Newton's Inconsistency

bcccampello

We were trained in the spirit of engineering and we thought of the trigger as the cause of the process. We no longer think of the heart as the cause of the bullet's trajectory (I mean, the heart was hit by the bullet). We live after Newton. When we see a stone that is falling, we perceive it as an object that is under the domain of gravity. We find it difficult to share the perception of the medieval scholar who sees the same phenomenon as caused by the stone's desire to reach the land. This is the final cause, [the final cause of the movement]. Instead, we perceive a force that is pushing the heavy body.

The ancient desiderium naturae, [the natural desire, the desire of nature], which is the natural desire of the stone to reach a state of rest as close as it can to the bosom of the earth has become a myth for us. Even more completely, the idea of a first cause or primary end cause, an ultimate motivating reason for all the desires that are hidden in the nature of the stone, or the plant, or the man, has become foreign to our century. Final stage, in the mental universe of the 20th century, has the connotation of death. Entropy is our ultimate destination. We experience reality as monocausal. We only know about efficient causes.

The idea that the stone moves towards the earth because it has a desire, a natural desire, a natural impulse to come into contact with the earth has become strange and almost incomprehensible to us because we live in a Newtonian world.

Newton says that it is not the stone that moves: it is moved from outside by a force he calls gravitation. In saying that matter attracts matter in the direct ratio of the masses and in the inverse ratio of the square of the distances, he is saying that the larger matter attracts the smaller matter. So it is not the stone that is going to land, it is the earth that is pulling the stone.It is as if our view of the physical universe has been inverted in relation to that appearance that nature presented to the scholastics.

Isaac Newton, when observing the behavior of nature and doing math, discovered a certain regularity, things that are repeated. And he says that things are like that. But how long are they repeated? Note that Newton, to substantiate his theory, had to invent something he called absolute time -- time as a permanent unit of measurement, regardless of what happens. But how long a time where nothing happened would last? It is inconceivable. The idea of absolute time contradicts itself. The time that is independent of what happens is the time that is independent of duration; so it's not time at all. Newton also had to invent absolute space, space without things inside; that is, space as pure measure. But if there is nothing within the space, there is also no measure. So, to arrive at a description of the behavior of nature that we consider realistic and within which we live, - - and we live within that Newtonian space-time to the point that whatever contradicts it seems unthinkable to us - -, Newton conceived two ideas that are absolutely self-contradictory. He recognized that these ideas are mere inventions, but he needed them in order to make the measurements. Then you invent unrealistic comparison plans and based on them you make a series of measurements and declare "Now I have learned the reality". You also don't know if this is true. This means the following: if you try to think of everything in terms of space-time, nothing will be left in your hand. Space and time cannot be sustained and that is what St. Hugo once said, long before Newton and long before quantum physics.

We will see how we can overcome this merely historical approach, which would be a kind of cultural relativism. Cultural relativism gives millions of reasons for you not to understand one thing: "I can no longer understand that because it was out of reality. So, as I am imbued with modern scientific culture and I know how things really are, I cannot completely get over the head of a 13th century guy, because in the 13th century they are to us like a madman to the normal person. I cannot fully enter the universe of a madman. I can see it as a structure, but I cannot participate in it". Let's see if they are crazy.

When Newton says that it is not the stone that moves towards the earth, but the earth that attracts that small piece of matter in the direct ratio of the masses and in the indirect ratio of the square of the distance, you ask yourself: "But what precisely is Earth attracting?" It is a stone. Is a stone nothing? The stone is something, it has its own properties. And if she didn't have them and if she were nothing, the earth would attract her in vain, because she wouldn't come at all. This means that the description of the world that takes place in Newton's mechanics assumes the existence of the various substances of the various beings that are affected by the law of gravity. It does not reason from these substances, but only from the mechanical relationships between them. But in order for mechanical relationships to exist, they must take place between things that exist, and things that exist have substances.

When ancient physics said that the stone has a natural desire to rest in the bosom of the Earth, it said exactly what Galileo will say later: that when an object is not moved by another it remains at rest or in a uniform rectilinear motion. This impulse of rest or uniform rectilinear motion is inherent in the object -- with the proviso that Galileo said that uniform rectilinear motion is only a unit of measure and does not really exist. Aristotle, in ancient physics, said that when an object is not moved by another it remains at rest. Galileo adds in brackets: "or in a uniform rectilinear movement, which does not really exist" - that is, it remains at rest. Now, from the general point of view of the theory of universal gravitation, there is a mysterious force called gravity by which larger matter attracts smaller matter. But from the point of view of another physical law, which is the law of inertia, the impulse to rest is in the object itself. It cannot receive the rest impulse from outside, it can only receive the movement. Although the expression desiderium naturae - -desire of nature -- is a literary expression, it expresses precisely what the law of inertia says.

Confronting what Hugo, or what any other medieval author, is saying with Newton's law, I ask: who said it is Newton's law that he is referring to and not something else? Seen as an expression of Newton's law, of the law of gravitation, the expression desiderium naturae does not make any sense, because it is matter that attracts matter -- the body does not move, but is moved. But if that body was nothing and had no property, it could not be moved. But the expression desiderium naturae refers not to what happens to the object, but what it is and does - that is, its substantial form. This substantial form is what makes it want to be at rest - that is, it is the law of inertia.

It is not that there is only an absurdity, an absolutely unacceptable contradiction, but the whole order of pedagogy in which we are being taught is based on the idea of accepting an absurdity in a disciplined way so that we can then understand something else that would never go back on that absurdity and explain it. In Newton's physics: you "swallow" this thing of absolute time, this thing of absolute space (which doesn't exist, that's a nonsense), but by doing this, you will learn to measure the relationship between the masses, etc. Of course, it is a gain as long as it is known that it was absurd (original). You can make an analogy with the business of René Girard:

The community that is born from an original crime that is then hidden: that trauma will always remain, that dirt will stay there

Its original absurdity, even if it leads to spectacular scientific consequences, will always be an error, an absurdity and always a sin of the spirit. If you remain attentive throughout the development of the study you are doing, attentive to the awareness of the original absurdity, and say: "This is just a game rule. We are going to postulate an absurd thing just to see what happens, and then we'll come back here", and if you do this, everything is fine, but most don't.

Metaphysician Undercover

Note that Newton, to substantiate his theory, had to invent something he called absolute time -- time as a permanent unit of measurement, regardless of what happens. But how long a time where nothing happened would last? It is inconceivable. The idea of absolute time contradicts itself. The time that is independent of what happens is the time that is independent of duration; so it's not time at all. Newton also had to invent absolute space, space without things inside; that is, space as pure measure. But if there is nothing within the space, there is also no measure. So, to arrive at a description of the behavior of nature that we consider realistic and within which we live, - - and we live within that Newtonian space-time to the point that whatever contradicts it seems unthinkable to us - -, Newton conceived two ideas that are absolutely self-contradictory. He recognized that these ideas are mere inventions, but he needed them in order to make the measurements. — bcccampello

The idea of absolute time here is not contradictory, it only appears contradictory from your perspective. That's the cultural relativism you refer to, coming into play. What you call "time that is independent of what happens...independent of duration", is really best described as time independent of measurement. The passage of time is measured by human beings through reference to physical change. But since we do not know what the passage of time actually is, we cannot say with absolute certainty that there is no other way to measure the passage of time. If there is another way, then we can conceive of time passing without physical change.

Aristotle distinguished two senses of "time". One is the tool of measurement, and this is the concept "time", and the other is the thing itself which is measured, and this is the actual passage of time. The modern perspective has slipped exclusively toward the former, producing a cultural perspective which excludes the latter. So it is only the cultural relativism which makes absolute time appear to be inconceivable. The apparent inconceivability is based in the idea that time is dependent on physical change, as the concept "time" is derived from change. However, if we look at the passage of time as a real thing going on in the world, we see that change is actually dependent on the passing of time, instead.

The idea of absolute space has a slightly different origin. I believe it's much older, predating any serious understanding of time. Human beings started measuring things a long time ago. But they found that things change and move as time passes, so the measurements do not stay the same. In their primitive attempt to understand change they realized that there must be empty space between things, to allow for things to move independently of each other. If there were no space between things, then the movement of one thing would cause another thing to move, which would cause another to move, etc., ad infinitum. In other words, what they realized is that it would be impossible for a thing to move if there was no empty space for it to move into, because this would require that everything moves when one thing moves. So the concept of empty space was posited long ago, as required to account for the movement of one thing relative to other things. Generally it is still the cultural perspective, but understanding the universe from the precepts of general relativity requires that we rescind this perspective, and it actually becomes very difficult to understand the movement of individual things under the precepts of general relativity, as indicated by quantum mechanics.

When Newton says that it is not the stone that moves towards the earth, but the earth that attracts that small piece of matter in the direct ratio of the masses and in the indirect ratio of the square of the distance, you ask yourself: "But what precisely is Earth attracting?" It is a stone. Is a stone nothing? The stone is something, it has its own properties. And if she didn't have them and if she were nothing, the earth would attract her in vain, because she wouldn't come at all. This means that the description of the world that takes place in Newton's mechanics assumes the existence of the various substances of the various beings that are affected by the law of gravity. It does not reason from these substances, but only from the mechanical relationships between them. But in order for mechanical relationships to exist, they must take place between things that exist, and things that exist have substances. — bcccampello

Yes, this is the ancient idea that the world is made up of independent things, the real existence of each thing, being supported by its own underlying substance. The next thing posited is that there is space between each thing, allowing that each thing can move independently of each other. Gravity throws a curve at this perspective, supporting that perspective in the sense that each thing has its own gravity, therefore independent substance, but also undermining the perspective with the fact that the gravity of one thing interacts with another thing, denying true spatial separation. It appears like gravity must act through a medium, not empty space.

When ancient physics said that the stone has a natural desire to rest in the bosom of the Earth, it said exactly what Galileo will say later: that when an object is not moved by another it remains at rest or in a uniform rectilinear motion. This impulse of rest or uniform rectilinear motion is inherent in the object -- with the proviso that Galileo said that uniform rectilinear motion is only a unit of measure and does not really exist. Aristotle, in ancient physics, said that when an object is not moved by another it remains at rest. Galileo adds in brackets: "or in a uniform rectilinear movement, which does not really exist" - that is, it remains at rest. Now, from the general point of view of the theory of universal gravitation, there is a mysterious force called gravity by which larger matter attracts smaller matter. But from the point of view of another physical law, which is the law of inertia, the impulse to rest is in the object itself. It cannot receive the rest impulse from outside, it can only receive the movement. Although the expression desiderium naturae - -desire of nature -- is a literary expression, it expresses precisely what the law of inertia says. — bcccampello

The concept of inertia is key to understanding the passage of time, and the Aristotelian concept of matter. This concept grants a continuity to the passage of time. What it says roughly, is that what has happened in the past, in a consistent manner, will continue in the future. You can see that this idea sits at the very base of inductive reasoning. Without this assumed continuity ("which does not really exist"), all inductive reasoning loses its validity. It doesn't really exist because it relies on the assumption of a continuous passage of time, which isn't properly supported. The continuity of the passage of time is only granted by the will of God, and so it is not necessary, but chosen freely by a free willing being. So this is the cultural perspective which gives rise to those various ideas, that what is described as inertia and temporal continuity, are the expressions of of a desire, or final cause inherent within the substance of the object. Actually, the very existence of the object is a representation of the will of God, the existence of objects being how God's will appears to us.

ts original absurdity, even if it leads to spectacular scientific consequences, will always be an error, an absurdity and always a sin of the spirit. If you remain attentive throughout the development of the study you are doing, attentive to the awareness of the original absurdity, and say: "This is just a game rule. We are going to postulate an absurd thing just to see what happens, and then we'll come back here", and if you do this, everything is fine, but most don't. — bcccampello

Again, this is the cultural relativism at play. It only appears as "an error" to you, because you do not believe in God. If you believed in God, it would appear as the correct description.

tim wood

Again, this is the cultural relativism at play. It only appears as "an error" to you, because you do not believe in God. If you believed in God, it would appear as the correct description. — Metaphysician Undercover

I nominate this for consideration as the most ridiculous line ever posted to TPF.

Metaphysician Undercover

↪tim wood

Flog it then!

Kenosha Kid

I nominate this for consideration as the most ridiculous line ever posted to TPF. — tim wood

Seconded. The OP is astounding too.

↪bcccampello

As far as I understand your rhetoric, you claim there is a contradiction between the idea that the intrinsic properties of the stone can give it inertia and the idea that the it is the properties of another, external body -- the Earth -- that give it movement.

This is apparently "absurd". And yet the cup remains at rest on my desk (inertia) until I push it with my hand (external force). Is this mundane phenomenon that everyone is familiar with absurd?

One point of correction. Newton had another law, the second law of motion. It is erroneous to say that the Earth attracts the stone and not vice versa. However the Earth is extremely heavy and the stone extremely light. The force exerted on the Earth is negligibly small, but it is not zero.

It is certainly true that the stone has properties that result in its inertia, but the inertia itself does not lie within the stone. You may recall a few years ago a famous physical experiment and a few Nobel prizes for precisely this fact. Inertia, like gravity, comes from the outside. Naturally this is not in Newton's theory, but then one cannot quarrel with Newton for the sake of dismissing a broader principle.

Metaphysician Undercover

Inertia, like gravity, comes from the outside. — Kenosha Kid

I nominate this for consideration as the most ridiculous line ever posted to TPF.

tim wood

Inertia, like gravity, comes from the outside.
— Kenosha Kid

I nominate this for consideration as the most ridiculous line ever posted to TPF. — Metaphysician Undercover

Inertia defined as? Gravity defined as? Granite is a kind of rock, made of certain elements depending on the kind of granite. Never have I heard anyone say that inertia was one of those elements - where would inertia be on the periodic table?

Kenosha Kid

I nominate this for consideration as the most ridiculous line ever posted to TPF. — Metaphysician Undercover

It's called the Higgs field. Most people have heard of it.

Metaphysician Undercover

↪Kenosha Kid

It is wrong to attribute inertia to the field rather than to the particle. And, the Standard Model indicates that the causal relationship between the field and the particle is unknown. So it is more ridiculous to claim that the particle's inertia comes from outside the particle (what is known to be wrong), than it is to claim that it comes from the will of God (what may or may not be wrong).

Banno

In dealing with @Metaphysician Undercover, always keep in mind that he vehemently disagrees with 0.999... = 1.

Metaphysician Undercover

↪Banno

Actually I've had to explain this numerous times already. I strongly agree that .999...=1. What I vehemently deny is that the two are the same thing. After all this time, have you not yet grasped the difference between equality and identity, which I have been trying to explain to you? Or, are you like some of the others at this forum, who deny that there is such a difference, insisting that two equal things are necessarily the same thing.

Metaphysician Undercover

I nominate this for consideration as the most ridiculous line ever posted to TPF. — tim wood

I don't understand your extraordinary concern with that statement. Clearly there are statements which from the theist perspective are correct, but are incorrect from the atheist perspective, such as "God exists". Likewise, to say that God is responsible for matter, inertia, and mass, is correct from the theist perspective, but incorrect from the atheist perspective. That is what BC referred to as "cultural relativism". So tell me please, what do you think is so ridiculous about the statement?

tim wood

The continuity of the passage of time is only granted by the will of God, — Metaphysician Undercover

This looks awfully categorical to me. Prove it.

Again, this is the cultural relativism at play. It only appears as "an error" to you, because you do not believe in God. If you believed in God, it would appear as the correct description. — Metaphysician Undercover

There is no ground anywhere in this. Therefore as argument it has no substance, no point, no possible valid conclusion.

Clearly there are statements which from the theist perspective are correct, but are incorrect from the atheist perspective, such as "God exists" — Metaphysician Undercover

How, from anyone's perspective, does a belief in God warrant the conclusion - or even the statement - that "God exists," except as an example of a stupid ignorance speaking? What indeed does perspective have to do with existence? Anyone, theist or otherwise, who claims God exists puts him- or herself on line to prove it. That's how it is with existence. Theists avoid that difficulty and remain within the bounds of reason by simply saying that they believe. By which they mean that in their thinking about a great many things, they presuppose in that thinking that God exists. And they presuppose it in such terms and so fundamentally that the presupposition is never questioned. It is instead just presupposed as a foundation stone for their thinking. And zero of this has anything to do with existence whatsoever. Christians (at least - and I think the Jews - and I do not know who else, but apparently not Moslems, not yet) figured this out a long time ago. All of which means that if you want to grasp and understand the thinking of these people of belief and faith, you have to acquaint yourself with what they presuppose, which averring existence not only does not touch, but makes it untouchable.

You, however, incapable of grasping the idea of presuppositions as "axioms" for thinking, condemn yourself to arguing existence when and where none is possible. That failure renders much of what you say and argue as the merest nonsense. Some of it sounds good, but nonsense nevertheless.

I strongly agree that .999...=1. What I vehemently deny is that the two are the same thing. — Metaphysician Undercover

When you say "thing," what in the world do you mean? Are ten dimes a dollar? Yes. Is a dollar a dollar? Yes. Are two things that are the same thing the same thing with respect to that quality in which they are the same? Yes. Might they be in some irrelevant aspect not the same? With respect to irrelevant aspects, no two things are the same, and even one thing is not the same as itself - but these are irrelevant. You grant the oneness of one; you grant the oneness of .999.... Is one oneness the same or different from another oneness? With respect to oneness, the are the same. Oneness just is oneness, nor greater nor lesser by any amount.

Metaphysician Undercover

This looks awfully categorical to me. Prove it. — tim wood

It's all explained in that post. It appears like you just read the last paragraph, or were incapable of understanding the metaphysical problem of temporal continuity..

How, from anyone's perspective, does a belief in God warrant the conclusion - or even the statement - that "God exists," except as an example of a stupid ignorance speaking? What indeed does perspective have to do with existence? — tim wood

What are you talking about? If a person believes that God exists, then the statement "God exists" is warranted by that belief, just like the statement "Trump is an asshole" is warranted by that belief. Whether or not you happen to agree with the statement, or whether you think it is "stupid ignorance speaking" is irrelevant.

And zero of this has anything to do with existence whatsoever. — tim wood

This is the second most ridiculous statement I've ever seen at TPF (KK's idea that inertia comes from a field being the most ridiculous). Since the reason for assuming God is to account for the reality of material existence, as Creator, it's utterly ridiculous to say that the presupposition of God has nothing to do with existence whatsoever.

Kenosha Kid

It is wrong to attribute inertia to the field rather than to the particle. And, the Standard Model indicates that the causal relationship between the field and the particle is unknown. So it is more ridiculous to claim that the particle's inertia comes from outside the particle (what is known to be wrong), than it is to claim that it comes from the will of God (what may or may not be wrong). — Metaphysician Undercover

Inertia in the Standard Model has always arisen from the external influence of the Higgs field, from way before the existence of the Higgs was experimentally verified. The nature of the interaction has also been extremely well understood for decades. The difficulty in finding the Higgs boson had nothing to do with unknowns in the interactions between massive particles and the field, but between excitations of the field and the field itself.

Metaphysician Undercover

↪Kenosha Kid

There are numerous reasons to dismiss this theory as ridiculous, beginning with the inability to establish a necessary relationship between gravity and mass, as required by observation. This is known as the incompatibility between general relativity (by which gravity is explained) and the Standard Model (by which mass is explained). Instead of recognizing that the incompatibility represents a fundamental failure in the theoretical structure, physicists and cosmologists employ mathematics to make exceptions to the rules, and give these exceptions dark names, like dark matter and dark energy.

tim wood

This looks awfully categorical to me. Prove it.
— tim wood
It's all explained in that post. It appears like you just read the last paragraph, or were incapable of understanding the metaphysical problem of temporal continuity.. — Metaphysician Undercover

It's clear that either you do not understand some words, or you ignore their meaning. I did not ask for an explanation. You made a claim; I said, "Prove it." See, "proof" "explanation," don't look the same, don't sound the same, don't mean the same, are different. But I am quite sure you will give any notion of proof the widest possible berth.

The other in this context is that you apparently cannot understand any difference between averring existence and expressing belief. The two expressions, "I believe in God," and "God exists," you apparently understand as equivalent. They're not.

Let's go for clarity. If "God exists," is what you say, then prove it.

Kenosha Kid

There are numerous reasons to dismiss this theory as ridiculous, beginning with the inability to establish a necessary relationship between gravity and mass, as required by observation. — Metaphysician Undercover

The theory has been verified by observation already, fulfilling the criteria of good science. 'The way I'd like things to be' does not. It is not necessary to have a ToE to have good theories of bits of everything. The Industrial Revolution and the Digital Revolution did not apparently require a ToE to hold good.

This is known as the incompatibility between general relativity (by which gravity is explained) and the Standard Model (by which mass is explained). — Metaphysician Undercover

It's amazing how quickly you went from citing the Standard Model when you thought it supported your argument to dismissing it as inconsistent with GR now you think it doesn't. While much progress has been made in formulating QFT in a GR framework, pragmatically the calculations are intractable and the expansions plagued with infinities, which is a problem for us, not nature. Our technological inability to calculate exact solutions to difficult equations should not be confused with the universe's inability to cope with the same equations. Both theories have been experimentally verified countless times to high precision. The Universe appears quite happy with both.

Metaphysician Undercover

It's clear that either you do not understand some words, or you ignore their meaning. I did not ask for an explanation. You made a claim; I said, "Prove it." See, "proof" "explanation," don't look the same, don't sound the same, don't mean the same, are different. But I am quite sure you will give any notion of proof the widest possible berth. — tim wood

As I explained there is no need to prove what I stated. Your obsession with proof seems a little unhealthy to me. Have you ever come across the word "opinion"? Wouldn't it be contradictory if an opinion could be proven? It would then not be an opinion, but a proven fact. When one person's opinion differs from another's it's ridiculous to ask for proof because we just accept the fact that different people have different opinions, concerning the same issues, and opinions are not the type of things which can be proven. They can sometimes be explained though. But that requires effort from both sides.

While much progress has been made in formulating QFT in a GR framework, pragmatically the calculations are intractable and the expansions plagued with infinities, which is a problem for us, not nature. Our technological inability to calculate exact solutions to difficult equations should not be confused with the universe's inability to cope with the same equations. Both theories have been experimentally verified countless times to high precision. The Universe appears quite happy with both. — Kenosha Kid

I mostly agree with what you say here, but I believe that "experimentally verified" means very little in this context, because as you say, the theories just refer to "bits", and are therefore verified in relation to the relevant bits. A major difference between Newton's gravity and Einstein's gravity, is that the latter has a wider application, more relevant bits. But obviously, it still falls short and therefore needs to be replaced, because it's still only applicable to bits, as you say, so it doesn't provide a wide perspective on the reality of the thing described.

Inertia and gravity are supposed to be properties of all material things. So are you suggesting that there are "bits" of reality which are immaterial, and this is why the theories of gravitation are incompatible with the theories of inertia? Or do you think that there are inconsistencies in our conceptions of space and time, as BC implied in the op?

god must be atheist

Newton says that it is not the stone that moves: it is moved from outside by a force he calls gravitation. In saying that matter attracts matter in the direct ratio of the masses and in the inverse ratio of the square of the distances, he is saying that the larger matter attracts the smaller matter. S — bcccampello

They attract each other. It is not true according to the gravity theory, that only the larger mass attracts the smaller mass.

god must be atheist

When Newton says that it is not the stone that moves towards the earth, but the earth that attracts that small piece of matter in the direct ratio of the masses and in the indirect ratio of the square of the distance, you ask yourself: "But what precisely is Earth attracting?" — bcccampello

No, you don't ask yourself that question. You are mixing up the gravitational effect by Newton, and the Newtonean theory of spacial kinetic geometry, which states that it does not matter whether you consider the Earth stagnant and the stone moving, or if you consider the stone stagnant and the Earth moving.You are mixing two completely different concepts Newton established and which are irrelevant to each other.

god must be atheist

But how long a time where nothing happened would last? — bcccampello

Interesting question. But only applicable to a world where nothing happens. Is our world that, or is our world in constant change and motion? You decide whether your objection is valid or not in OUR world.

god must be atheist

The idea of absolute time contradicts itself. — bcccampello

In light of the abovve, you have to prove that yet. You can't say your claim is necessarily true.

god must be atheist

Newton also had to invent absolute space, space without things inside; that is, space as pure measure. But if there is nothing within the space, there is also no measure. — bcccampello

Newton invented absolute space to illustrate his theory. His other theory, the gravitational theory, does not need infinite empty space. It is only used as an illustration.

IN my opinion you are mixing up too many concepts to make a comprehensive, cohesive analitycal criticism. You can't say "Newton said this" or "Newton said that" when yu take the utterances out of context and you lay them down in YOUR context of them. Your context and Newton's in this case are always different. So you are not proving anything that disproves Newton's theory, because the things you disprove are contextually not applicable to what Newton claimed. This is called the Strawman fallacy what you are committing here, and it is a classic case of it. You claim that your opponent said "A", whereas your opponent said "B", then you prove that "A" is false, and you claim (falsely) that your opponent was wrong. Whereas you did not even touch his claim, since you proved "A" wrong, not "B", which is his or her point.

god must be atheist

But how long are they repeated? — bcccampello

It has not been unrepeated yet. Are you claiming something with that question, or are you simply making a journalistic inroad to discredit your opponent? I think more like the latter.

god must be atheist

bcccampello — bcccampello

I suspect you are the guy who has been long trolling philosophy sites. You make interesting yet absurd claims all over the place. I normally shun you, because you are mostly obstinate (if you are really the person I think of), and this similarity I don't claim as fact, but as a suspicion, therefore it is only my opinion.

Metaphysician Undercover

Interesting question. But only applicable to a world where nothing happens. Is our world that, or is our world in constant change and motion? You decide whether your objection is valid or not in OUR world. — god must be atheist

Here's something to consider. In "OUR" world, we talk about very short periods of time, Planck length for example. At some very short period of time it becomes impossible to detect an physical change during that short period. Isn't this, therefore, a period of time in which no physical change occurs? So it really does make sense to ask how long would a time when nothing happens last, because there clearly is a short period of time when nothing happens, and it would be helpful to know exactly how long that period of time is.

Suppose physical change consists of discrete increments of change which occur every so often (an extremely short period of time apart). Wouldn't it be beneficial to know how long these increments of time are, so that we can start to look behind the scenes to understand what is going on in there, in this time between the increments of physical change? It's not physical change going on in this time period, but the cause of it.

tim wood

As I explained there is no need to prove what I stated. Your obsession with proof seems a little unhealthy to me. Have you ever come across the word "opinion"? Wouldn't it be contradictory if an opinion could be proven? It would then not be an opinion, but a proven fact. When one person's opinion differs from another's it's ridiculous to ask for proof because we just accept the fact that different people have different opinions, concerning the same issues, and opinions are not the type of things which can be proven. They can sometimes be explained though. But that requires effort from both sides. — Metaphysician Undercover

Let us then get rid of this parrish-pump idea and expression, "God exists." On its common understanding it's a claim susceptible of no proof as to any fact, and, on the usual understandings of what "God" means, existence is impossible without destroying that understanding. Nor can it stand as opinion, because the affirmation of the opinion is subject to the same criticism.

That leaves belief, which people - reasonably intelligent, reasonably educated people, anyway - understand is not in-itself a statement of any fact, but a statement of belief, and those same people have usually no too much trouble in distinguishing between the two. They express themselves in the "We believe..," and never as "God exists."

And beliefs, let's now call them presuppositions, may be divided into two categories: those that are presupposed and are the cause of questions and are themselves questioned, the presupposition being the ground of the question, and presuppositions that are not so questioned and are not themselves the ground of any question. Instead being themselves foundation to the thinking that can give rise to questions. The idea being that without these latter, "absolute" presuppositions - if these are not absolutely presupposed - then the structure of thinking built on them collapses.

God, then, in whatever form or forms, stands as an absolute presupposition in the thinking of lots of people the world 'round, and has since time immemorial. Given this foundation to think from, people think all kinds of things they find good and useful to think about. The existence of such God, a moment's thought shows, is irrelevant to the thinking, and even probably destructive of it. It is, then, a useful idea. Which some thought will discern is protected by never allowing it to be considered existing in any common sense of the term, but is instead always kept in the safe reserve of belief and absolute presupposition.

I an going to credit you with meaning all this when you allow your "God exists" to be what you call opinion and nothing more.

Metaphysician Undercover

hat leaves belief, which people - reasonably intelligent, reasonably educated people, anyway - understand is not in-itself a statement of any fact, but a statement of belief, and those same people have usually no too much trouble in distinguishing between the two. They express themselves in the "We believe..," and never as "God exists." — tim wood

Right, so reconsider my statement:

Again, this is the cultural relativism at play. It only appears as "an error" to you, because you do not believe in God. If you believed in God, it would appear as the correct description. — Metaphysician Undercover

That was a statement concerning belief, obviously. Now where's the problem? What makes it a ridiculous statement?

god must be atheist

So it really does make sense to ask how long would a time when nothing happens last, because there clearly is a short period of time when nothing happens, and it would be helpful to know exactly how long that period of time is. — Metaphysician Undercover

Let's say you are right. So how do YOU know it's a short period of time? If the time does not exist, you wouldn't know that would you. Yet you, yourself stated it's a SHORT period of time, so you measured it, or have knowledge of its duration. So effectively you have proved that when nothing happens, time still can be measured.

Metaphysician Undercover

↪god must be atheist

Right, we know that we can divide any period of time into a shorter period of time, just like we can divide numbers. So when nothing happens (meaning no physical change), time can still be measured it's just not measured by physical change, it's measured by numbers.

Newton's Inconsistency

Welcome to The Philosophy Forum!

Categories

More Discussions