This is more a subject for Zen meditation. There one learns, or experiences one's "I" as a fabrication. Instead of "I am aware" there is only awareness. — jgill
You are getting very confused:
1. The OP proves (assuming causality) that a timeless first cause is required. The OP has nothing to do with fine tuning and is IN NO WAY CIRCULAR.
2. I made the completely separate argument that the fine tuning argument implies it is very likely that there is intelligence behind the universe. This also is IN NO WAY CIRCULAR. — Devans99
Everyone deserves his inheritance because that is the will of the bestower. — NOS4A2
Well I guess that depends on how you would define simplicity. Some would probably say a less complex mathematical model is more simple, while others might say less empirically unverifiable stuff is more simple. This doesn't seem like a question there is definite answer to. — ChatteringMonkey
Yes of course. But the same is in principle true of basically everything. The objects that we infer to exist from our experiences are all models, and if we should come up with better models according to which we don’t need to posit the existence of such objects, we’re free to revise our beliefs and do away with supposing that they exist. — Pfhorrest
And they do deserve the wealth because it is often at great sacrifice such a feat is accomplished. — NOS4A2
Yes, please provide a ToE or otherwise your theory of causation!! — 3017amen
No. You are talking that you are working for someone else and don't admit that you get a salary, income, be it large or small, for that. — ssu
No. I say that the Native Americans saw it as their property too. I'm saying that property has existed, so when you argue that it has been stolen, where do you put the line where it wasn't stolen? I'm not sure why you don't get this. — ssu
Is it possible to think of a model that would rely on an immaterial field that cannot be removed for the model to hold? Per definition the immaterial field doesn't effect anything material, so how could it then be necessary for the model if it doesn't effect anything? — ChatteringMonkey
Things like other possible worlds fall into this category too. If the best explanation for the actual world involves there being infinitely many possible worlds of which the actual one is the only one we have experiential access to, then okay, it looks like there’s infinitely many possible worlds, even if we can’t experience them, because the negation of that fits worse with experience. — Pfhorrest
The first cause must be able to cause something whilst not being effected in anyway. So it must be self driven - capable of independent action - intelligent.
Then as a separate argument, fine tuning also implies an intelligent first cause.
There is really absolutely nothing circular about my argument. — Devans99
My argument in the OP is based purely on causality and is not at all circular. — Devans99
Maybe the more obvious question would be, why are there laws of physics/patterns in the universe v. the unrestricted chaos of a lawless universe? — 3017amen
If time is like a ruler, as per Eternalism, then there is no motion. — Luke
Are you saying God caused something- just not everything? — 3017amen
I do not believe in God — Kenosha Kid
What is your existential definition of Causation? — 3017amen
My argument does not presume the existence of God; it deduces the existence of a timeless first cause from the assumption of causality - nothing circular about it at all. — Devans99
Multiple universe theories fail to justify the 'strong anthropic principle'. Do you suppose all such universe are made of radically different stuff to our universe or the very similar stuff? If its similar stuff, then all universes in the multiverse are fined tuned for life and all where created by God for that purpose. — Devans99
Also, consider that with a multiverse, many of the parameters that must be fined tuned for life are actually multiverse level parameters rather than parameters applicable to single universes. So the actual multiverse (if such a thing exists) must be fine tuned for life. — Devans99
Yet you aren't a slave. You do get an income, I assume. — ssu
Someone has. Stealing MEANS that there is property. — ssu
The right to own property and that it cannot arbitrarily taken away from you is one of the basic institutions necessary for a functioning society. — ssu
If this institution isn't upheld, like if I just can bribe a judge and come with a paper that the land that you have lived all your life is actually mine, there are huge problems in the society — ssu
If time is continuous, what else could change in temporal position of the object mean except that the object moves from one time to the next , i.e., temporal passage? — Luke
Very, very rarely, the computer program will generate a universe like ours that supports complex matter (elections and quarks make atoms - all 100+ elements from just two types of particle. And from that we have the amazing complexity of the almost infinite types of different molecules that are needed for life. The odds of such a universe occurring purely randomly are billions to one. — Devans99
It seems that God exists outside spacetime and choose the parameters of spacetime and then created spacetime. So the argument is not circular. — Devans99
I think people understand that you need more to be in the situation that people are willing to pay for your services. — ssu
I assume you labour for yourself to eat. — ssu
Hence, when you argue that capitalism is based on theft (meaning stealing), it should not be any wonder to you how I or Judaka interpret your thoughts the way we do (and now naturally speaking just on my behalf). There is someone you stole from if you steal something. And I've asked you again and again, who or what is the thief here and who is the one whose property has been stolen? — ssu
Or is then inheritance theft? Should the wealth you poses be given to the state or what? — ssu
Or, was ownership a way for two tribes to live peacefully side by side with mutually agreeing on that this watering hole is yours and that watering hole is ours? — ssu
Either the object moves from t to t' and there is temporal passage (not B-theory).
Or the object does not move from t to t' and there is no motion. — Luke
And you've agreed that the object has moved from t to t'. — Luke
There are about 20 parameters of the standard model and Big Bang that are fine-tuned for life. — Devans99
Yes, representing a change in temporal position of the object. That is, the object has changed its temporal position. — Luke
Do I think taxation is theft? No, I don't. — ssu
No, as long the poorest don't get in absolute terms poorer. — ssu
You think only 0,5% of entrepreneurs are successful? — ssu
I think you didn't get my point but anyway. You were the one saying you are a peasant, so... — ssu
So you bring up this "someone who suddenly claimed that land was his". Who are you talking about? I think that it will go further than just our historical time as animals can be territorial also. — ssu
How is capitalism responsible for colonialism or land ownership? — Judaka
I've only ever been talking about the motion of 3D objects in the 4th dimension; that is, 3D parts of the 4D object. — Luke
Here's your argument: " God did not cause everything and I don't believe in God therefore I don't believe in causation". Is that logic correct? — 3017amen
But if all the circumstances are deterministic, including our values, then why claim that we have free will at all? — Samuel Lacrampe
Or better to have that state plumber to fix your pipes at your home, who comes 5 months from now? — ssu
Yes, you do need things like a free market, the ability to choose a profession and be an entrepreneur in the field you want. — ssu
Original theft or original sin? It's correct actually to put it in religious terms as the issue is quite religious in my view. The viewpoint comes more from a religious aspects than from practical measures of making the World better. — ssu
What is so utterly wrong in the fact that the seller of a service and the buyer of a service can reach an agreement what the price of the service is? — ssu
However, if an object does not actually change its temporal position, then it cannot actually change its spatial position either. And if an object does not actually change its spatial position, then it doesn't actually move. According to the above definition of motion, that is. — Luke
No; you clearly seem to be saying you don't believe in causation and therefore causation doesn't exist. — 3017amen
The coincidence of so many features - parameters that are fine tuned for life in the universe - that all effect a single purpose - the support of life - is noteworthy — Devans99
Well, either "dt" represents a length/duration for comparison purposes only (is "not something an object does"), or else it represents a change in temporal position. You can't have it both ways. — Luke
The past can't be infinite - do you believe the past is longer than a finite number of days long? — Devans99
Pulsars and supernovas are side effects of gravity — Devans99
But surely you would wish to maximise the informational content (=interest) of the universe? Else it would be sort of dull? — Devans99
I see. So you concede that, in terms of classical kinematics at least, objects do not move? — Luke
The inflation field must have a start. — Devans99
Supernovas and pulsars are a result of gravity which is a absolute requirement form life. — Devans99
How would you (imagine yourself as God) go about creating life? Design or brute force? — Devans99
So God had no choice but to evolve rather than design us. So we are not perfect beings... we are the product of evolution ... which was God's doing. — Devans99
The astronomers can't even agree on the speed of the expansion of the universe, and the speed has changed in the past - so it could change - contract - in future. — Devans99
What is your view (biocentric/ecocentric)? Cosmologically, do you have a theory about what was happening before the Big Bang ( a timeless first-cause)? — 3017amen
If so, what is your theory about how self-awareness evolved from a piece of wood? — 3017amen
Meaning, I believe you have the burden of precluding conscious existence from the human condition/equation, no? — 3017amen
You could be the most annoying type of person to communists, social democrats and trade unions: namely an entrepreneur, a plumber or carpenter working for yourself. — ssu
The first cause must be able to cause something, so it is self-driven, which suggests intelligence. — Devans99
Everything in the universe seems fine tuned for life. Just think about the atom - its an incredibly delicate balancing act - in most universes, matter would simply bounce of itself endlessly or clump together - our universe, we have the balancing act of atoms, and molecules - the absolutely necessary ingredients for life. — Devans99
Nothing can go on forever, it would be without end. Then the length of the future would be end-start=UNDEFINED. Spacetime must have an end or it cannot logically exist. Probably a Big Crunch will happen. — Devans99
If you say YOU are a peasant, then really, do you or your family own the land?
As subsistence farming has long gone except in Third World countries, fewer and fewer people actually farm. Or are genuinely saying that you now farm rented fields without any fields of your own? Renting land a profession for few farmers and mainly large company-like farms. The 2 million farms in the US employ only 2,6 million people. Agricultural production is really transforming to an industry just like others. — ssu
The first cause must be able to cause something, so it must be capable of independent action, meaning it is self driven, therefore very likely intelligent. — Devans99
Plus the obviously signs of fine tuning for life in the universe point to intelligence, plus the enormous, suspicious looking explosion of the Big Bang seems like it would require intelligence to orchestrate. — Devans99
If you say something will expand without end, you are describing the topology of future as some object without end - that is impossible - all objects require a non-zero length to exist and length=end-size so the length for something without end is UNDEFINED - IE not something that could actually exist. — Devans99
I think we are splitting hairs here: the first cause must be capable of independent, intelligent, action and be capable of starting time. — Devans99
And where did it start? If its expanding, it has a start. It cannot have been strictly permanent if it's expanding - there are places it has not been to yet. You really are talking nonsense with that last paragraph! — Devans99
One problem is the speed of light - parts of the universe are moving apart at faster than the speed of light - so this regions are causally disconnected from each other. — Devans99
Burglary is experienced as a violation almost like an assault - almost like rape. Entering my home without my permission is like entering me — unenlightened