(February 12, 2018 at 7:36 am)Grandizer Wrote:

(February 11, 2018 at 9:10 pm)polymath257 Wrote: Yes, and the porblem here is the implicit assumption that there is a start to all the adding. If there is no start, then the adding has always been going on.

But how does one even start the adding if there is no start to it? And how does the adding have already happened without a start?

Well, that is sort of the whole point. There *is* no start. It is an ongoing process with no start.

Again, think of the integers (.....,-4,-3,-2,-1,0,1,2,3,4,.....)

There is no start and there is no finish. Every integer has an immediate predesessor and an immediate successor.

And again, this is not a proof this happens in the real world. It is, however, a demonstration that there is no *logical* issue with an infinite regress.

(February 12, 2018 at 8:28 am)polymath257 Wrote:

(February 12, 2018 at 7:36 am)Grandizer Wrote: But how does one even start the adding if there is no start to it? And how does the adding have already happened without a start?

Well, that is sort of the whole point. There *is* no start. It is an ongoing process with no start.

Again, think of the integers (.....,-4,-3,-2,-1,0,1,2,3,4,.....)

There is no start and there is no finish. Every integer has an immediate predesessor and an immediate successor.

And again, this is not a proof this happens in the real world. It is, however, a demonstration that there is no *logical* issue with an infinite regress.

Which isn't something I'm contesting. Don't get me wrong. I'm not saying the math is wrong, or that an actual infinity cannot be possible/logical. I'm saying that, in the real world, it seems the act of going through a process of counting from negative infinity seems to be impossibility. If I can't reach my destination in the "negative infinity" direction through counting to the very "end" of the counting process (because there is no end), then how can I even "start" from there all the way back to some arbitrary integer (0, for example)?

Your math example only shows that we can talk about actual infinities (even in the physical world), but it doesn't show me that one can really start counting from "negative infinity" all the way to, say, -4. And similarly, I can go past 4 and count towards the positive direction, but I can only stop at an arbitrary integer eventually, not at the very "end" of the whole set (simply because there is no such thing).

(February 12, 2018 at 9:03 am)Grandizer Wrote:

(February 12, 2018 at 8:28 am)polymath257 Wrote: Well, that is sort of the whole point. There *is* no start. It is an ongoing process with no start.

Again, think of the integers (.....,-4,-3,-2,-1,0,1,2,3,4,.....)

There is no start and there is no finish. Every integer has an immediate predesessor and an immediate successor.

And again, this is not a proof this happens in the real world. It is, however, a demonstration that there is no *logical* issue with an infinite regress.

Which isn't something I'm contesting. Don't get me wrong. I'm not saying the math is wrong, or that an actual infinity cannot be possible/logical. I'm saying that, in the real world, it seems the act of going through a process of counting from negative infinity seems to be impossibility. If I can't reach my destination in the "negative infinity" direction through counting to the very "end" of the counting process (because there is no end), then how can I even "start" from there all the way back to some arbitrary integer (0, for example)?

Your math example only shows that we can talk about actual infinities (even in the physical world), but it doesn't show me that one can really start counting from "negative infinity" all the way to, say, -4. And similarly, I can go past 4 and count towards the positive direction, but I can only stop at an arbitrary integer eventually, not at the very "end" of the whole set (simply because there is no such thing).

You are right. It doesn't 'start' counting from negative infinity. Instead, it is just always counting. At any point you step down, the counting is going on and has been going on for an infinite amount of time. No beginning, no end.

(February 12, 2018 at 9:18 am)polymath257 Wrote:

(February 12, 2018 at 9:03 am)Grandizer Wrote: Which isn't something I'm contesting. Don't get me wrong. I'm not saying the math is wrong, or that an actual infinity cannot be possible/logical. I'm saying that, in the real world, it seems the act of going through a process of counting from negative infinity seems to be impossibility. If I can't reach my destination in the "negative infinity" direction through counting to the very "end" of the counting process (because there is no end), then how can I even "start" from there all the way back to some arbitrary integer (0, for example)?

Your math example only shows that we can talk about actual infinities (even in the physical world), but it doesn't show me that one can really start counting from "negative infinity" all the way to, say, -4. And similarly, I can go past 4 and count towards the positive direction, but I can only stop at an arbitrary integer eventually, not at the very "end" of the whole set (simply because there is no such thing).

You are right. It doesn't 'start' counting from negative infinity. Instead, it is just always counting. At any point you step down, the counting is going on and has been going on for an infinite amount of time. No beginning, no end.

What you say fits in quite well with the logic of a different way of looking at time (e.g., B-theory of time) because counting, like any act, is not really happening in the intuitive flowing way. There is one instance of you counting the number -4, and the next instance of you counting the number -3, and infinite previous instances of you counting each number previous to -4, and infinite successive instances of you counting each number after -3, provided you are God or something like that and you exist in all these time instances where you can afford to count forever and from eternity.

Again, this is more a problem if we assume the A-theory of time.

(February 12, 2018 at 9:29 am)Grandizer Wrote:

(February 12, 2018 at 9:18 am)polymath257 Wrote: You are right. It doesn't 'start' counting from negative infinity. Instead, it is just always counting. At any point you step down, the counting is going on and has been going on for an infinite amount of time. No beginning, no end.

What you say fits in quite well with the logic of a different way of looking at time (e.g., B-theory of time) because counting, like any act, is not really happening in the intuitive flowing way. There is one instance of you counting the number -4, and the next instance of you counting the number -3, and infinite previous instances of you counting each number previous to -4, and infinite successive instances of you counting each number after -3, provided you are God or something like that and you exist in all these time instances where you can afford to count forever and from eternity.

Again, this is more a problem if we assume the A-theory of time.

The clear question is to what extent the past and the future 'exist'. We are accustomed to consider the future as undetermined and the past as determined, but this seems mostly because we remember the past and not the future. There is also the nature of causality: we allow for influence from the past light cone and not from the future light cone in computing probabilities.

(February 11, 2018 at 12:33 am)Grandizer Wrote:

(February 10, 2018 at 10:00 pm)SteveII Wrote: I love these great big metaphysical assertions that contradict just about everything without any backup whatsoever. 

Most people feel you need a baby horse to get an adult horse. Please explain why that is not the case. Please explain these "connections". Perhaps some quotes from leading scientist? Stuff I can look up?

Why scientist, first of all? Why not philosopher or something? Should I ask you to back your shit up with quotes from actual scientists then, given that you adhere to a theory of time not supported by modern science?

You already know what to look up, if you've already looked up theories of time and such.

Think about the implications of eternalism. If there is no flow of time, then how can there be a change? How can there be cause and effect?

If two countries are connected to each other, does one cause the other? No, look at reality in the Laplacian sense, rather than in this intuitive sense that you conceive of things from a temporal perspective. Causality is meaningful only from such perspective, not when we're discussing the fundamentals of reality itself.

Eternalism, contrary to it's name, does not propose an infinite past. Only that past, present, and future are equally real. It is a description of our space-time. It does not imply that space-time had no beginning. Proof of that is that it is compatible with the standard big bang models--which have as its main feature--a beginning of space-time. 

Eternalism also does not deny causality. Within the block of time, there are causal cones that clearly show prior-to and after-than relationships. There is a direction of time. 

If you think I am wrong in either of these statements, I would like a link or a quote to show me. No offence, but I need someone else to explain it.

---

(February 11, 2018 at 1:23 am)Grandizer Wrote: About the horse thingy, Steve. According to eternalism, the time moments containing the baby horse are separate from the time moments containing the adult horse, but logically connected based on a logical structure. The structure itself is eternal, and all connection possibilities are eternal. It's not like there was a time when the connections were not yet there, and they were still under construction or something. They've always been according to this doctrine of time.

"Logically connected" is the same as causality. There is no difference. You are trying to do away with causality by calling it something else. 

Again, the theory does not posit an eternal block of time.

---

(February 12, 2018 at 9:29 am)Grandizer Wrote:

(February 12, 2018 at 9:18 am)polymath257 Wrote: You are right. It doesn't 'start' counting from negative infinity. Instead, it is just always counting. At any point you step down, the counting is going on and has been going on for an infinite amount of time. No beginning, no end.

What you say fits in quite well with the logic of a different way of looking at time (e.g., B-theory of time) because counting, like any act, is not really happening in the intuitive flowing way. There is one instance of you counting the number -4, and the next instance of you counting the number -3, and infinite previous instances of you counting each number previous to -4, and infinite successive instances of you counting each number after -3, provided you are God or something like that and you exist in all these time instances where you can afford to count forever and from eternity.

Again, this is more a problem if we assume the A-theory of time.

Your theory of time has no bearing on logic. It simply is not possible to count down one at a time from an infinite time ago because you will never get to 0. In the same way, you will cannot have an infinite series of causes/effects (logical connections?) in a row to arrive at now--there will always be an infinite more causes/effects that still have to happen. If you need a concrete example, there could not have been an infinite series of mother and baby horses. The horse you see today would never have arrived because there would still need to have been an infinite number of horses to be born and have their own horse baby--no matter how long you waited.

---

(February 12, 2018 at 10:44 am)polymath257 Wrote:

(February 12, 2018 at 9:29 am)Grandizer Wrote: What you say fits in quite well with the logic of a different way of looking at time (e.g., B-theory of time) because counting, like any act, is not really happening in the intuitive flowing way. There is one instance of you counting the number -4, and the next instance of you counting the number -3, and infinite previous instances of you counting each number previous to -4, and infinite successive instances of you counting each number after -3, provided you are God or something like that and you exist in all these time instances where you can afford to count forever and from eternity.

Again, this is more a problem if we assume the A-theory of time.

The clear question is to what extent the past and the future 'exist'. We are accustomed to consider the future as undetermined and the past as determined, but this seems mostly because we remember the past and not the future. There is also the nature of causality: we allow for influence from the past light cone and not from the future light cone in computing probabilities.

Yeah...its almost as if time passes in one direction.

(February 12, 2018 at 12:15 pm)SteveII Wrote:

(February 11, 2018 at 12:33 am)Grandizer Wrote: Why scientist, first of all? Why not philosopher or something? Should I ask you to back your shit up with quotes from actual scientists then, given that you adhere to a theory of time not supported by modern science?

You already know what to look up, if you've already looked up theories of time and such.

Think about the implications of eternalism. If there is no flow of time, then how can there be a change? How can there be cause and effect?

If two countries are connected to each other, does one cause the other? No, look at reality in the Laplacian sense, rather than in this intuitive sense that you conceive of things from a temporal perspective. Causality is meaningful only from such perspective, not when we're discussing the fundamentals of reality itself.

Eternalism, contrary to it's name, does not propose an infinite past. Only that past, present, and future are equally real. It is a description of our space-time. It does not imply that space-time had no beginning. Proof of that is that it is compatible with the standard big bang models--which have as its main feature--a beginning of space-time. 

Eternalism also does not deny causality. Within the block of time, there are causal cones that clearly show prior-to and after-than relationships. There is a direction of time. 

If you think I am wrong in either of these statements, I would like a link or a quote to show me. No offence, but I need someone else to explain it.

---

(February 11, 2018 at 1:23 am)Grandizer Wrote: About the horse thingy, Steve. According to eternalism, the time moments containing the baby horse are separate from the time moments containing the adult horse, but logically connected based on a logical structure. The structure itself is eternal, and all connection possibilities are eternal. It's not like there was a time when the connections were not yet there, and they were still under construction or something. They've always been according to this doctrine of time.

"Logically connected" is the same as causality. There is no difference. You are trying to do away with causality by calling it something else. 

Again, the theory does not posit an eternal block of time.

---

(February 12, 2018 at 9:29 am)Grandizer Wrote: What you say fits in quite well with the logic of a different way of looking at time (e.g., B-theory of time) because counting, like any act, is not really happening in the intuitive flowing way. There is one instance of you counting the number -4, and the next instance of you counting the number -3, and infinite previous instances of you counting each number previous to -4, and infinite successive instances of you counting each number after -3, provided you are God or something like that and you exist in all these time instances where you can afford to count forever and from eternity.

Again, this is more a problem if we assume the A-theory of time.

Your theory of time has no bearing on logic. It simply is not possible to count down one at a time from an infinite time ago because you will never get to 0. In the same way, you will cannot have an infinite series of causes/effects (logical connections?) in a row to arrive at now--there will always be an infinite more causes/effects that still have to happen. If you need a concrete example, there could not have been an infinite series of mother and baby horses. The horse you see today would never have arrived because there would still need to have been an infinite number of horses to be born and have their own horse baby--no matter how long you waited

---

(February 12, 2018 at 10:44 am)polymath257 Wrote: The clear question is to what extent the past and the future 'exist'. We are accustomed to consider the future as undetermined and the past as determined, but this seems mostly because we remember the past and not the future. There is also the nature of causality: we allow for influence from the past light cone and not from the future light cone in computing probabilities.

Yeah...its almost as if time passes in one direction.

Again, in saying 'count down from an infinite time ago', you are assuming a *start*. It is NOT the case of starting, *then* counting down an infinite time, it is a case of *always counting*.

In the case of the mother and baby horses, there has always been an infinite number of horses prior. At any point in time, there was a mother horse and/or a baby. And yes, an infinite number of horses preceded, but that's OK if there is an infinite amount of time. There is no 'waiting' for an infinite number of horses to be born: an infinite number of horses have already been born at every point of time.

As for time 'passing', that is very problematic claim given how things work in relativity: there is no absolute simultaneity, for example. What is 'past' may well depend on the motion of the observer. That's why I mentioned the light cones: those *are* absolute even if 'past' and 'future' are not.

1.The assumption of a start is just that .

2. Using horse as an a Analogy for exist is retarded you can apply condition within the existence to existence .

3. And indeed there is no counting down .

Steve, you keep arguing that it is impossible to complete a potential infinity. I agree, but this is not an argument against an already completed actual infinity. The present is already here because its always been, not because the past moments stop existing. Yes, there are connections between this and that, but these are static connections. One movie frame does not cause the next frame even though they may be connected. And there is a certain perceived direction of time in this local universe, but this has more to do with how weve evolved in combination with the fact that this local universe started out with low entropy that just happens to increase. In other universes, it may be the other way around. Who knows.

---

Also, yes, this universe has that Big Bang thingy at the start (perhaps), but these are all moments that are a part of an frozen eternal structure. Even your state of consciousness at each moment is part of it.

As to the A or B theory of time.

Does it make sense in the A theory of time to say that there will be an eclipse of the sun in North American in 2026? That seems like a statement that makes sense and is even true, but it is inherently untensed, so isn't available for the A theory. At most, the A theory could say it will happen in the future. I guess maybe it could say something like an eclipse will happen 8 years in the future. But that seems to miss the definitiveness of the B theory statement.

As for the infinite regress, it seems like an A-theory description is easy: there is an infinite past. That is an A statement that is always true. Where's the problem?

And, to return to the topic, this was all concerning whether the first cause argument is able to demonstrate what it claims. It clearly fails for several reasons: 1) an infinite regress is not contradictory, 2) the existence of an un-caused cause violates the assumptions of the argument itself (that everything has a cause), 3) it doesn't deal with the question of whether there may be more than one un-caused cause 4) it does't show that an un-caused cause necessarily has the characteristics attributed to a deity, and 5) it fails to take into account that all known causes are physical causes and makes a special pleading that there must be a non-physical cause.

At the very least, we can say that this classic argument for the existence of a deity fails miserably.