The origin of the universe is a macro question — Devans99

Nope.
Why do you think extrapolation sufficiently far back is increasingly problematic, and why we cannot extrapolate to a singularity (of infinite density and temperature)?
Because once things become sufficiently small, quantumatics become increasingly pronounced, and we have no established unification.

Finite and unbounded is plainly impossible. I'm not even going to waste my time reading that link. — Devans99

Rejection by title-reading? :D As mentioned earlier, these ideas have been expounded upon to some extent by Hartle and Hawking.

I do not believe in random — Devans99

I don't call those answers. — Devans99

Whatever you or I believe has little bearing on the truth of the matter. Our beliefs are the adjustable parts, and so we adjust our beliefs to it all, we don't adjust it all to our beliefs. No manner of repetition here can somehow compel it all to be so.

I cannot. — Devans99

And yet you've been presented with alternatives to your assertions, a few of them by now.

Indefinite Causal Order in a Quantum Switch (Goswami, Giarmatzi, Kewming, Costa, Branciard, Romero, White; APS; Aug 2018)

(also ... the Casimir effect, virtual particle pairs, quantum fluctuations, radioactive decay, spacetime foam/turbulence, the "pressure" of vacuum energy, Fomin's quantum cosmogenesis (successors), Krauss' relativistic quantum fields, ...)

And you still haven't responded to a number of other points (though you have re-re-repeated your beliefs a few times).

Finite yet unbounded. Is that some sort of joke? — Devans99

No. (FYI, the link is the earliest reference in the literature I know of.)

You still have not answered the puzzle question! — Devans99

Yes. Twice now.

God is both timeless and within time (temporal/a-temporal) all at the same time — 3017amen

@Devans99 wants to show an atemporal god "outside" it all.
One that strangely acted deliberately and timelessly to create the universe.
Nonsense, yes, I know, but that seems to be @Devans99's belief...err aim.
So that's the topic here.

Already mentioned a couple options, :
Ditch your hidden premise thus heading towards determinism; entertain abstract objects (which does not deny atemporality by the way).

Banno mentioned the edge-free universe. Others have been pointed out, including in your old threads.

Isn't this stuff old territory? Already covered in your old threads, @Devans99? (If so, it hasn't become better with age.)

You haven't responded much.

(Besides, both "deliberate" and "act" are loaded, indicating where you started rather than where you ended.)
You somehow wish to show an "atemporal deliberate act" of a unique, thinking, living superbeing deity...? :D
Here atemporal is inert and lifeless at best.

with strangely "atemporal causes", I'd sort of expect an infinite universe

So demonstrate this atemporal change, it's your argument (and presumably you don't want to add more appeal to ignorance or special pleading).

You have no idea what atemporal could be. Just because all the change we know of is within time, does not imply that change is impossible without time: — Devans99

We can say what atemporal is not. Atemporal as "outside" it all would also be nowhere and nowhen, not even simultaneous with whatever.
So demonstrate this atemporal change, it's your argument (and presumably you don't want to add more appeal to ignorance or special pleading).
I'm almost inclined to just say it: "Devans99's God Almost Certainly Does Not Exist". :D Start over. Try something more defensible.

By the way, you forgot to add your extra premise(s) when you repeated 1-3. Seems like hard determinism, which, incidentally, has further implications.
And I did give an example, which now was raised by:

But here's the irony, mathematical truths that describe the laws of nature are eternal unchanging truth's.
So we have within our grasp a sense of eternity which doesn't make it impossible. — 3017amen

3017amen's God is an abstraction. A fairly radical departure from most religions that comes to mind. That's assuming the assertions here.

Isn't this stuff old territory? Already covered in your old threads, @Devans99? (If so, it hasn't become better with age.)

I do not believe in random — Devans99

Another hidden premise to be added to 1-3? Revise the argument? Anything else to add?

deliberate act as the only possibility — Devans99

Why?

(Besides, both "deliberate" and "act" are loaded, indicating where you started rather than where you ended.)

You somehow wish to show an "atemporal deliberate act" of a unique, thinking, living superbeing deity...? :D
Here atemporal is inert and lifeless at best. Or perhaps just an abstract object if you want to go all Platonista. Neither admit such lavish personification.

Anyway, with strangely "atemporal causes", I'd sort of expect an infinite universe.

Start over. Try something more defensible.

rules will be wide open
all philosophical domains will be argued — 3017amen

:D

Swiftly abandoning a lost cause (pun intended), I guess.

As an aside, probably not everyone knows Banno's technical sense of bullshit: On Bullshit

There is a debating feature on this forum. It does not get sufficient use.

I would be happy to enter into a formal debate with anyone who is willing to defend the argument in the OP. — Banno

(y) Invite @Devans99 right over.

I see ...
Debate Proposals
Debate Discussion
But not in the more formal format.

Couldn't see this merged thread. Maybe it went missing or was cancelled or something.

Timelessness — Devans99

The closest in the literature seems to be abstract objects.
Labeling those "deities" or "God" would be a radical departure from religions though.

We only know [...] You are ruling out [...] — Devans99

No, you're ruling in by way of appeal to ignorance, for one.

Was conscious existence caused from chaos? — 3017amen

Still ignoring comments unabated as if non-existent.
And how the heck would I know?
But we do know some things, and "atemporal mind" ain't it (by all available evidence it's incoherent nonsense).
Having been answered, are you going to stop ignoring comments?

Stick to the topic at hand, . (Are you going to just keep ignoring comments unabated as if non-existent?)
By the way, nothing here is about whatever you or I believe or not. (Unless things go full-metal psych'ceramics I guess.)

, 1-3 just repeats your belief, 4-5 adds more of your belief outside the opening post, and all ignores the interlocutors unabated as if non-existent (including shifting the burden of proof, arguing from ignorance, gap-filling, special pleading).

How can you prove God doesn't exist when you can't even explain the nature of your own existence? — 3017amen

(yep, including shifting the burden of proof again)

I agree with Devon's ...nothing more to say is there? — 3017amen

With nothing more to say (and keeping fallacies alive and well), you've abandoned philosophy for one.

Or is the whole of you argument "God did it"? — Banno

Is the whole of your argument God didn't do it? — 3017amen

pathetic — Banno

And answering the question with that question is particularly pathetic in this instance.
Without the likes of @3017amen having started talking about — proclaiming — their imagi..."otherworldly" friends, this wouldn't have come up in the first place.
So, shifting the burden of proof.

Lost count among the promoting comments here...
Sleight of hand (covering up arguing from ignorance), gap-filling for the occasion, special pleading.
Did I miss any?

I agree with Devon's ...nothing more to say is there? — 3017amen

This thread isn't a poll/vote, so we kind of expect a bit more than just "I agree".
You agreeing doesn't make it so.

The sorry fact is, that we cannot either describe or simply cannot understand infinity as clearly as we would want. — ssu

Sure, yet we do know some things at least, and can reason to some extent if careful.
Don't just ∞ × ∞ - ∞ - 7 + ∞ / ∞ + 3 / ∞, for one.
The amount of naturals isn't a natural, for another.
Maybe ∞ could be said to be a quantity that's not a number.

Much ado about very little. : — jgill

(y) (I'd hit "Like", but this will have to do)
Actually, that's a good lot of philosophy right there. ;)


Saw something fly by about adding zeros, but:
$\sum_{n \in \mathbb{N}} 0 \ = \ 0$

Time is [...] — Devans99

Doesn't really address anything. You want me to start coming up with things for the occasion as well?

I fail to see any other alternatives to timelessness: FACT - time has a start. FACT: the start of time was caused by something external to time. FACT: change can somehow take place outside of time. — Devans99

Start over. Try something more defensible.

We are only familiar with [...] — Devans99

Instead of such creative special pleading, shouldn't you try something a bit more defensible?

You can't have something timeless going about doing stuff. It's nonsense. Start over.

Isn't this more or less a repeat of earlier posts of yours, ? :)

There's no logical or conceptual problem with infinite sets, like, say, $\mathbb{N}_+ = \{1, 2, 3, \ldots\}$.
Would be kind of tedious for physicists and cosmologists to have to check whether their results had exceeded "the largest number". :D
Just have to remember that ∞ isn't a real number, can't be shuffled into arithmetic calculations (+-×/) just like that.

And there are any number of ways to write 1.
0.5 + 0.5 = 2 - 1 = 1 × 1 × 1 = $\frac{\sqrt{2}}{\sqrt{2}}$ = $1^5$ = $1 + \sum_{n \in \mathbb{N}_+} (1 - 1)^n$ = ...
No numerical difference.

And we can reason about $\sum_{n \in \mathbb{N}_+} 9(\frac{1}{10})^n$ and such if we're careful. (y)

Why would any of this be a problem anyways...?
(I didn't see the formalities implying a contradiction here in the thread.)

, indeed, calling infinitesimals

Ghosts of departed Quantities — Berkeley

goes along with (contemporary) calculus. They do occasionally come up as matters of convenience or tradition (e.g. in notation), but not of necessity.

Another possible source of confusion could be the Archimedean properties^[23][24][25]: neither ∞ nor infinitesimals^[26] are real numbers^[27][28].

Ghosts couldn't comprise a "boundary" between 0.999... and 1.


_{23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28}

But you can't have 'an infinity of' 9s because infinity is not a number. So no, .999... is not 1. It only converges to 1. — EnPassant

Looks like the confuzzlement mentioned earlier.
There are infinitudes of numbers. Therefore there aren't numbers? Hmm...

Census doesn't have much to do with it, .

A NASA engineer may invoke a handful of mathematical theorems and formulae out of physics, involving π, differentiation and integration (which are calculus related to limits), only to find that x + 7m was what they were looking for. For example, there are all kinds of rules of differentiation, many of which are, or can be, proven by limits. Also, no manner of discussion and voting can somehow make √2 mysteriously become 1.414.

Years ago I vaguely recall having done error analysis in physics experiments. Tedious. Maybe that's more along the lines of what you're thinking of?

What's this ancient (science/mathematics) book you're referring to anyways?

for some systems 0.111 would be close enough and for NASA (they have less room for error), 0.1111111111111111111111111111111111111111111 might be required — christian2017

A sensible person would just use 1/9. Loss-less. Unless or until they needed to write it out differently anyway.

, I'd say the best way to improve via critique is by already knowing what we criticize.
Common educational systems can be improved for sure, but we have to know them to launch critique.
Like, uhm, say, Einstein had intimate knowledge of Newtonian mechanics/gravitation before improving upon it with relativity.
Anyway, just my two ¢s on this fine day. Carry on.

since there is no natural number between 9 and 10 to be found, that means that 9=10 — Tomseltje

The naturals aren't densely ordered like the rationals and the reals. ;)

, yeah, reading through the note takes familiarity with the mathematics and notation.
And it's a fairly large area; might scare some away.

the very last number before 1 — Pfhorrest

Both the rationals and the reals are densely ordered.
For any two different numbers, there's a third between them.

I suppose they might say that 0.999... isn't a number.

, typically when "0.999... = 1" is brought up, you'll find a flurry of objections, you just watch. :)

Either way, I think the attached proof is valid, but others are invited to point out errors.

Another argument, more or less following similar thinking, is whether a number could be found between 0.999... and 1.000... (like the mean).
If no such number can be found, then we might reasonably say they're one and the same.

Still doesn't address the comments, . :confused:

Your definition is what sets out whether calculation-verification-falsification can be done from they get-go.

agency [...] that existed BEFORE this thing we humans call the universe — Frank Apisa

If "the universe" includes time, then "agency" isn't a mind.

On the other hand, atemporal mind ("outside it all") is incoherent nonsense, so that's one out anyway. — jorndoe

Besides, "before time" is incoherent.

Okay — Frank Apisa

You didn't really address anything (just took a guess at what's in my head instead).

These supposed beings aren't shown and don't show, so we'd then need a sufficient characterization of what they're supposed to be instead, something that makes a difference — jorndoe

... say, a definition.

Thus, your definition is exactly what any calculation (and much else) depends on, it's all we have to go on in the first place.

Define so that no calculation is feasible, then so be it. Define so that a calculation is feasible, then calculation it is. Define so that this-and-that, then deal with the implications thereof.

Beings (or a being) that exist...whether we humans can perceive of that existence or not. An entity of agency…something that existed BEFORE this thing we humans call the universe came into being…and which caused or helped to cause it to “come into being.” — Frank Apisa

Vagueness aside, can you include something that admits calculation?
Better still, some implications that we can go out and check tomorrow (verifications-falsifications)?
Otherwise you've just set things up so that calculation-verification-falsification can't be done in the first place.

Not much to go on .
Maybe somewhat antropocentric/morphic, conducive to people imagining whatever, ...
On par with The Matrix, Bostrom's hypothesis, "real dreamworlds", nondescript (panen)deism, what-have-you, ...
On the other hand, atemporal mind ("outside it all") is incoherent nonsense, so that's one out anyway.
What does it take to be labeled a god/God anyway?
If both what is said, and the negation, are consistent with attainable evidence, then further knowledge thereof is unattainable, and, so, yeah, calculations are another timewaster.
Differentiation makes a difference.

, why would that be smuggling in religion?

The most common use of the term "God" (by far) is in reference to whatever religious scriptures.
Not sure how to calculate the probability of those old, sumptuous stories being literal history, but I'd say rather unlikely.
As (mere) characters in stories, a whole lot of fantastic, fictional beings exist, that come to life in the heads of people.

Diametrically opposite, if you will, surely there's plenty unknown to us, so that, in itself, is about certain.
Whatever that may be, perhaps it could include superbeings of sorts, which would then be a "who the heck knows"?

Since this is a philosophy forum, there are other special uses of the term "god" (or in plural), though they'd have to be related to the most common use in some way or other, yes?
These supposed beings aren't shown and don't show, so we'd then need a sufficient characterization of what they're supposed to be instead, something that makes a difference; otherwise we're asked to calculate the plausibility of the independent existence of whatever vague, nebulous entities that come to mind when invoking the words.
Or, are we just talking (ontologized) abstract objects (Platonia style)?

Ignosticism (Wikipedia)
Theological noncognitivism (Wikipedia)
Abstract Objects (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

Hmm ... what is motion but a spatial path in spacetime anyway?
It's just that no particular time is considered (a special privileged indexical) now, hence the block-verse model is incomplete.
But wasn't that the idea in the first place, that a t parameter can represent any now, any time, on equal footing? That any direction only is implicit in the ordering and nothing else?
It's not that block-verse does not model motion as such (mentioned path with all of time internal to the model), it just sacrifices the special for general (non-indexical) descriptive prowess.

(An odd but seldom noticed consequence of McTaggart's characterization of the A series and the B series is that, on that characterization, the A series is identical to the B series. For the items that make up the B series (namely, moments of time) are the same items that make up the A series, and the order of the items in the B series is the same as the order of the items in the A series; but there is nothing more to a series than some specific items in a particular order.) — Time (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

What might a complete model look like anyway?
I'm thinking that both duration and simultaneity would be part thereof, which seems to suggest dimensionality of some sort.
By the way, language, English at least, is heavily tensed, which can lead to some confuzzlement.

In case you haven't yet noticed, religion offers the most intelligent understanding of time. — Metaphysician Undercover

You dismiss eternalism because it requires religion to make sense of time passage. That says a lot about you. — Metaphysician Undercover

How odd. What does that have to do with anything...? :brow: (Requires, even?)

@StreetlightX, you wouldn't think this is 2020.

WTF? Is this confirmed?

That's fuckisgusting if true, pardon my French.


EDIT: Hadn't read this yet:

Philly mayor, police commissioner condemn armed vigilante group in Fishtown (Michael Tanenbaum; PhillyVoice; Jun 02, 2020)

The mayor seems to be catching on?

@MonisticIdealist, so you're more or less going by the tenets of Levine's explanatory gap / Chalmers' mind conundrum, and that I can't deny the mere existence of my experiences, I can't coherently deny mere self-existence.

Actually, I'd question more or less the entire opening post.

In an ontological sense, you'll have it that the Moon is not actually the Moon, but rather is Moon-experiences, a bit like a dream that exists only due to the dreamer.
All I can ever know is the experience, and so that's where the road ends, more or less literally.
The Moon = those Moon-experiences.
Solipsism. :confused: But OK, maybe that's the stance here.

So, idealism (mental monism) starts with conflating epistemics and ontology by universalizing self-dependence. (n)

Some points I've picked up from others:

• Novelty: We sometimes discover new things; things previously unknown, unthought, unexperienced, uninvented. I'm not omniscient, since otherwise I'd know that I were. Sometimes we hear new ideas from others.
• Error: We're sometimes wrong about things. What, then, made us wrong, but whatever is indeed the case?
• Agreement: We agree on numerous things; when to be at work in the morning; where the local grocery store is; how a pawn moves in chess; this is English; ... The fly and the chameleon are in agreement about the colors of the environment when the chameleon sneaks up on the fly and catches it. And, as a spectator, I can understand this little drama; I also agree with the fly and the chameleon about the colors.
• Constraints: We can't do just anything, whether trying to "will" it so or not, and "willing" alone is inadequate. Imposed extra-self limitations.

The simplest coherent explanation is some sort of non-idealism (or realism). (y)

They're incompatible. — Marchesk

I wouldn't say incompatible, at least not in the sense of contradictory.
It's just that neither seems to derive the other, hence why Levine called the conundrum an explanatory gap.

Seeing an object is not an object, rather it's an occurrence.
That's one possible category mistake.

I'm thinking the naïve direct indirect thing can be misleading.

Suppose we categorize perception like this ...

the experience ≠ the experienced (non-identity, self versus other)
the experience = the experienced (self-identity, dreams, hallucinations, etc)

So, we perceive whatever else by interaction, not by becoming the perceived, whereas dreams, hallucinations, etc, are parts of us when occurring.
When we experience, say, love, it's not an experience of something extra-self, whereas (non-imaginary) loved ones are, and can be interactees.
If I chat with my neighbor, then I'm not chatting with my experiences, rather I'm interacting with my neighbor, and my experiences are my end of it, are contingent thereupon.

Then, by this sort of thing ...

hallucination is mistaking ≠ for =
subjective idealism (solipsism) is mistaking = for ≠

_{Also ... Phantom pain, Synesthesia, Sleep paralysis, Introspection illusion, Refraction}