Thanks for hearing the argument out!

It is really an extension of an old idea, the prime mover. So I can't claim to have solved this old problem myself.

Also I've carefully restricted myself to a 'timeless first cause'. That is someway short of a proof of God I feel.

Hi Devans, my thought is that the arguments as you present them are far too brief to be convincing. Take just this one:

A. Argument From Nothing

Can’t get something from nothing so something must have existed ‘always’. IE if there was ever a state of nothingness, it would persist to today, so something has permanent existence. It’s not possible to exist permanently in time, so the ‘something’ must be a timeless first cause. — Devans99

The first premise is an ancient metaphysical principle, and one which is difficult to challenge. Some doubt it, but I don't. So I grant that something must always have existed - a first cause. But I don't see how you can get from here to the claim that the first cause has to be timeless. I am not sure what the justification is for supposing that it is impossible for something to exist permanently in time. Seems perfectly possible to me. You would need some argument for that claim.

PA

But I don't see how you can get from here to the claim that the first cause has to be timeless — PossibleAaran

I'd argue that it is impossible for something to exist 'always' in time; it would have no start so none of it would exist. So therefore the first cause has to be beyond time, beyond causation. That is the only way to avoid an endless infinite regress of time stretching back into the past.

I think alot of the concepts Devans99 is explaining would be better understood thinking about it from a geometric mathematical mindset. Perhaps if Devans could show us some pictoral examples he/she could further the discussion.

I'm not quite sure I have the tools to do a pictorial representation.

Obviously the first cause argument can be viewed as an inverted pyramid or inverted hierarchy of causes, the present day being the pyramid base, the first cause being the tip of the pyramid.

If things go back forever, they have no start. If they have no start, there is no middle or end so they don't exist. So things cannot 'always exist'. — Devans99

This is representative of the bad logic we first saw thousands of years ago with Zeno. It should not be taken seriously, except as some sort of challenge for a novice.

I wrote out in full here, points 1-6:

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/5302/an-argument-for-eternalism/p1

Oh look:

Both of these arguments have been repeatedly rejected in other threads. Do you have any new justifications for them? — Echarmion

The very first reply. Funny that. Other people are saying it, too.

No-one has come up with a valid counter argument to it so far.

No-one has come up with a valid counter argument to it so far. — Devans99

Well then take it from there. Demonstrate the objections to be "invalid". Shouldn't start from the beginning again, each time, over and over.

No-one has come up with a valid counter argument to it so far. — Devans99

Right. So why on earth do you keep re-posting the same argument? No one has come up with a counter argument you consider valid. Job done. You put an argument out there, you disagreed with all the counter arguments (one of which comes, by proxy, from almost the entire mathematical community), what more are you trying to do?

If the entire mathematical world disagreeing with you isn't enough to dissuade you from your position, then what possible use to you could dissenting opinion on an Internet forum be?

And if dissenting opinion is of no use to you, then why post at all. You clearly already agree with your own conclusion, it makes no difference to you if the entire world disagrees. What is there left to discuss?

Right. So why on earth do you keep re-posting the same argument? — Isaac

I have not posted an argument for a first cause / commentary on the 5 ways before. I'm not sure what you mean?

If the entire mathematical world disagreeing with you isn't enough to dissuade you from your position, then what possible use to you could dissenting opinion on an Internet forum be? — Isaac

I have barely mentioned maths/infinity in the OP - what do you mean?

And if dissenting opinion is of no use to you, then why post at all. You clearly already agree with your own conclusion, it makes no difference to you if the entire world disagrees. What is there left to discuss? — Isaac

I hope that by reviewing dissenting opinion that we can arrive at the truth of the proposition.

I have not posted an argument for a first cause / commentary on the 5 ways before. I'm not sure what you mean? — Devans99

I have barely mentioned maths/infinity in the OP - what do you mean? — Devans99

All of your arguments hinge on your idiosyncratic definition of infinite. It is obvious to any moderately intelligent reader and your denial is disingenuous.

I hope that by reviewing dissenting opinion that we can arrive at the truth of the proposition. — Devans99

How? You have been presented with the dissenting opinion. You say you disagree. This has all already been done. Now what?

All of your arguments hinge on your idiosyncratic definition of infinite. It is obvious to any moderately intelligent reader and your denial is disingenuous. — Isaac

What about Thomas's arguments; they are not resting on my definition of infinity?

And I think my arguments hinge only on a common sense understanding of infinity that is compatible with what is taught in schools. Point out where if you disagree.

How? You have been presented with the dissenting opinion. You say you disagree. This has all already been done. Now what? — Isaac

There have been no substantive, valid, counter arguments presented to my points in the OP. Point out where if you disagree.

There have been no substantive, valid, counter arguments presented to my points in the OP. — Devans99

For fuck's sake. You think there have been no substantive, valid, counter arguments presented.

Other people think their counter arguments are substantive and valid.

Now what?

For fuck's sake. You think there have been no substantive, valid, counter arguments presented.

Other people think their counter arguments are substantive and valid.

Now what? — Isaac

It's a proof by repeated assertion. He's not the only one who does this. We've also seen it with "thought/belief" and with "just a guess".

Look none of you folks seem to be able to provide either:

A) A valid counter argument
B) A link to a valid counter argument

Isaac
534

There have been no substantive, valid, counter arguments presented to my points in the OP. — Devans99


For fuck's sake. You think there have been no substantive, valid, counter arguments presented.

Other people think their counter arguments are substantive and valid. — Isaac

My guess is that Devans will offer some variation on:

Go back to a different spot on the circle...and see where it leads.

My guess is that Devans will offer some variation on:

Go back to a different spot on the circle...and see where it leads. — Frank Apisa

Yes. I wonder where that could lead to? Let's go full circle again to find out. And then once we've done that, let's do it again. And again. And again.

Or not.

Can’t get something from nothing so something must have existed ‘always’. IE if there was ever a state of nothingness, it would persist to today, so something has permanent existence. It’s not possible to exist permanently in time, so the ‘something’ must be a timeless first cause. — Devans99

What you refute as a ‘state of nothingness’ is more accurately a state of zero entropy - which is also the ‘start’ of time as we are aware of it - but not necessarily the start of spacetime (ie. the Big Bang). I think Carlo Rovelli better explains this in The Order of Time. I’m only applying it to these arguments, as I understand it.

“Entropy [which is the only indication of time in physics] is nothing other than the number of microscopic states that our blurred vision of the world fails to distinguish.”

“We are used to saying ‘this glass is empty’ in order to say that it is full of air” - and the same ignorance applies to the activities occurring in that apparently still and empty space. “The time of physics is, ultimately, the expression of our ignorance of the world.”

Outside of this sense of time is indeterminacy, potentiality - a timeless, formless existence that is frequently dismissed as ‘nothingness’, yet is the underlying ‘cause’ - the origination - of everything that can and does occur in time.

What you refute as a ‘state of nothingness’ is more accurately a state of zero entropy - which is also the ‘start’ of time as we are aware of it - but not necessarily the start of spacetime (ie. the Big Bang) — Possibility

It seems either:

1) Time causes entropy
2) Entropy causes time

I am of the first persuasion. Time appears to pass the same in low and high entropy environments so I deduce that entropy cannot be the cause of time.

Outside of this sense of time is indeterminacy, potentiality - a timeless, formless existence that is frequently dismissed as ‘nothingness’, yet is the underlying ‘cause’ - the origination - of everything that can and does occur in time. — Possibility

Yes. It remains somewhat of a mystery though. The first cause has to be timeless yet capable of effecting change. The only other option is full on future real eternalism (in which case change is just an illusion). Without that, it seemingly that leaves a circle to square. The timeless nature of the photon is the only precedent I can think of and I'm not sure they could be said to 'change' exactly.

It seems either:

1) Time causes entropy
2) Entropy causes time

I am of the first persuasion. Time appears to pass the same in low and high entropy environments so I deduce that entropy cannot be the cause of time. — Devans99

This is not how I see it. Time always flows from low to high entropy, and every other basic law of physics is reversible: acknowledging no difference between past and future. It is not so much the cause but the direction of time that is determined only by entropy - but can we say that “time appears to pass” without this direction? I guess you could say I’m of the second persuasion, then.

“All the phenomena that characterise the flowing of time are reduced to a ‘particular’ state in the world’s past, the ‘particularity’ of which may be attributed to the blurring of our perspective.” That is, “my perception of the passage of time depends on the fact that I cannot apprehend the world in all of its minute detail.” This comes from Boltzmann’s work on entropy.

Time always flows from low to high entropy — Possibility

But the rate at which entropy changes from low to high varies from place to place yet the speed of time stays constant?

Yes. The speed or duration of time is determined by curved spacetime, not entropy.

“the substratum that determines the duration of time is not an independent entity, different from the others that make up the world; it is an aspect of a dynamic field. It jumps, fluctuates, materialises only by interacting, and is not to be found beneath a minimum scale.”

We need to get away from thinking about ‘time’ as a single concept - it appears to be no longer helpful in relation to the current understanding of physics. The variables of time change in respect to each other, and these relations between time duration and the notions of past, present and future are themselves all relative to a moving observer.