(December 10, 2017 at 9:20 am)BrianSoddingBoru4 Wrote:

Quote:Thought this would be christmas presentism.

Be sure to save the receiptisms.

Boru

Elsewise you may be disappointed if you require any returnisms.

(December 11, 2017 at 11:44 am)Grandizer Wrote:

(December 11, 2017 at 11:21 am)wallym Wrote: I didn't realize you read book chapters.  I take it all back.  Keep applying logic and intuition without the math and science to counter-intuitive concepts rooted in math in science.  If there ever was a recipe for success, that's probably it.

What concepts "rooted in math in science"? Metaphysics can be studied without advanced knowledge in mathematics or knowing rocket science. In some cases, you can reach logical conclusions without the need to do any advanced experimental science.

How would you know if you're logical conclusions are logical without understanding the physics/math that are the foundation of all our information on the universe?  

Like if I sync my watch with my buddy who hops on a plane and flies around the world.  And his watch moves a little slower, I'd logically conclude that one of our watches is a bit off.  Maybe altitude affects the gears.  Or a spec of dust messed up the workings. I wouldn't even think to guess that time moves slower in an airplane relative to a person standing on the ground.  

Time is not intuitive.

(December 11, 2017 at 12:18 pm)wallym Wrote:

(December 11, 2017 at 11:44 am)Grandizer Wrote: What concepts "rooted in math in science"? Metaphysics can be studied without advanced knowledge in mathematics or knowing rocket science. In some cases, you can reach logical conclusions without the need to do any advanced experimental science.

How would you know if you're logical conclusions are logical without understanding the physics/math that are the foundation of all our information on the universe?  

Like if I sync my watch with my buddy who hops on a plane and flies around the world.  And his watch moves a little slower, I'd logically conclude that one of our watches is a bit off.  Maybe altitude affects the gears.  Or a spec of dust messed up the workings. I wouldn't even think to guess that time moves slower in an airplane relative to a person standing on the ground.  

Time is not intuitive.

Yes science has helped a lot with tweaking our intuition, no denying. But I dont need science to come to the conclusion that time has no beginning. Or that nothing cannot exist. Or that married bachelors are really lonely people who just want some love or shit like that.

(December 11, 2017 at 11:44 am)Grandizer Wrote: But what I'm asking you is how did we reach the current present if there was no starting point to time from which we can metaphorically trace a line from it to the present moment?

Well because those times existed and were present before. They were present. And the whole point of an eternal universe is there doesn't need to be a starting point. I don't know why you think there does?

Quote:An analogous question: Is it possible to count from negative infinity to any integer (integer by integer, as in: -infinity, ..., -4, -3, -2, -1, ...), provided you have always existed eternally? It seems like by saying that it is possible, then we are treating it as a number as opposed to a concept.

I'll have to be honest . . . I don't know what integers even are. I'm not good with numbers. Can you use an analogy that involves words or concepts instead?

What I'm saying is that there was no beginning to the universe . . . or anything for that matter. No real beginning or end to anything. And we draw our arbitrary lines. We see the big bang begin and we label that and say "This is the beginning of what we call "the universe"". .. . but really all these things are just all part of one thing. . . the totality of existence. Everything is. That includes things before, during and after the universe. Although ultimately my point is that either there isn't any real 'before during and after' and time itself is an illusion . . . or time merely exists as a pulsing moment. All that exists is the present. What was happening, what is happening now, and what will be happening. The past doesn't exist now. The future does not exist now. The past merely refers to what used to be present and the future refers to what will be present. The present is all there is, the past is what was and the future what will be.

So I'm saying:

1. Existence itself is eternal . . . in that it has no beginning or end. And things-in-themselves, noumenas, are also eternal.

2. Ontological nonexistence is fundamentally impossible.

3. The totality of existence itself is necessary. There is something fundamental to existence. This ties in nicely with the previous point.

4. Nothing 'really' begins or ends . . . including the universe (in a sense, because really the universe is just one more part of the totality of existence . . . admittedly a very large part. Although not necessarily if there are a gargantuan number of universes, including perhaps much larger universes, elsewhere. And, besides, the universe wasn't always so gigantic.).

5.There is just one monad, one thing that is the totality existence . . . which has parts, and those parts change form. Change is an illusion, it's part of our phenomenological experience, perhaps something analogous to that exists in noumenological reality but it is by definition not something we will ever be able to experience or understand. All we can do about the noumena is eliminate the logically impossible. There are no square circles in the noumena, for example. It by definition can't be tested empirically and this includes doing maths or logic about it because we don't know what it even is. All we know is what it is not: A). something logically impossible. B). something experiencible or testable.

6. Either only the present exists, or only present things exist, and the past existed and the future will exist . . . or time itself is an illusion.

---

(December 11, 2017 at 12:18 pm)wallym Wrote: How would you know if you're logical conclusions are logical without understanding the physics/math that are the foundation of all our information on the universe?  

Because they're not. It's the other way around. Maths and physics are founded upon logic. The logical absolutes verify themselves and they're the foundation that both maths and physics are built upon. The fact they are self-verifying (or perhaps rather, they're so fundamental they don't even need verification because they'd still be true even if we didn't exist to conceptualize them) is why they're called the logical absolutes.

(December 11, 2017 at 12:12 pm)Grandizer Wrote:

(December 11, 2017 at 12:04 pm)SteveII Wrote: I didn't mention time/temporal. Stop bringing it up (and the USA and Canada). Your OP specifically said that eternalism answers the problem of a past infinite.  Yes or no--can the timeslices be ordered according to causal principles? Hint: it's not "tricky to pinpoint". If the answer is yes, tell me why you don't have the same problem presentism  has.  

I think the persistence of the 'self' is relevant to whether the B Theory of time is coherent. But I will drop it for now.

I dont know what makes a cause a cause as opposed to preceding event. Do you? I would love to hear what you have to say about this.

That said, let me say "yes" anyway. Whats the problem?

Your first sentence undermines the entire endeavor of science. 

You articulated the problem very well to Hammy. How do you have the Dec 11 timeslice which is causally dependent on the previously ordered timeslice which is causally dependent on the previously ordered timeslice...forever? You are still postulating a past-infinite series of causes that can be ordered according to a causal principle (leaving time/temporal language out of it because it is irrelevant). This is the same logical impossibility you presented to Hammy.

(December 11, 2017 at 12:25 pm)Grandizer Wrote:

(December 11, 2017 at 12:18 pm)wallym Wrote: How would you know if you're logical conclusions are logical without understanding the physics/math that are the foundation of all our information on the universe?  

Like if I sync my watch with my buddy who hops on a plane and flies around the world.  And his watch moves a little slower, I'd logically conclude that one of our watches is a bit off.  Maybe altitude affects the gears.  Or a spec of dust messed up the workings. I wouldn't even think to guess that time moves slower in an airplane relative to a person standing on the ground.  

Time is not intuitive.

Yes science has helped a lot with tweaking our intuition, no denying. But I dont need science to come to the conclusion that time has no beginning. Or that nothing cannot exist. 

Physicists have and continue to wrestle with the idea of nothing as we speak.  And yet you've concluded that it cannot exist.  Same goes for time having a beginning.  

What do you think you know that they don't that allows you to be so confident?

(December 11, 2017 at 12:35 pm)SteveII Wrote: You articulated the problem very well to Hammy. How do you have the Dec 11 timeslice which is causally dependent on the previously ordered timeslice which is causally dependent on the previously ordered timeslice...forever? You are still postulating a past-infinite series of causes that can be ordered according to a causal principle (leaving time/temporal language out of it because it is irrelevant). This is the same logical impossibility you presented to Hammy.

Well this is why I think the universe isn't infinite. Like I've said before, it's eternal but finite. There are no problems of infinite causation in a finite universe. And how could there be?

As for science, I don't think science is or even can be relevant here if we're talking about the philosophy and logic of the existence of the phenomena of time itself rather than the philosophy and logic of the existence of our experience of the phenomena of time as studied by scientists via empircism + theorizing about their empircal findings.

---

(December 11, 2017 at 12:46 pm)wallym Wrote: Physicists have and continue to wrestle with the idea of nothing as we speak. 

No they don't. Labeling something as "nothing" isn't wrestling with nothing. Laurence Krauss himself has been criticized for this both by other physics and philosophers. The science he does is all good and right, but if he thinks that he's found nothing he's very confused. Kraus is an example of someone who is a world class scientist but very poor philosopher.

The science behind the scientific model of atoms is all good and right too. But this does not mean that when scientists split the atom they split the unsplitable. And nor does finding "empty space teeming with quantum activity" mean you've found nothing. No, what you've found, is the physical evidence of the empirical discovery of what seems to be empty space teeming with quantum activity. That very much is not nothing. There isn't anything that is nothing.

Give me one example of nothing that can be wrestled with. And I can guarantee you, you won't have given me anything to be wrestled with.

---

(December 11, 2017 at 12:35 pm)SteveII Wrote: You articulated the problem very well to Hammy. How do you have the Dec 11 timeslice which is causally dependent on the previously ordered timeslice which is causally dependent on the previously ordered timeslice...forever?

You can't. That's why existence is finite or time is and/or causation is an illusion (or both).

(December 11, 2017 at 12:49 pm)Hammy Wrote:

(December 11, 2017 at 12:46 pm)wallym Wrote: Physicists have and continue to wrestle with the idea of nothing as we speak. 

No they don't. Labeling something as "nothing" isn't wrestling with nothing. Laurence  Krauss himself has been criticized for this both by other physics and philosophers. The science he does is all good and right, but if he thinks that he's found nothing he's very confused. Kraus is an example of someone who is a world class scientist but very poor philosopher.

The science behind the scientific model of atoms is all good and right too. But this does not mean that when scientists split the atom they split the unsplitable. And nor does finding "empty space teeming quantum activity" mean you've found nothing. No, what you've found, is the physical evidence of the empirical discovery of what seems to be empty space teeming with quantum activity. That very much is not nothing. There isn't anything that is nothing.

Give me one example of nothing that can be wrestled with. And I can guarantee you, you won't have given me anything to be wrestled with.

Why would I ask you when I could just google it, and see what the physicists you'd be paraphrasing said?

(December 11, 2017 at 1:01 pm)wallym Wrote: Why would I ask you when I could just google it, and see what the physicists you'd be paraphrasing said?

My point was you can't do it and nor can they. I spelled out a self-explanatory impossible challenge in order to elucidate the fact that you can't do it and no one can.

https://www.livescience.com/28132-what-i...ebate.html

"The theoretical physicist Eva Silverstein of Stanford University suggested a highly technical nothing based on quantum field theory that involved a quantum system lacking degrees of freedom (dimensions). "The ground state of a gapped quantum system is my best answer," she said."

Do you (hammy) have an intuitive take on that? Do you think Grandizer considered whatever the fuck she just said when forming his conclusion?