convective movement or orbit of anything, no "temporal time". There are no things in that state, there is only the One Thing and there is no nothing any where to be found.

(September 23, 2016 at 1:33 pm)Arkilogue Wrote:

(September 23, 2016 at 1:29 pm)Irrational Wrote: What if time is not at all linear? What if time is a dimension of infinite space? Then infinite regression is no longer a problem.

Infinite space filled with vibrating mass = eternal time.  There is frequency of vibration but no convective movement or orbit of anything, no "temporal time". There are no things in that state, there is only the One Thing and there is no nothing any where to be found.

Please don't make up stuff just to be right.

(September 23, 2016 at 1:29 pm)_Velvet_ Wrote:

(September 23, 2016 at 1:21 pm)ApeNotKillApe Wrote: Quantum stuff? Or would that be both true and false?

No, that would be a good example of something that exists and makes no sense or something that exists but we haven't yet make sense of it.

Apply regularly to personal incredulity over complex ideas.

(September 23, 2016 at 1:35 pm)Irrational Wrote:

(September 23, 2016 at 1:33 pm)Arkilogue Wrote: Infinite space filled with vibrating mass = eternal time.  There is frequency of vibration but no convective movement or orbit of anything, no "temporal time". There are no things in that state, there is only the One Thing and there is no nothing any where to be found.

Please don't make up stuff just to be right.

So you think I'm right but I just made all that up? That's funny.

Do you think the preinflationary singularity was finite a finite amount of mass and had a border? Because near everything I have read from modern science says it had no border and it had infinite mass.

The entire problem arises when trying to inflate infinite mass from a single mono-centric point.

But if you have discrete quantum cavitation (nucleation) happening in an infinite expanse of mass.....you have regular universe production as the cavitational wave front travels through the mass body.

(September 23, 2016 at 1:29 pm)Arkilogue Wrote: Time is dependent on void space for things to move through. Without space and movement, there is no time....but there can still be duration.

This would be the state of the singularity of matter prior to inflation. Correct me if I'm wrong but I'm pretty sure the Big Bang Theory does not assert that matter was created at that instant...only space and therefor time.

The law of energy conservation lends to the same idea that matter/energy is not created only transformed.... it has no beginning.

Also, ever time you have been shown the singularity on a science show, you've been lied to.  There is no black space around it, it is not infinitesimally small. It has no border, the singularity of mass is infinite and occupies all space forever in all directions.

That would be the "God", an almighty, absolute, all consuming fire.
A universe would be a voided space brought about by acoustic cavitation (expression of self existence), vibration creating space and form. There are infinite universes.

Woah that looks like something to carl seagan to say on cosmos o-o

Anyways how do you know that? can I read about it somewhere without it being too technical?

--------------

Also, guys maybe we don't need to continue this further, someone pointed out that things making sense are not required for they to be true.

I haven't really thought about that, this seems to make the concept of a deity to make the non-sensical things I had trouble to reconcile obsolete.

(September 23, 2016 at 1:09 pm)_Velvet_ Wrote: 1: because this first cause, whatever it might be doesn't need to follow or rules of causation because it is somehow different, the way it is from outside our dimension of time already makes it more plausible to me for it to exist on a uncaused way.

Even if I granted you this as true, what proof do you have that this thing that defies the rules of causation is a conscious entity?

(September 23, 2016 at 1:09 pm)_Velvet_ Wrote: 3: It would have be some sort of "cause from outside of time", the first cause its different from everything else exactly in that, it is the phenomena started time and started the causation chain.

How exactly does something exist out of time? Is a position in time not a prerequisite for existence? How can something start time when it would by definition have to precede time, even though preceding time is a nonsensical concept?

You have to remember that the whole universe was a singularity at this point, and our understanding of physics breaks down at this state. Not only that, but it's been proven that the universe does not follow the classical notion of cause and effect at this scale.

(September 23, 2016 at 1:46 pm)Faith No More Wrote: 1:Even if I granted you this as true, what proof do you have that this thing that defies the rules of causation is a conscious entity?

2:How exactly does something exist out of time?  Is a position in time not a prerequisite for existence?  How can something start time when it would by definition have to precede time, even though preceding time is a nonsensical concept?

3:You have to remember that the whole universe was a singularity at this point, and our understanding of physics breaks down at this state.  Not only that, but it's been proven that the universe does not follow the classical notion of cause and effect at this scale.

1: I haven't made that claim, I don't necessarily needed a god or conscious entity, I just needed a uncaused cause for things to make sense.

But ApeNotKillApe and RobValue pointed that we also don't necessarily need things to make sense so that they can be true.

(This raises some other problems, if things don't need to make sense to be true we can't use thought process as a pathway to truth?, because we sure as hell wouldn't just stumble into the idea of things being truth and not truth at the same time of quantum physics without the experiement showing very clearly that was the case)

(September 23, 2016 at 1:58 pm)_Velvet_ Wrote: ApeNotKillApe showed that we also don't necessarily need things to make sense so that they can be true.

(This raises some other problems, if things don't need to make sense to be true we can't use thought process as a pathway to truth?, because we sure as hell wouldn't just stumble into the idea things being truth and not truth at the same time without the experiement showing very clearly that was the case)

I think Ape makes a good point.  Thought processes can allow us to extract reasonable implications of established fact and scientific process can help us understand more and more empirical states and relationships.  So thought processes can help us establish some truth without ever being able to deliver The Truth.  Maybe we're neither qualified for nor entitled to such a thing.  Maybe no one and nothing has the big truth.  Maybe the idea of a big truth is just something we made up.  Maybe.

In a dialogue where the other guy is proposing that the only way the cosmos could possibly come into being was if there was an incomprehensable time wizard there to poke the spacetime continuum with a stick, I'm the one with the position that things don't need to make sense.

Progress of a kind I suppose, as long as we've moved past the time wizard.