In proposing a "first cause", you are acknowledging something can exist without a cause. It is a self-defeating argument which apparently you cannot acknowledge. — Frank Apisa


I am proposing a timeless, eternal, first cause because that is the only model that fits the facts. — Devans99

No...it is not.

We can't have time stretching back endlessly in an infinite regress; thats impossible. — Devans

No...it is not.

So how do you get out of the infinite regress? You could have 'time2' and have 'time2' create time. But then 'time2' is in an infinite regress. So at some point, you have to introduce something timeless (which means its beyond cause and effect so does not need causing) to escape from the infinite regress. — Devans

I would do the ethical thing,Devans. I would acknowledge that I have no idea about the true nature of the REALITY of existence...and would not be ashamed to acknowledge that.

I also would aver that the possibilities are probably endless...and may well be way beyond what any human can understand.

What I would NOT do...is to offer scenarios pretending to be ultimate answers to the question.

Thank you for asking.

We can't have time stretching back endlessly in an infinite regress; thats impossible. — Devans99

It sucks that you keep repeating that when we've shown the problems with it.

It makes your posts come across more like a telemarketer . .. or televangelist. Or someone like Trump.

↪coolguy8472
I think actually I have made an error with my proof that an infinite regress is impossible - sorry. Amended version below:

1. The number of events in an infinite regress is greater than any number.
2. Which is a contradiction; can’t be a number and greater than any number.
3. But can be a number greater than every other number
4. But there is no greatest number (If X is greatest, what about X+1)
5. So is not a number (from 3 and 4)
6. Contradicts [1] which says it is a number — Devans99

1. The number of events in an infinite regress is greater than any number
2. Which is a contradiction; can’t be a number and greater than any number.
2a. Therefore infinity is not a number

See? You're attempting to find a contradiction then picking and choosing what is false in the premise when you find the contradiction. In reality what you've done is assume an infinite number of events then try to impose a finite number of events to get it to contradict itself.

In your version:

1. Says that the number of events (in an infinite regress) is a number
2a. Says that infinity is not a number

So that means that the number of events must be a finite number... which means an infinite regress is not infinite.

Another way to look at it is that an infinite regress has no start. So therefore it has no 'next to' start element and so on until the end of the series... its all nothing.

I've put your argument into logical form for you.

P1 - You don't understand the concept of infinity.

... QED.

I've spent years thinking about infinity; what in your opinion do I not understand?

I've spent years thinking about infinity; what in your opinion do I not understand? — Devans99

I don't know. I don't understand infinity either. It's just a logical inference. You think that your calculations using infinity are correct. The greatest mathematical minds in the world have not reached the same conclusion as you. You probably haven't understood infinity properly.

I mean... If you have reached a truly world-shattering conclusion like this, then I strongly recommend you publish, and subject it to peer review, an Internet forum is not going to do it justice.

I don't know. I don't understand infinity either. It's just a logical inference. You think that your calculations using infinity are correct. The greatest mathematical minds in the world have not reached the same conclusion as you. You probably haven't understood infinity properly.

I mean... If you have reached a truly world-shattering conclusion like this, then I strongly recommend you publish, and subject it to peer review, an Internet forum is not going to do it justice. — Isaac

AMEN!

ANYONE who comes up with a definitive explanation of the true nature of the REALITY of existence...or to any facet of it...owes it to the world to submit their findings to an appropriate journal so that it can be subjected to review.

And "peer review" should not be interpreted to mean those of us who enjoy discussions in Internet fora...people often of limited learning in essentials to true "peer review."

have you considered interpreting infinity to mean an under-determined finite number?

For in practice, (as in the software engineering application of infinite loops), infinity is only used to denote the absence of an a priori stopping condition. But an a priori absence of a stopping condition is not the same thing as failing to stop in practice.

This paradox is related to Markov's Principle:

"if it is impossible that an algorithm does not terminate, then it does terminate."

Sounds undeniable right? But then what does "does not terminate" mean exactly? After all, the phrase "does not terminate" has only ever been uttered in the presence of an event that is interpreted and verified according to a linguistic convention - therefore, according to constructive semantics "does not terminate" must refer to something observable (for example, the C syntax while(true) {...} )

Conversely, an event which is literally absent, namely termination, cannot have caused the utterance "does not terminate". Therefore according to constructivism, "does not terminate" can only refer to the absence of an a priori predictable stopping condition, for example as in the piece of syntax as in the example above, which when actually executed is invariably terminated eventually.

So if "does not terminate" is interpreted to mean "termination is not predictable", then we can rephrase Markov's Principle to mean:

"If the non-predictability of an algorithm's termination isn't predictable, then the algorithm terminates"

Which is clearly a deniable assertion, since that the premise is purely epistemic in nature whereas the consequent is actual. Consequently, infinity should, at least according to constructivism, be interpreted as a purely epistemic notion in reference to finite numbers or iterations.

I have a paper under review with a journal at the moment.

It is the term 'Potential Infinity' that comes to mind when thinking of computers. I don't have a problem with potential infinity, its 'Actual Infinity' that is the problem.

↪Isaac
↪Frank Apisa
I have a paper under review with a journal at the moment. — Devans99

Good man.

Best of luck with it.

Hope it gets published...and you get some decent reviews.

Let us know.

Thanks very much!

It is the term 'Potential Infinity' that comes to mind when thinking of computers. I don't have a problem with potential infinity, its 'Actual Infinity' that is the problem. — Devans99

But is it even possible to define a difference between actual vs potential infinity? Supposing you were confronted by a skeptic who doubted the semantic distinction between these concepts. How can you force the skeptic to accept that there is a semantic distinction without appealing to circularity or falling into infinite regress?

I think of potential infinity as iterative processes carried out in time and then as actual infinity as the result of carrying on these iterative processes 'forever'.

Or potential infinity is like the limit concept from calculus and actual infinity is like an infinite set.

Potential infinity is unbounded, actual infinity is out of bounds.

Presentism (believe that only now exists) is the opposite view of eternalism (belief that past, present and future are real).

Presentism posits 'only now always existed' so all forms of it require an infinite regress, which is not only undesirable, its actually impossible — Devans99

If in presentism only now exists, is there really any regress to speak of?

How does 'only now exists' lead to 'only now always existed'?

I have a paper under review with a journal at the moment. — Devans99

Which journal?

I think of potential infinity as iterative processes carried out in time and then as actual infinity as the result of carrying on these iterative processes 'forever'.

Or potential infinity is like the limit concept from calculus and actual infinity is like an infinite set.

Potential infinity is unbounded, actual infinity is out of bounds. — Devans99

What does imagining "forever" consist of? For example, I imagine walking for some time along a row of trees that has no end in sight. Then I say to myself "this is forever", and then I abruptly stop imagining walking along the row of trees in order to get on with the rest of my life.

But i could have imagined exactly the same thing when imagining potential infinity. Perhaps the only difference, is that in this case I might include my stoppage of the imagined scene as being part of my meaning of "potential infinity".

This seems to imply that the distinction between potential vs actual infinity is arbitrary.

How does 'only now exists' lead to 'only now always existed'? — Shed

Presentism is incompatible with a start of time so that leads to the conclusion that 'only now always existed' follows from 'only now exists'.

Which journal? — Isaac

European Journal of Philosophy.

This seems to imply that the distinction between potential vs actual infinity is arbitrary — sime

If you look at the difference between past eternity and future eternity, the the first is a completed infinity whilst the 2nd is not. What I mean by completed is it absolutely must contain greater than any number of days, whilst the 2nd is just extendable indefinitely. So the first is actual infinity, the 2nd is potential infinity.

Presentism is incompatible with a start of time so that leads to the conclusion that 'only now always existed' follows from 'only now exists'. — Devans99

So presentism has no start of time. There is also no end, right? And no intermediary points?

Never mind, I think I've misunderstood. I've been asking my questions thinking a presentist would say only the present exists, but according to what I've just read on the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, he would actually say only present things exist. If the presentism you talk about is the former and not the latter, maybe I do understand.

↪coolguy8472
In your version:

1. Says that the number of events (in an infinite regress) is a number
2a. Says that infinity is not a number

So that means that the number of events must be a finite number... which means an infinite regress is not infinite.

Another way to look at it is that an infinite regress has no start. So therefore it has no 'next to' start element and so on until the end of the series... its all nothing. — Devans99

Using your same logic there's no such thing as "next to" elements to anything either. No matter how close next is to start, (start + next) / 2 is closer than that next is. Given infinite moments of time, is not traversing an infinite series a reality in either event?

Given infinite moments of time, is not traversing an infinite series a reality in either event? — coolguy8472

Yes, traversal does requires us to traverse an infinite series so we are prone to the paradoxes of Zeno.

This is the problem from my perspective: actual infinity is not a number, it's a flawed and illogical concept and should not be in use at all. But most people believe in infinity so I have to phrase my arguments in terms of infinity some how. I'd prefer to just 'say infinity is impossible implies time is finite' but people don't seem persuaded by direct arguments.

Saying that it is impossible to traverse to the 'next to' element as there is always another element between 'start' and 'next to' is equivalent to Zeno's Dichotomy paradox. But if Zeno's paradox holds, it is impossible for supertasks (tasks with an infinite number of steps) to be completed and therefore impossible for infinite time to have ever reached the present day.

So I'd argue that saying supertasks are impossible implies that time must be both finite and discrete.

We seem to be discussing two infinities now:

- The very small. From considering the points between 'start' and 'next to'. If time was discrete, this infinity would disappear (along with Zeno's paradoxes).
- The very large. The full, infinite extent of infinite time. If we fit a clock to the universe, we could conclude that it is impossible to 'tick' to infinity so this sort of infinity is not possible. Or we can observe infinity is not a number.

The only thing that EXISTS...is what exists. It is a tautology.

What existed yesterday may exist today...but it may not (at least not in the form it was in yesterday.)

There is some interesting stuff being discussed here...but mostly it seems to be an exercise in at least one person INSISTING that his blind guesses about the true nature of the REALITY of existence...HAS TO BE CORRECT.

That kind of insistence seems to me to be at the heart of so much discord on planet Earth. I wish we could get past it.

There is some interesting stuff being discussed here...but mostly it seems to be an exercise in at least one person INSISTING that his blind guesses about the true nature of the REALITY of existence...HAS TO BE CORRECT — Frank Apisa

I am not insisting that my arguments are correct; I think there is a reasonable probability that my arguments are correct and I'm arguing for them. I maybe wrong. Further debate may bring that out.

There is some interesting stuff being discussed here...but mostly it seems to be an exercise in at least one person INSISTING that his blind guesses about the true nature of the REALITY of existence...HAS TO BE CORRECT — Frank Apisa


I am not insisting that my arguments are correct; I think there is a reasonable probability that my arguments are correct and I'm arguing for them. I maybe wrong. Further debate may bring that out. — Devans99

If what you said it true (no way I can know if it is or not)...

...then your wording should be adjusted to indicate that you are speculating rather than pontificating.

Not trying to give you a tough time here...just pointing out something that is probably obvious to lots of people here besides me.

...then your wording should be adjusted to indicate that you are speculating rather than pontificating. — Frank Apisa

I'm sorry if it came over as pontificating; I am definitely not insisting my argument is correct; it goes against intuitiveness on the nature of time for one thing. I'm not sure if my argument is correct or not; all I can do is assign a probability that my argument is correct (having taken into account all the other related evidence).

...then your wording should be adjusted to indicate that you are speculating rather than pontificating. — Frank Apisa


I'm sorry if it came over as pontificating; I am definitely not insisting my argument is correct; it goes against intuitiveness on the nature of time for one thing. I'm not sure if my argument is correct or not; all I can do is assign a probability that my argument is correct (having taken into account all the other related evidence). — Devans99

Only you know for sure.

I SUSPECT most of what you are concluding as logical and intuitive is the result of confirmation bias.

I SUSPECT you want to end up at "a GOD exists"...and the only stuff that makes sense and is logical to you...is stuff that ends up there.

IMO I'm trying to be scientific about it. Also IMO, I don't think science takes a very 'scientific' approach to God:

We don’t know if there is a God or not. No-one can prove anything 100% either way.

So why do (the relevant, mainly cosmology theories) scientific theories always assume that there is no god? Surely if they don’t know, they would be better off assuming both cases (there is no God / there is a God) and developing theories to match both possibilities.

So I think my probabilistic approach that keeps an open mind on the question as to whether there is a God is appropriate.

↪Frank Apisa
IMO I'm trying to be scientific about it. Also IMO, I don't think science takes a very 'scientific' approach to God:

We don’t know if there is a God or not. No-one can prove anything 100% either way.

So why do (the relevant, mainly cosmology theories) scientific theories always assume that there is no god? Surely if they don’t know, they would be better off assuming both cases (there is no God / there is a God) and developing theories to match both possibilities.

So I think my probabilistic approach that keeps an open mind on the question as to whether there is a God is appropriate. — Devans99

Any approach that come from "there are no gods" is as absurd in unfounded as the approaches that come from "there is at least one god" or "there has to be a god."

Both schools should get off their nonsense.

Your "probabilistic approach" is all self-serving, gratuitous nonsense. You can see that in your opposites...but you are blind to it in yourself.

Any approach that come from "there are no gods" is as absurd in unfounded as the approaches that come from "there is at least one god" or "there has to be a god." — Frank Apisa

The point I'm making is that we know that the statement:

(there are no Gods) OR (there are God(s))

Is true. So scientific investigation should allow for both possibilities. There is a heavy inclination towards atheism in science that I feel is biasing the direction of investigation. Hardly anyone puts forward theories that are compatible with God... so there is a chance we are collectively heading up the wrong alley.