Your argument is that if there's some F (some type of thing) with property φ, then all G, H, I etc.(all types of things) must have property φ? — Terrapin Station
You don't believe that there are other views, or wrong views? — Terrapin Station
I am sorry you lost me there. You are talking nonsense, do you realize that? If you make symbols, and want to communicate with those, you must denote their meaning, and the reltionship between them.
What you wrote is sheer gibberish to me. Sorry. — god must be atheist
He published his 'theory of the primeval atom' in an obscure journal in the 1930's and it was initially ignored. But as the idea became more widely circulated, it was resisted by many scientists, because it sounded uncomfortably close to 'creation ex nihilo' — Wayfarer
There is a school of thought that basically asks, 'if it can happen once....' that maybe THE Big Bang was really A Big Bang, and that the universe might indeed expand and contract through regular cycles over cosmic time periods. And that sounds very much like the idea of the 'eternal return' that was characteristic of ancient Hindu cosmology. — Wayfarer
Thesis: There belongs to the world, either as its part or as its cause, a being that is absolutely necessary.
Anti-thesis: An absolutely necessary being nowhere exists in the world, nor does it exist outside the world as its cause.
And what would that have to do with the fact that there is something that is moving or changing? — Terrapin Station
The movement is just an illusion if you treat time like a spacial dimension - with that way of thinking about it - there is no movement. — Devans99
The illusion exists, doesn't it? — Terrapin Station
- At time t0, I see a completely still image
- At time t1, I see a different completely still image
- It is a different version of the brain at t1 to t0, but it remembers the image at t0, processes the image at t1 and incorrectly (according to eternalism) interprets the difference as movement. — Devans99
I think that the claim is that the illusion of movement exists in our minds. When the image changes, the afterimage of the previous moments remains as an impression in our minds to which the current moment is contrasted, giving an illusion of movement. — Devans99
I'm not sure I follow. The illusion is what is perceived - so it must be identical to what is perceived? — Devans99
If by random, you mean something like quantum fluctuations, an argument against those being the cause of the universe is given here: — Devans99
So, then, there had to be a causeless eternal basis, as there can be no opposite to being — PoeticUniverse
What can be inferred about that which can't have any point of specification as to its nature? — PoeticUniverse
That's the way the logic seems to point to me - an infinite regress is not possible, infinite existence in time is not possible, but there must be something permanent/necessary else there would be nothing in the universe at all. — Devans99
There is a fair amount that can be said about what the uncaused cause is not: not infinite, not omnipotent, not omnipresent, not omniscient. — Devans99
it has to be able to move itself — Devans99
- It's timeless — Devans99
- The fine tuning argument points to some sort of intelligence — Devans99
- It should be benevolent — Devans99
- It has some substantial measure of power to be responsible for the universe — Devans99
Is it unitary? — Devans99
Thus, it transforms, as ever energetic, but 'transforms' is an 'in time' word; so, let me better say that its transformations are in it all at once, as 'everything', the state hinted at by its eternalness being unable to have a design point, forcing it to not be anything in particular (presuming it as 'everything'). — PoeticUniverse
I add that it doesn't have any information, for the information content of everything would be the same as that for the nonexistent 'Nothing', that is, zero — PoeticUniverse
I don't see why it would have an emotional system. — PoeticUniverse
It would have to be 'One', as all there is. Deathless (as well as ungenerated), all histories could get traversed again and again. "I'll be back!" says Arnold. — PoeticUniverse
things point to a timeless first cause but how exactly does that work? — Devans99
eternalism — Devans99
non-material — Devans99
Minds like ours occur in it, as a consequence of the everything going on. In traveling deeper into it, or, as we would more likely say, in our future, higher minds than ours would develop.mind — Devans99
The logic seems to point to the existence of one, timeless brute fact. How do you rule out more than one? — Devans99
I've always been for presentism, and like Lee Smolin's take, but I may have to change, due to the besieging relativity of simultaneity and what we've discussed. — PoeticUniverse
'Intangible'/"non-material" and the like I throw out, for how could they then talk the talk and walk the walk of the material? — PoeticUniverse
quantum entanglement — Devans99
hidden substrate — Devans99
Or we spatialize some great distance when there really isn't any. — PoeticUniverse
The 'IS' would be the one and only permanent thing, it necessarily being in a continuous transition, and thus never existing as anything particular, even for an instant, as befitting its necessary nature as eternal in that there is thence no point for it to have been designed, leaving it to be not anything in particular, as if it were everything, even. — PoeticUniverse
Its transitions are the 'happenings' and they are all temporary. It may be such that we can say that the 'IS', being permanent, cannot be co-substantial with the temporary happenings, but would be more like co-terminal with them. — PoeticUniverse
Something must stitch together all continuous transitions to account for the 'IS' as a unitary existent. The 'IS' must somehow remain the same even as it transitions. — PoeticUniverse
This condition of the 'IS' would roughly be analogous to a topological space that allows for an infinite number of forms as subject to the limitation that any form must be returnable to some original form. — PoeticUniverse
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.