This is pure speculation. There is no evidence for it. This is true of many things you've asserted. I don't see how these can possibly be justified beliefs. — Relativist
The gods breath the fire, the charge, into them. — Hillary
Life is a consequence of what they are. Different values would have led to different consequences.The constants are what they are, and there are consequences. This doesn't mean they're "right". — Relativist
No. But for life they are right. — Hillary
OK, but it still reflects a platonist perspective. Law realism seems much more reasonable.Yes. Hawking said that. The gods breath the fire, the charge, into them. — Hillary
Simply that it's not rational, because it's unjustifiable.Of course it's speculation. So what? — Hillary
Some sort of epistemic justification, including (but not limited to): deduction, induction, abduction, inference to the best explanation...What you mean by justified? Evidence? — Hillary
Some sort of epistemic justification, including (but not limited to): deduction, induction, abduction, inference to the best explanation... — Relativist
Well, the universe needs a reason and a kind of sacredness. A non-scientific reason, since I have a scientific description from beginning to end. I don't see how one can go deeper. — Hillary
I'll assume that by "universe", you're referring to the stars/galaxies/dark matter etc that were produced by the big bang that cosmologists study. It's true that we don't have a scientific description of what existed prior to the inflationary period - but why would you assume this implies it's probably not natural? Why assume we can't go deeper, when you consider the gaps in scientific understanding (quantum mechanics and general relativity aren't reconciled - but theoretical physicists generally believe they will one day be reconciled). You say "we can know", but do you allow for theoretical physics to advance and answer at least some of the questions? It sounds too much like argument from ignorance.Well, the universe needs a reason and a kind of sacredness. A non-scientific reason, since I have a scientific description from beginning to end. I don't see how one can go deeper. Of course you can say that's because we don't know but I think we can know. So the three combined give reason, sacredness, and an vision of how gods and heaven look like (like life and the universe) And a reason why they created the basics in the first place. And the sacredness tells that we should treat all life as sacred. — Hillary
I'll assume that by "universe", you're referring to the stars/galaxies/dark matter etc that were produced by the big bang that cosmologists study. It's true that we don't have a scientific description of what existed prior to the inflationary period - — Relativist
but why would you assume this implies it's probably not natural? Why assume we can't go deeper, when you consider the gaps in scientific understanding (quantum mechanics and general relativity aren't reconciled - but theoretical physicists generally believe they will one day be reconciled). You say "we can know", but do you allow for theoretical physics to advance and answer at least some of the questions? It sounds too much like argument from ignorance. — Relativist
But there are quite a few speculative hypotheses like this. How do you justify settling on a particular one?But I have a description. And for what happened long before the big bang too. And after ours. — Hillary
What makes you so sure the past is infinite? How do you reconcile an infinite past with time starting over?The whole history of periodic big bangs is natural. And because I can't know more than an infinite past (in which time starts from zero over and over) so what else to conclude that the gods started it infinitely long ago? — Hillary
What does it mean to be "infinitely long ago"? Infinite past seems to entail no beginning.what else to conclude that the gods started it infinitely long ago? What ignorance you refer too? — Hillary
I'm asking what you mean by the term (which you used), not what IS sacred.What's sacred? Good question! — Hillary
But there are quite a few speculative hypotheses like this. How do you justify settling on a particular one? — Relativist
What makes you so sure the past is infinite? How do you reconcile an infinite past with time starting over? — Relativist
What does it mean to be "infinitely long ago"? Infinite past seems to entail no beginning. — Relativist
I referred to an argument from ignorance: i.e. we don't know what happened, so you insist "therefore it must be X". The problem is there there are many existing speculative hypotheses available today, and there's many more could be developed. How did you choose the one you embrace? — Relativist
I'm asking what you mean by the term (which you used), not what IS sacred. — Relativist
You're treating "infinite" as a number, and transfinite math doesn't solve the problem. Time proceeds in countable increments, and you can't count from aleph-0 to today.If the first big bang started infinite big bangs ago, then the serie is created infinite time ago. — Hillary
You're treating "infinite" as a number, and transfinite math doesn't solve the problem. Time proceeds in countable increments, and you can't count from aleph-0 to today. — Relativist
Time proceeds in countable increments, and you can't count from aleph-0 to today. — Relativist
There is a successor function that "counts" from one transfinite to the next, but you can't count integers (corresponding to a day, for example) and eventually reach aleph-0. — Relativist
Yes, the set of integers is a countable set (unlike the real numbers). But the problem I'm referring to is that a temporal counting process would never end - it cannot reach infinity.Aleph0 is countable. — Hillary
Yes, the set of integers is a countable set (unlike the real numbers). But the problem I'm referring to is that a temporal counting process would never end - it cannot reach infinity. — Relativist
So you can't count infinity to yesterday. — Relativist
The continuum can't be broken up in the first place — Hillary
Irrelevant. We can examine the passage of time in countable, discrete intervals.Points of time don't exist. Nor points of space. — Hillary
We can examine the passage of time in countable, discrete intervals. — Relativist
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.