A Necessary Being?

[RoadRunner79]

The question is whether or not a given definition serves as the means to identify and clarify the nature of a discoverable feature of reality. It seems you would have people believe that necessary being is just an invention and not something whose presence can be deduced from common observations.

There's something a little messy with this statement. Using deduction, all we can say is that 'something' caused 'x', assuming of course that it's reasonable to conclude 'x' is not itself eternal and has a cause. Without observation absolutely nothing else can be said about this 'something'. In addition, we must also conclude that multiple 'somethings' could have produced 'x'.

The fact that I exist means that my biological parents went from contingent beings to necessary beings when I drew my first breathe. The obvious consequence, that someone mentioned early on, is that you are now faced with an infinite regression.

Alex,

I would disagree, that nothing more can be said, than their must be a cause, without direct observation.  We can deduce (or induce) attributes about the sufficiency of that cause.   I would imagine, that in your area of expertise, that there is quite a bit, that you do not observe directly.

Also, I don't think that the terms contingent and necessary in this sense, are relativistic.  Your parents would still be contingent (possible to not exist), even though they are necessary for you to exist (this "necessary" is used in a different sense).  Being the cause of you, does not change that they where dependent on something for their existence. I understand where you are coming from, in that they are necessary in one way, but I don't think this is correct as applied to this topic.


{Edit...oopos, don't know why I thought this was Alex, but still applies to Cato)

[Arkilogue]

So we're talking about the 'singularity' then? The proposed 'concentration' of all universal matter/energy & space/time? Given we don't comprehend the state of the universe before Plank time, how can we possibly describe, with such confidence, the necessities of that state? Further, we don't know if other 'worlds/universes' actually exist so how can we do more than postulate the attributes, let alone the necessities? And I'm assuming there that necessities could apply to those other possible worlds; I can imagine universes which exist with neither matter/energy nor time/space (e.g. proposed quantum potential universes) where substance is not an applicable attribute. The necessities of those could not possibly be anything like those of universes similar to our own.

As for first cause, if we can neither describe the state of the universe before Plank time or the cause of universal expansion, how can you so positively assert that the consequence was cavitation? I mean, you may be working on the cutting edge of both quantum & cosmological physics here and maybe I'm woefully under-informed but there are a lot of barriers to acceptance of your statements.

The point here is that since it's nigh-on impossible to accurately define 'necessary' or 'being' and almost equally difficult to describe what triggered the expansion of our universe, nothing you've said brings us any closer to an honest proposition of a theistic god (e.g. Yahweh, Brahma, Ymir, Zeus, Aten...).

Yes.
How does one's level of comprehension change, and can it change?
Sure you can imagine it, but can you support it with a predictive model? The Many Worlds magical bingo machine theory sure is an attractive one....till you realize it's infinite special pleading.

The exact mechanism is still undefined because no one is imagining the beginning singularity in this manner, so in lieu of even handful of people that are comfortable contemplating an extant infinity that is trillions of times hotter and denser than anything they are familiar with, I am using known scientific processes that resemble the process

So far those lab repeatable processes are sono-luminescence by sonic cavitation and crystal nucleation.

http://www.iflscience.com/chemistry/turn...instantly/

veryone knows that water freezes at 0 °C - or does it? When water freezes, it needs a nucleus in order for the solid crystals to form and become ice. Water is typically full of particles and impurities which have no problem kicking off the crystallization process. However, purified water by definition doesn’t have those impurities. With nothing for the water molecules to latch onto, purified water can be supercooled as far as -40°C.

For the purposes of your at-home experiment, the water doesn’t need to be cooled that far. In just under 3 hours, the bottles of water have been chilled to -24 °C (-11 °F). Of course, individual settings on freezers will likely alter the time and temperature it will take to supercool the water.

The energy generated from firm hit on the side of the bottle forces the supercooled water molecules to form a crystal in a process called nucleation. That nucleus ice crystal is all that’s needed to start a chain reaction of crystallization throughout the entire bottle. Shaking or jostling the bottle has the same effect, so be very careful and have a steady hand when removing the water from your freezer.


In the Infinite Fermi liquid substance, there is no edge to the bottle.


And guess what....after I had worked out the model, after I watched example of crystal nucleation, after I put the two together....I did a little search and found this: http://repository.cmu.edu/cgi/viewconten...xt=physics

For more than two decades there have been studies of the
nucleation of bubbles during the QCD phase transition
(QCDPT), the transition from a universe of deconfined
gluons, quarks and antiquarks (the quark/gluon plasma)
to a hadronic universe.


There are many more scholarly articles exploring the same possibility


I'm not just whistling quantum Dixie. I'm just entering the universe from the opposite direction.

[Cato]

RoadRunner,

I think that the concept of necessary being is always relativistic. If not, all we are saying is that a being is necessary because we say so. Saying that something cannot 'not exist', begs the question 'why?', which can only be answered by pointing at an existant that it caused.

[The Grand Nudger]

They're not necessary in the sense that they're needed to cause something, just like they're not beings in the sense of a human being.  Nor are they necessary in the sense that your parents are necessary. Nor are they necessary in the sense of propositional necessity. These are all separate technical uses of the same term....which is why it;s easy to conflate them, and to equivocate upon them.

A necessary being is not a synonym for a person like entity that's necessary for some other thing to exist....no matter how many times god botherers use it that way. No matter how many times their wishful faiths compell them to -read- it that way.

A necessary being is simply some x that cannot not exist. There is a question, though, as to why something would be as such. It's currently unanswered.

[Cato]

Your last paragraph is essentially what I was after. If the 'why' can't be addressed, there's really no point to any of this I suppose.

[RoadRunner79]

RoadRunner,

I think that the concept of necessary being is always relativistic. If not, all we are saying is that a being is necessary because we say so. Saying that something cannot 'not exist', begs the question 'why?', which can only be answered by pointing at an existant that it caused.

I just want to make sure that I am understanding you correctly.  It appears to me, that you are referring to necessary vs contingent in a relational sense.   For example, Y is contingent upon X, therefore X is necessary for Y.  Is this correct, or am I missing something?

(also sorry, about confusing you for someone else earlier... I think I was looking at another thread, and the avatars where similar, and didn't pay enough attention.)

[RoadRunner79]

A necessary being is simply some x that cannot not exist.  There is a question, though, as to why something would be as such.  It's currently unanswered.

I don't think that we will always have questions, but on this topic, the subject is about the nature of an object and whether it is dependent on something else for it's existence. For a necessary being, I think the only answer to why, it is it's nature to be so. Why is a square not round, or why doesn't 2+2=5?

I do think in most of my conversations though, even those who deny that which is necessary (in this regard), normally smuggle it in somewhere else, even if they don't realize it.

[The Grand Nudger]

No, it;s not.  That would be contigency, or propositional necessity..not a necessary being. Why is a square...not why is a square not round. Why are numbers, not why doesn't 2+2=5. To say that it's "in their nature to be" is simply to reassert that they are necessary beings in other words...not an explanation of why they are necessary beings, what makes them so.

[TheMuslim]

It is imperative (and extremely relevant) to acknowledge the difference between "essential predication" and "accidental predication." If you are ignorant about these terms, read up on them.

I thought we were getting on well, but now suddenly you're all arrogant and insulting.  

A Necessary Being, by definition, cannot not exist. It must exist at all times, places, and worlds. But it is crucial to note that by saying this, I am predicating existence to the Necessary Being as an essential predicate, not as an accidental predicate.

I wonder if you don't just enjoy dressing up simple concepts in abstruse language.  Your first sentence was clear and succinct.  Your second sentence is redundant where it's not wrong.  The third sentence is a waste of words.  

It is impossible to predicate nonexistence to a Necessary Being as an essential predicate, because that would be a contradiction (a Necessary Being is, essentially, existent).

"Essentially existent," nice.  And above, "by definition cannot not exist," also nice.  What do you think you're adding to that with your predication talk, your imperative, extremely relevant (as if that were a concept), and crucial predication talk?   

However, it is indeed possible to predicate nonexistence to a Necessary Being as an accidental predicate. This would not lead to any contradictions (a Necessary Being has existence predicated to it as an essential predicate, not as an accidental predicate, and therefore denying its existence as an accidental predicate does nothing to harm it).

You're saying it is defined as existing even thought it doesn't happen to exist.  

In addition, you're saying I need lessons so I can talk fancy like you.  While I appreciate your concern, Plantinga and William Lane Craig get along fine without your terminology.  I choose to refute them using their own words.  

So one may conceive of a possible world with nonexistence predicated to the Necessary Being as an accidental predicate. This does not mean that a Necessary Being does not exist, because Necessary Beings do not even require existence in all possible worlds as an accidental predicate in the first place.

Now you've just confused yourself with your tricksy talk.  If a necessary being doesn't exist in one possible world, then it doesn't exist in any possible world.

I used the official terminology (the way it is used in academic philosophy writing) because it made it easier and pithier for me to express myself than repeatedly using the phrases "predicated as definition, or what it itself is" or "something which the thing happens to be in the real world." This is the reason why people use academic terminology at all, regardless of the field: to express ideas in a more succinct way. Brevity is the soul of wit.

You're saying that since there are possible worlds in which a Necessary Being does not actually exist, a Necessary Being - defined as something which exists in all possible worlds - cannot exist. This is fallacious reasoning, because you are presupposing that there are indeed "possible worlds" in which there are no Necessary Beings. You're playing the same card that many theists often mistakenly play. Why not be honest and admit that we simply don't know?

It depends on whether or not a Necessary Being exists in any world, and this is something you don't know - and therefore you cannot make any claims about NB-free possible worlds. If a Necessary Being doesn't exist (in any world), then a Necessary Being cannot exist in any world. But if a Necessary Being indeed exists in some world, then you cannot have "possible worlds in which there is no Necessary Being." Such worlds would then be impossible. The possibility of your "possible worlds without a Necessary Being" depends on whether or a Necessary Being actually exists in any world.

I can see how it might go either way. You may argue that a Necessary Being's existence depends on the existence of NB-less possible worlds, while someone else may argue that the existence of NB-less possible worlds depends on the existence of a Necessary Being. Choosing between the two might be an arbitrary decision, although I do think that choosing the latter one would make more sense because Necessary Beings (the kinds that are relevant to a theist-atheist debate) are concrete things while "possible worlds" are simply possibilities (I'd rather question the existence of merely possible worlds than the possibility of a concrete being).

And at the end of the day, I'm not really making any claims about the existence of a Necessary Being. You are. The burden of proof is on you, as you are claiming that a Necessary Being does not exist.

Therefore, necessary beings do not exist.

Is there anything wrong with a Necessary Being per se?

If you mean to ask whether something like that could exist, the answer is no.  

In your second post on this thread, you yourself provided two arguments - of identical logical form - that argue for and against the existence of a Necessary Being. If I'm correct, your reasoning against the possibility of a Necessary Being is based on the latter of those two arguments. If that is the case, then you are doing some pretty obvious cherry-picking. Since both use the exact same logic, why pick the latter over the former? You can't conclude that a Necessary Being is impossible with that kind of inconclusive logic.

[Whateverist]

Behold the power of defining!

The question is whether or not a given definition serves as the means to identify and clarify the nature of a discoverable feature of reality. It seems you would have people believe that necessary being is just an invention and not something whose presence can be deduced from common observations.

^This^