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
We can't have time stretching back endlessly in an infinite regress; thats impossible. — Devans
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
We can't have time stretching back endlessly in an infinite regress; thats impossible. — Devans99
↪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
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. — Isaac
↪Isaac
↪Frank Apisa
I have a paper under review with a journal at the moment. — Devans99
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
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
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
How does 'only now exists' lead to 'only now always existed'? — Shed
Which journal? — Isaac
This seems to imply that the distinction between potential vs actual infinity is arbitrary — sime
↪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
Given infinite moments of time, is not traversing an infinite series a reality in either event? — coolguy8472
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
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
...then your wording should be adjusted to indicate that you are speculating rather than pontificating. — Frank Apisa
...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
↪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." — Frank Apisa
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.