That's your, biased, version of events. My recollection is that no-one had any valid counter arguments. — Devans99

It's got nothing to do bias. People definitely told you where your error was, and you definitely did not believe them. You can't claim that didn't happen, read the thread. The validity of counter-arguments has only three possible sources (that I can think of) - expertise, ubiquity, or your own beliefs. Without doubt the people who engaged with you last time had more expertise than you, and more claim to ubiquity, so claiming their counterarguments were invalid means that you've no interest in the first two measures of validity. But it's only those first two which are produced in discussion. So if you know in advance that you're not interested in either it's impolite of you to start.

Literally nothing anyone is going to say to you here will make any difference. If it contradicts what you think is valid (which you've already made quite clear), you'll simply ignore it. So, again, what's the point in posting?

Issac, I am a very simple sort of fellow:

- If people show I'm wrong, I admit it and change my position
- If no-one shows I'm wrong, I continue to press my argument

Give me a link to where I was proved wrong about the math and I'll demonstrate to you that I was not.

If people show I'm wrong, I admit it and change my position
- If no-one shows I'm wrong, I continue to press my argument

Give me a link to where I was proved wrong about the math and I'll demonstrate to you that I was not. — Devans99

What method are you using to assess whether someone has successfully shown you you're wrong?

What method are you using to assess whether someone has successfully shown you you're wrong? — Isaac

- I use deduction and induction (abduction not so much)
- I argue for things I think are greater than 50% likely to be true.
- I argue against things I think are less than 50% likely to be true.
- I carefully consider everyone's counter arguments and adjust my probability estimates accordingly.

I use deduction and induction — Devans99

One can deduce anything from any premises. I'm asking you how, in cases where others have deduced something different, you determine which is correct - your deduction or theirs?

- I argue for things I think are greater than 50% likely to be true.
- I argue against things I think are less than 50% likely to be true. — Devans99

Arguing is the statement of your case and counter-case, it's not, in itself, a method of determining right cases from wrong.

I carefully consider everyone's counter arguments and adjust my probability estimates accordingly. — Devans99

Again, I can carefully consider the argument "my hands are made of jelly". Merely carefully considering something is not a means of determining right arguments from wrong ones.

@Devans99

Another way of looking at the issue. How did you learn maths? You must, at some point, have faced the necessity to be told something is the case which didn't, at that time, seem to you to be the case. Why did you decide to follow along with what your teacher was telling you, until such time as you understood it?

One can deduce anything from any premises. I'm asking you how, in cases where others have deduced something different, you determine which is correct - your deduction or theirs? — Isaac

Sometimes there are logical errors in the actual deduction, but mostly it is bad axioms that undermine arguments. Some people believe in some f**king crazy shit:

- Infinity
- Something from nothing
- Continua

I do not fall for that sort of thing - its just f**king magic! - completely impossible. So my axioms are different from some people, and hence I deduce different results.

Arguing is the statement of your case and counter-case, it's not, in itself, a method of determining right cases from wrong. — Isaac

We have to accurately express our faith in our axioms. I assess my faith in the axiom of causality is almost certain (97.3% maybe). From that I deduce a timeless first cause with the same level of certainty (97.3%).

Another way of looking at the issue. How did you learn maths? You must, at some point, have faced the necessity to be told something is the case which didn't, at that time, seem to you to be the case. Why did you decide to follow along with what your teacher was telling you, until such time as you understood it? — Isaac

I have a degree in maths. I swallowed infinity hook, line and sinker just like everyone else. Its only after years of thinking about it that I realised I made a mistake.

In general, if I don't understand, I ask or find out some other way. So I don't 'follow along with things' I don't understand - I understand them, although I admit that QM is presenting a major challenge!

Sometimes there are logical errors in the actual deduction — Devans99

How do you determine a logical error, in cases where your interlocutor claims there is no error? How do you determine who is correct?

mostly it is bad axioms that undermine arguments — Devans99

How do you determine that an axiom is bad?

We have to accurately express our faith in our axioms. — Devans99

No. We don't. We may well have a degree to which we believe in an axiom, it does not follow that we have to express it, what would be the purpose?

I have a degree in maths. — Devans99

I wasn't asking about your qualification, I was asking about the means by which you acquired it. We're you born knowing all maths, or were you taught some of it? If the latter, then on what grounds did you believe your teachers prior to you yourself understanding the concept?

In general, if I don't understand, I ask — Devans99

Ask whom, and on what grounds do you believe what they have to say?

... or find out some other way. — Devans99

What is this other way?

I started at 50%/50% before taking any of the evidence into account. — Devans99

And that was the first mistake. If you're going for Bayesian estimates, you can't just say X and !X are 50/50. At the start of a game of Clue(do), the probability of the culprit being Col. Mustard or not Col. Mustard is not 50/50.

God is timeless and finite. — Devans99

If he's timeless, he's eternal. The inflaton field is also timeless btw insofar as its value doesn't change with time.

3017amen's God is an abstraction. A fairly radical departure from most religions that comes to mind. That's assuming the assertions here. — jorndoe

Sure jorndoe, thanks for that observation. Being a Christian Existentialist myself, it serves to support my views concerning the concept of God being Dipolar (similar to the God physicist Paul Davies/The Mind of God posits) in that, God is both timeless and within time (temporal/a-temporal) all at the same time.

The important or consistent part to that is : 1. it defies logic/LEM which is fine. 2. yet it is still within the realm of logic (logical possibility) because of abstract mathematical truth's existing (which describe the laws of nature/existence) being logically possible/eternal/unchanging truth.

And so, as with human conscious existence (intelligence), where you have both consciousness and subconsciousness defying logic (LEM), why couldn't an 'intelligent cause' be that which is both abstract and beyond logic to us?

The mere concept of God then, is both logical and illogical as it should be(?). If there was a way to create time and existence (something from nothing/or just simply a universe itself), then this entire causation discussion would not exist, literally and figurately. That's my Existential take; absurd, yet not so absurd, when analogized to our existence.

Of course, that begs other questions like what is the nature of God's intelligence and does God even have consciousness for which we cannot even explain in ourselves, along with other questions like what was God doing before he created Time (BB), and was timelessness and eternity created or caused having a starting point...ad nauseum.

For shits and giggles, here's an excerpt from Eternity in Christian Thought that attempts explanation of a Dipolar God:


Timeless Without and Temporal With Creation

William Lane Craig’s view is that God is timeless without creation, and temporal with creation (Craig 2000). God exists timelessly “without” creation rather than before creation, because there isn’t literally a before. And so it can’t literally be the case that God becomes temporal, since becoming anything involves being first one thing and then the other. Nonetheless, God is “timeless without creation and temporal subsequent to creation ”, God “enters time at the moment of creation” (Craig 2000: 33). God exists changelessly and timelessly, but by creating, God undergoes an extrinsic change “which draws Him into time” (Craig 2000: 29).

The problem is that even extrinsic change still presupposes a before and after (Leftow 2005: 66). Craig is aware of the difficulty:


[O]n such a view, there seem to be two phases of God’s life, a timeless phase and a temporal phase, and the timeless phase seems to have existed earlier than the temporal phase. But this is logically incoherent, since to stand in a relation of earlier than is by all accounts to be temporal. (Craig 2000: 32)

His solution is

that “prior” to creation there literally are no intervals of time […] no earlier and later, no enduring through successive intervals and, hence, no waiting, no temporal becoming. This state would pass away, not successively, but as a whole, at the moment of creation, when time begins.


https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/eternity/#TimeWithTempCrea

NICE! I just saw that while I was posting. Let me do a look-see.... and would love to offer my take on it...

Already mentioned a couple options, :
Ditch your hidden premise thus heading towards determinism; entertain abstract objects (which does not deny atemporality by the way).

Banno mentioned the edge-free universe. Others have been pointed out, including in your old threads.

Isn't this stuff old territory? Already covered in your old threads, @Devans99? (If so, it hasn't become better with age.)

You haven't responded much.

(Besides, both "deliberate" and "act" are loaded, indicating where you started rather than where you ended.)
You somehow wish to show an "atemporal deliberate act" of a unique, thinking, living superbeing deity...? :D
Here atemporal is inert and lifeless at best.

with strangely "atemporal causes", I'd sort of expect an infinite universe

So demonstrate this atemporal change, it's your argument (and presumably you don't want to add more appeal to ignorance or special pleading).

How do you determine a logical error, in cases where your interlocutor claims there is no error? How do you determine who is correct? — Isaac

It's merely a mechanical process. I can't remember all the details, modus ponens and so on.

How do you determine that an axiom is bad? — Isaac

Axioms most usually represent our inductive level of belief in a certain statement of fact. If the axiom has a high probability of being true, I adopt it. If not, I reject it.

No. We don't. We may well have a degree to which we believe in an axiom, it does not follow that we have to express it, what would be the purpose? — Isaac

How can you possibly quantify your level of belief in an axiom if it is not with a percentage?

I wasn't asking about your qualification, I was asking about the means by which you acquired it. We're you born knowing all maths, or were you taught some of it? If the latter, then on what grounds did you believe your teachers prior to you yourself understanding the concept? — Isaac

I stuff I did not understand, I assigned a 50%/50% probability to - unknown. Since then, I have had a chance to revisit the areas of maths that are relevant to my interests and I believe I have a proficient grasp of these areas.

Ask whom, and on what grounds do you believe what they have to say? — Isaac

Belief cannot stem from what others say, only from strong conviction in a small set of axioms, and the act of deducing the required results, can we actually say we believe something. Other people make mistakes or may even try to deliberately mislead you (eg organised religion) - you have to think it through for yourself to have knowledge.

What is this other way? — Isaac

Internet is wonderful.

If part of your own conscious existence (intelligence) is both physical and metaphysical, and the idea of intelligence is both physical and metaphysical, then could it be reasonably inferred that intelligence is behind the cause of the universe including your own conscious existence?

In other words, explain how consciousness emerges from complete chaos? — 3017amen

Intelligence is part of the universe (there are intelligent beings in the universe--sometimes, anyway). We may not fully understand it, but it's here, like we are. How can we reasonably infer from the fact that intelligence is in the universe that it is also "someplace" outside of the universe?

And that was the first mistake. If you're going for Bayesian estimates, you can't just say X and !X are 50/50. At the start of a game of Clue(do), the probability of the culprit being Col. Mustard or not Col. Mustard is not 50/50. — Kenosha Kid

I am using a methodology of my own inventing with that calculation. Take a look - its perfectly reasonable. The approach is to first assume 50%/50% for an unknown, boolean question. Then that percentage is adjusted by weighing in individual pieces of evidence. So with that type of approach, it is actually correct to start with the assumption of 50%/50%.

If he's timeless, he's eternal. The inflaton field is also timeless btw insofar as its value doesn't change with time. — Kenosha Kid

The word 'eternity' has two meanings: infinite in time or external to all forms of time. The first is impossible, with the second, something can be external to time but finite. The simplest model (although it does not work) is to assume that 4d spacetime is mapped onto 4d space and there is some 4d object - the first cause - adjacent to the position of spacetime within the larger 4d space. There is nothing to stop this 4d object from being finite - indeed it must be.

The important or consistent part to that is : 1. it defies logic/LEM which is fine. 2. yet it is still within the realm of logic (logical possibility) because of abstract mathematical truth's existing (which describe the laws of nature/existence) being logically possible. — 3017amen

I have an attachment to the LEM! I am not convinced we can build logical states of existence without it.

Nonetheless, God is “timeless without creation and temporal subsequent to creation ” — 3017amen

The problem with this argument is the 2nd law of thermodynamics. Anything in time withers and dies. God would not enter time in my opinion. He would stay external. Spacetime maybe implemented as growing block theory, meaning we (humans) would have an eternal presence. But can we re-experience anything? I have a few ideas around this.

How can we reasonably infer from the fact that intelligence is in the universe that it is also "someplace" outside of he universe? — Ciceronianus the White

Great question. Because when we naturally use our sense of wonder (the Kantian 'all events must have a cause') axiom, then we naturally default to regressive reasons that invoke Anthropology, and the other way around. Causation leads us to inferences about ourselves, our self-awareness, our existence, our consciousness, and other Anthropic theories of existence, etc..

Otherwise, we are left with consciousness emerging from complete chaos. Or, in the alternative, nothingness, meaninglessness, nihilism, etc..

We are trapped in our metaphysical sense of wonderment.

You still have not answered the puzzle question!

Ditch your hidden premise thus heading towards determinism; entertain abstract objects (which does not deny atemporality by the way). — jorndoe

Whats wrong with determinism? We know of no other way to get things done except causality. Randomness is just not possible - we can't do it with computers or maths - so it very likely does not exist - its determinism all the way.

Banno mentioned the edge-free universe — jorndoe

Finite yet unbounded. Is that some sort of joke?

's merely a mechanical process. I can't remember all the details, modus ponens and so on. — Devans99

It's not the name of the process I'm interested in here. It's the fact that others will consider themselves to have gone through the same, or an equally valid, process. I'm interested in what's behind your reasoning in asking other people for their comments, knowing all along that you possess all you need to determine that you have the right answer.

If the axiom has a high probability of being true, I adopt it. If not, I reject it. — Devans99

But how can you possibly assess the probability of an axiom being true? To do that you must assess the soundness of the factors leading to it, in which case it's a conclusion, not an axiom.

How can you possibly quantify your level of belief in an axiom if it is not with a percentage? — Devans99

I wasn't criticising the means of measurement, I was asking about your motive for telling everyone what measurements you give it. As I said above, I you want critique or analysis of your method for deriving that probability, then it's not an axiom, it's a conclusion.

stuff I did not understand, I assigned a 50%/50% probability to - unknown. — Devans99

No you didn't. You did not proceed through your mathematics education acting as if it were equally likely that your teachers were wrong as it was that they were right. That's just a silly thing to claim.

I believe I have a proficient grasp of these areas. — Devans99

What gives you cause to believe that?

Belief cannot stem from what others say, only from strong conviction in a small set of axioms, and the act of deducing the required results, can we actually say we believe something. Other people make mistakes or may even try to deliberately mislead you (eg organised religion) - you have to think it through for yourself to have knowledge. — Devans99

Do you not make mistakes then? How would you know if you had without the knowledge held by the community against which to check it?

Isaac, have you noticed this? Meta suffers a blindness not dissimilar to Devans99, in that both seem unable to grasp the mathematics of Limits. — Banno

Note also the idiosyncratic (to put it kindly) use of probability. Is it mathematics in general?

God is both timeless and within time (temporal/a-temporal) all at the same time — 3017amen

@Devans99 wants to show an atemporal god "outside" it all.
One that strangely acted deliberately and timelessly to create the universe.
Nonsense, yes, I know, but that seems to be @Devans99's belief...err aim.
So that's the topic here.

It's not the name of the process I'm interested in here. It's the fact that others will consider themselves to have gone through the same, or an equally valid, process. I'm interested in what's behind your reasoning in asking other people for their comments, knowing all along that you possess all you need to determine that you have the right answer. — Isaac

Say each of us has a 10% probability of getting a given question wrong. If there are two of us, then we double check: 10% X 10% = 1%. And so on.

With my posts, I am searching for evidence supporting or undermining of my ideas.

But how can you possibly assess the probability of an axiom being true? To do that you must assess the soundness of the factors leading to it, in which case it's a conclusion, not an axiom. — Isaac

Well that's partly deduction and partly induction. An axiom has to be logically acceptable - not lead to any contradictions (eg ∞+1=0 implies 1=0). But there also has to be supporting empirical evidence too (where are these actually infinite things? There are no examples in nature at all).

So for example, have I ever experienced a phenomena that did not have a cause? No. So I have a large sample size of empirical data that 100% points to the existence of a timeless first cause.

Then these are bizarre research reports from niche QM researchers questioning causality. No-one actually understands QM so what value actually should I place in such reports? Virtually none, in comparison to the evidence of my own senses.

I wasn't criticising the means of measurement, I was asking about your motive for telling everyone what measurements you give it. As I said above, I you want critique or analysis of your method for deriving that probability, then it's not an axiom, it's a conclusion. — Isaac

Some knowledge stems from definitions. We can define 1+1=2 and then knowledge of the rest of the natural numbers is deduced from that definition. A definition is a concrete type of axiom, upon which we can depend.

But the majority of knowledge stems from inductive axioms - it is very likely that such and such - I'm 90% certain of X, and so forth.

So to clearly communicate most of what we class as knowledge, we must also express a level of confidence. I'm 97.3% convinced there is a timeless first cause and so on...

No you didn't. You did not proceed through your mathematics education acting as if it were equally likely that your teachers were wrong as it was that they were right. That's just a silly thing to claim. — Isaac

I understood nearly all of it. I waded through all the proofs too. But some things I did not get. The things I did not get, I've since revisited.

What gives you cause to believe that? — Isaac

I think I understand it better than most mathematicians. Both of the axiom of infinity and the axiom of choice are wrong. There are as a result large sections of maths that are complete marsh gas.

Do you not make mistakes then? How would you know if you had without the knowledge held by the community against which to check it? — Isaac

Thats why I'm here - to get your thoughts on these ideas.

You still have not answered the puzzle question! — Devans99

Yes. Twice now.

Yes. Twice now. — jorndoe

I don't call those answers.

1. Everything in time has a reason
2. Nothing can be the reason for itself
3. (From 1 and 2) At least one reason must be outside of time

Can you see a way out of this logical dilemma that does not involve atemporality?

I cannot. So I conclude that timelessness, as bizarre as it may sound, is almost certainly a real concept.

. Because when we naturally use our sense of wonder (the Kantian 'all events must have a cause') axiom, then we naturally default to regressive reasons that invoke Anthropology, and the other way around. Causation leads us to inferences about ourselves, our self-awareness, our existence, our consciousness, and other Anthropic theories of existence, etc.. — 3017amen

I'm not sure that suffices to make a reasonable inference, but I think I understand what you're saying and acknowledge its persuasiveness. I would say it's more an evocation than an inference; nothing magical, but like a great work of art, poem or music. Something evokes a kind of conclusion.

Have you ever read C.S. Pierce's article A Neglected Argument for the Reality of God? He can be difficult to read sometimes, but his concept of "musement" fascinates me.

I am using a methodology of my own inventing with that calculation. Take a look - its perfectly reasonable. The approach is to first assume 50%/50% for an unknown, boolean question. — Devans99

I would say it shows, had I not seen Stephen Unwin use the same approach. If it is reasonable, apply it to the analogy given. The probability of Col. Mustard being the killer is 50/50 by your reasoning. The probability of Prof. Plum being the killer is also 50/50. The probability of Mrs. White being the killer is 50/50. The probability of Miss. Scarlet being the killer is 50/50. The probability of Rev. Green being the killer is 50/50. The probability of Mrs. Peacock being the killer is 50/50.

Do you see what's gone wrong here? And why?

The word 'eternity' has two meanings: infinite in time or external to all forms of time. The first is impossible — Devans99

Actually they're the same. An object, let's consider for simplicity a 3D object, that is timeless: f(x,y,z)... not time. Now let's consider a 3D object in time that is always identical to itself at any given time: f(x,y,z,t)=f(x,y,z,T)=f(x,y,z). A thing that is eternally identical to itself at any time is timeless. The inflaton field is such a thing. It is forever expanding, but at every time and position is homogenous.

Do you see what's gone wrong here? And why? — Kenosha Kid

What are you talking about! With that stupid game, say there are 10 characters, then the probability of each being the killer is 1 / 10 = 10%. That has absolutely nothing to do with my probability calculation - have you read it?

Actually they're the same. An object, let's consider for simplicity a 3D object, that is timeless: f(x,y,z)... not time. Now let's consider a 3D object in time that is always identical to itself at any given time: f(x,y,z,t)=f(x,y,z,T)=f(x,y,z). A thing that is eternally identical to itself at any time is timeless. The inflaton field is such a thing. It is forever expanding, but at every time and position is homogenous. — Kenosha Kid

Thats a nice argument.

- time has a start - so spacetime is a subset of a wider environment. So its not possible for the object to have the same status as a timeless object - it is restricted in the dimension of time by the start of time. Eternal inflation is a very funny joke - eternal is impossible in time - where eternal inflation takes place. Those nuts think infinity is possible - It's all finite.

- unless, either eternalism or growing block theory is true. In that case everything, in some unknown way, classes as timeless and eternal (but finite), but to maintain the only idea we have about how stuff actually happens, it has to support something like causality, which implies everything cannot be co-eternal, so maybe glowing block? But its a tricky question.