He can't make square-circles or 2-2=7 because he permanently designed logic as well, in a way that is infinite yet understandable to human or more specifically, contingent perspectives — SethRy
So, I personally believe, that God, not only a god, created mathematics and utilised it to construct the cosmos. — SethRy
ither NOTHING exists...or at least ONE THING had no cause. — Frank Apisa
As if it were astonishing that the word "peanut" can be about any peanut, anywhere: '"Peanut" is universal and transcends the universe'.
Mathematics is constructed, not found. — Banno
Because if you argue that mathematics was not invented, it was infinite, then that unstoppable regress would live by the existence of the cosmos and the world — therefore essential to the universe, to the world. — SethRy
Therefore Santa Clause exists at the north pole — coolguy8472
The point of time where any would-be starting point may not exist but that particular point of time still exists except does not have the property of being a "starting point". Any point in time next to this point of time also exists. So we could say the point of time "next to start" does exist except the point it's next to does not have the property of being the "starting point". Like the North Pole and the place next to the North Pole still exists regardless of whether or not Santa Clause exists there — coolguy8472
Referencing our universe from a non-existent point of time or a point of time in parallel universe — coolguy8472
Granting this: "So it must have experienced some events greater than any number [you select] of years ago." is not implying the existence of a number greater than all numbers. — coolguy8472
Universes that have a beginning need a temporal start but that does not mean that universe that don't have a beginning need a temporal start. — coolguy8472
Similarly if you have the statement "if something begins to exist then it needs a cause". This statement is not disproven when you show the universe had no cause. We can take the contrapositive and say "if it does not need a cause" then "it does not need a beginning" — coolguy8472
Pretty close to agreement. It's more like "if age of the universe is finite then it has a numeric property". By proving the age of the universe does not have a value in an eternal universe does not contradict that statement because it's a conditional. — coolguy8472
not in conventional math. At best we could say as x approaches infinity x+1=(no limit) or infinity as a symbolic value to mean no upper bound — coolguy8472
Proving the universe did not have a cause in an eternal universe does not make the statement false. It makes A false but not "if A then B". — coolguy8472
Agreed, but the point of a brain in a vat is that you can't prove the existence of other brains independently of them telling you they exist. — Edward
What would be an example of unsuitable math? — DingoJones
"Mathematics is essential to the world.
— SethRy
Nuh. Mathematics is essential to our descriptions of the world, That's not the same. — Banno
I suppose the best way to describe the reality of an eternal universe is that it would exist with an actual infinite age but any attempts to quantify it would fall within potential infinity — coolguy8472
Within your proof you try to disprove it by appealing to the actual infinity which doesn't work within real number math. — coolguy8472
But there is no "start" because there is no beginning — coolguy8472
Also would it not be possible for a universe to be created with infinite age by a god? — coolguy8472
Our certainty can be more or less, and maybe absolute or maybe not , but it is certainty of truth that is or isn't absolute, not truth itself. — unenlightened
But fuzzy logic is not the logic of our ordinary speech. — unenlightened
What is not 100% is certainty, but a pocket that is 99% empty is not at all an empty pocket. — unenlightened
there is nothing between true and false — unenlightened
There is no difference between the truth that my pockets are empty. and the absolute truth that my pockets are empty. — unenlightened
Cool. That shows that you are working with an unhelpful definition of infinity. Treat it rather as an unbounded number larger than any real number. — Banno
At best this could be an argument that infinity is not an integer. — Banno
Hm. Have you ever visited Hilbert's Hotel? It will help with the mathematics — Banno
Says who? Devans? — Banno
Well, no. It shows instead that for presentism there is no start to time — Banno
You might enjoy reading up on Steady State theory. The calculations you want were done last century. — Banno
This makes no sense for me. There are no big bangs going on in my lounge-room; I would have noticed. And simple mathematics shows that your last sentence here is problematic. The sequence of reals contains infinite positive numbers, while leaving room for infinite negative numbers... — Banno
Really? What is it? — Banno
So your argument becomes: Devans thinks there must be a start time, therefore presentism is wrong. — Banno
If you assume only now exists, then there is no past, and hence no start to time. The argument falls apart. — Banno