It happens 'after life' so it technically counts as an afterlife. — Devans99

But technically speaking it wouldn't be your death. You would just be unconscious until time circles, and then regain consciousness when time reaches your birth. Also if time is a full circle, how can we make sense of before and after?

Also if time is a full circle, how can we make sense of before and after? — Purple Pond

I'm not quite sure what you mean; where the spotlight falls on the torus is 'now' with before and after falling to each side of the spotlight.

Perhaps you mean that any event can be thought of (on the circle of time) as both simultaneously before and after the present time? This is true, but I'm not sure its a problem. You can have an arbitrary t=0 at the Big Bang / Big Crunch and then consider the past as just that between the present day and t=0 (working backwards) if you see what I mean. Then the future you similarly work forward from now to t=0.

I think it is a poor choice of words. How about, what are the chances for a conscious existence after physical death?

I think perhaps you can differentiate before from after because the cause always precedes the effect.

I think it is a poor choice of words. How about, what are the chances for a conscious existence after physical death? — Vince

In the OP I calculated 28% but that is probably on the generous side... I was hoping by the end of the discussion to arrive at a more accurate estimate.

I think perhaps you can differentiate before from after because the cause always precedes the effect. — Vince

Yes it fits nicely with cause and effect: the last effect (the Big Crunch) is the first cause (the Big Bang).

think it is a poor choice of words. How about, what are the chances for a conscious existence after physical death? — Vince

You still need continuity of the self in order to become unconscious and regain consciousness again. Where is the self when your body dies?

I think perhaps you can differentiate before from after because the cause always precedes the effect. — Vince

That poses a problem for circular time. Where does the cause begin in the whole circle?

That poses a problem for circular time. Where does the cause begin in the whole circle? — Purple Pond

Where does the moving spotlight begin? Maybe at t=0 the Big Bang. Then the circle of time fills out and then repeats itself (or maybe the whole thing is future real somehow). What causes the spotlight to first move? It would have to be the timeless first cause that initiates things. This is discussed further here:

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/5577/was-there-a-first-cause-reviewing-the-five-ways/p1

A circle has no beginning. There is no t=0 if time is circular. What you are describing is more like a spiral than a full circle.

A circle has an arbitrary choice of beginning/end points - choosing any point is valid as a beginning/end of a circle. It's conventional to put t=0 (the start/end) at the Big Bang for circular time (as that seems to be where things started in a sense).

I certainly don't mean to describe a spiral.

You are obviously using the world "spotlight" as a metaphor. Can you please tell me what you mean by the "spotlight"?

By spotlight I mean a cursor or current position indicator corresponding to 'now'.

So the idea is that all of time is real in a sense and has a circular shape but only the bit of time with the spotlight/cursor on it is actually 'now'. As the spotlight/cursor moves around the circle of time, the future becomes now becomes the past. So it is a metaphor for one possible way time could work.

You still need continuity of the self in order to become unconscious and regain consciousness again. Where is the self when your body dies? — Purple Pond

It looks likes it's not there anymore.

That poses a problem for circular time. Where does the cause begin in the whole circle? — Purple Pond

I used the term feedback loop earlier. What says that existence should have a beginning? All we see is causality so that's all we need I believe. The loop thing is just satisfying because it partly solves the infinity problem. It's finite but has no apparent boundaries.

If you arbitrary choose a point as the beginning of a circle, you can also arbitrarily choose another point as the beginning. I'm trying to understand how you can have more than one beginning.

- I could say the beginning is 0º. Then adding 360º to that I get to the end: 0º, which is also the beginning
Or equally:
- I could say the beginning is 90º. Then adding 360º to that I get to the end: 90º, which is also the beginning

The loop thing is just satisfying because it partly solves the infinity problem. It's finite but has no apparent boundaries. — Vince

Yes, infinite regresses in time are just unsatisfactory / impossible. Where is the first cause?

Circular time appears self-sustaining with the last effect (Big Crunch) being the first cause (Big Bang).

IMO though a separate first cause is still required to set time in motion initially. This first cause is itself timeless so beyond causality (does not need a cause).

Aside from drawing it, I don't think there's any beginning on a circle, and that's why circles are so cool by the way!

All you are doing is measuring the angle of a circle at arbitrary points and then tracing the angle around so it reaches the same points on the circumference. Whose to say that the point where the angle hits the circumference at those points you've chosen are really the beginnings? Why do you call it "the beginning"? I call it, "an arbitrary point on the circle".

With a line the start and end points are separated by the line length.

I'm doing the same with a circle: take a point as the start, add the circle length to it, and you get to the end, which is identical to the start.

I believe time exist inside the feedback loop, but the loop doesn't exist in time. If the loop is timeless, then nothing ever started it.

I don't think any of them have a "start", not the line segment, nor the circle. Shapes don't have starts, only directions have starts.

Yes thats possible, but you might have to account for the problem of now:

It seems we can tell the difference between then and now so there must be something special about 'now' so we can make that call. Thats what the moving spotlight theory does... gives us a cursor to represent now.

But as soon as you introduce the concept of now, it seems you need something to start time.

In classic block universe eternalism, there is no now... the passage of time is merely an illusion. I'm not sure the classic view is right. I'm not sure moving spotlight is right. I'm not even sure if eternalism is right. Time is so tricky.

For any shape you can choose an arbitrary start and end points. For example, a triangle, I can choose its tip as start and its base as end.

Why do you say a line segment has no start or end?

Why do you say a line segment has no start or end? — Devans99

Because it's impossible to know where it actually starts. You can say that it starts at the left side, or you can say at the right side. Of course you can choose an arbitrary point and call it "start", but so what? You can arbitrarily call a dog a "cat".

"In geometry, a line segment is a part of a line that is bounded by two distinct end points, and contains every point on the line between its endpoints"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Line_segment

I notice it doesn't mention anything about "starts".

But as soon as you introduce the concept of now, it seems you need something to start time. — Devans99

"Now" is only relevant to the observer, the one subjected to time. That's why time is tricky, you're made of it.

The 'two distinct end points' I would interpret as start and end.

I think we have to agree to disagree here.

I think it would be documented on the web somewhere if there was such an obvious hole in the prime mover argument... really you are clutching at straws. You are wrong on this one and just won't admit it is one possibility. The other is you are just too dumb to comprehend the dynamics of the situation. — Devans99

Sure, whatever you say. Good luck with your paper. You're going to need it.

Refutation

@Devans99, please bookmarks this as a reference for the next time you think about lying about the fact that I've provided a refutation.

The logic of a regress is actually really simple to understand.

{...-5, -4, -3, -2, -1, 0, 1, 2, 3}

If we take Devans99's pool table example, we could say that the black ball event is represented by "3", the white ball event by "2", and the pool cue event by "1".

Now, anyone with half a brain should be able to see and understand that the pool cue event was preceded by a prior cause, and that cause was preceded by a prior cause, and so on.

The principle of cause and effect is that an effect is preceded by a prior cause. Any alleged exception must be justified.

Now, once again, anyone with half a brain should be able to understand that if we kept tracing the chain of causes backwards, then, going by the above principle, we would, in theory, continue to trace it backwards ad infinitum.

We cannot reasonably conclude that we'd reach a first cause, because that hasn't been justified.

And we cannot reasonably conclude that the chain is a) undefined or b) doesn't exist, because a) every single event in the chain is defined by the cause prior to it, and b) his claim that it doesn't exist is based on the fallacious assumption that a first cause is necessary for the chain to exist. He hasn't justified this assumption, he just assumes it.

His response is to assume a first cause, and then assume that it has been removed from the chain, and then note that there would be no second, third, fourth, and so on. And this proves absolutely nothing of any logical relevance. It just tells us what we already know, namely that there's no reason to believe that there's a first cause, or any other cause defined by a first cause. There's just a chain of causes, with each cause defined by the prior cause, ad infinitum.

Of course, he will not accept this refutation, because it is clear to everyone besides Devans99, that he is fanatically attached to the argument. And this isn't surprising, because the world is full of fanatical theists. It is full of people who have a psychological need for there to be a God.

So I will allow a (generous) 1% chance — Devans99

So I will assign a 1% chance — Devans99

Seems far fetched to me. 1% chance — Devans99

Reality doesn't need to reflect your subjective judgments.