My language didn't shift. Are you saying there is no cause for why it is, thus an alpha, or are you stating there is a cause for why this is? — Philosophim
m saying that our understanding of cause is not as clear as we assume. When we talk about events that cause events, we’re referring to agents. When we talk about the cause for an event, we’re referring to a principle, on whose behalf an agent acts. The primary principle is potential, which is not a ‘first cause’ in a temporal sense, but in a value sense. The qualitative and structural distinction is important. — Possibility
Why do people try to prove there is a God unless they are trying to convince themselves or can't handle people having different beliefs? — Gregory
That's funny. I had pretty much had that line thrown at me (by an actual physicist) and I was arguing the opposite, that the numbers need not exist for the sum of 1 and 1 to be 2.That's like if I said 1+1 = 2, and you came back with, "You assume 1 exists". — Philosophim
I know what the word means. Not everybody assumes the existence of a preferred moment in time, and the alternate view (that all events in spacetime share equal ontology) is used by most physicists, albeit not the average guy on the street who has little use for framing things that way.Anyone with basic education knows what "current" and "1" mean.
I didn't say anything was broken. I said it had implication for the idea of an alpha cause.'Its up to you to demonstrate why the regular and assumed use is broken.
My name implies that I assume nothing. So I'd say that it depends on the definitions of those words. I often take the relational view where the phrase "X exists' is meaningless since it is not expressed as relation.We clearly exist currently don't we?
No, I don't buy that. It begs its conclusion. Thought experiments would be impossible if they only worked for things with the additional property of 'existence' tacked onto them.Let me help you out. If you don't exist, you won't type a reply.
If one assumes a view where that statement is meaningful, then yes. If one doesn't, then the statement is simply not meaningful. The alternate view might say that on Feb 5, 2022 we all observe the state of the world of Feb 5, 2022 (at least the nearby stuff), and not some other state. That date is no more or less 'the past', 'the present', or 'the future' than any other date. They all have equal ontology.If we observe something currently, then that state is current as well correct?
I assume nothing as any kind of asserted truth. Physics is not in the business of proving things, but I do definitely work with the view preferentially for the ease of understanding. There is no working theory of the universe that assumes a current moment. The mathematics is orders of magnitude more complicated. It's much easier to do assuming spacetime.So you're assuming an unproven suggestion.
I never claimed any of those things are refuted. I'm just pointing out that there's a different view out there, and one used preferentially by physicists. The B-view does not deny time, it just defines it differently. In the B view, time is what clocks measure, which is the temporal length of a worldline. Two different worldlines connecting events X and Y might have different temporal lengths (as they do in the twins 'paradox'), so the clocks don't match when reunited. That's impossible if they accurately measured the sort of time you're talking about.So your assumption, which isn't a given, doesn't really refute the idea of "currently existing", causality, or time.
We don't know that it is for one. Physics doesn't answer 'why' questions too well. Philosophy does sometimes.And even beyond that, I just have one question. Why is reality 4D spacetime?
1. Either all things have a prior cause for their existence, or there is at least one first cause of existence from which a chain of events follows. — Philosophim
That's like if I said 1+1 = 2, and you came back with, "You assume 1 exists".
— Philosophim
That's funny. I had pretty much had that line thrown at me (by an actual physicist) and I was arguing the opposite, that the numbers need not exist for the sum of 1 and 1 to be 2. — noAxioms
My name implies that I assume nothing. So I'd say that it depends on the definitions of those words. I often take the relational view where the phrase "X exists' is meaningless since it is not expressed as relation. — noAxioms
Of course, you can take the intuitive view and not explore the alternate ideas, but then you're just rationalizing answers that you've already decided on. In other words, feel free to bid me a good day if I'm not helping. — noAxioms
Let me help you out. If you don't exist, you won't type a reply.
No, I don't buy that. It begs its conclusion. — noAxioms
The unicorn has a horn, which by the above logic it cannot because the horn doesn't exist. I told you the unicorn would come into play. — noAxioms
The alternate view might say that on Feb 5, 2022 we all observe the state of the world of Feb 5, 2022 (at least the nearby stuff), and not some other state. That date is no more or less 'the past', 'the present', or 'the future' than any other date. They all have equal ontology. — noAxioms
So you're assuming an unproven suggestion.
I assume nothing as any kind of asserted truth. — noAxioms
There is no working theory of the universe that assumes a current moment — noAxioms
There is no device that measures the rate of advancement of the current time. Clocks measure proper time along a worldline through spacetime. — noAxioms
And even beyond that, I just have one question. Why is reality 4D spacetime?
We don't know that it is for one. Physics doesn't answer 'why' questions too well. Philosophy does sometimes.
If you're asking the purpose of the universe being the way it is, it doesn't seem to have a purpose. — noAxioms
But that does not establish 'a' first cause. Why would you posit just one? — Bartricks
1. Either all things have a prior cause for their existence, or there is at least one first cause of existence from which a chain of events follows. — Philosophim
Your OP, which I read months ago — Gregory
Aristotle argues that infinities on their own are unstable and a past infinity needs a root in a first cause, just as you say a first member as a cause is needed — Gregory
It's the same argument. You can't imagine an infinite series going into the past without a God? — Gregory
If the first cause is material than we are on the same page. If it is spiritual than we are not — Gregory
"1. Either all things have a prior cause for their existence or there is at least one first cause of existence from which a chain of events follows."
So there is either 1,2,3,4 or infinite,1,2,3,3 — Gregory
Y: represents an existence that may or may not have prior causality."
So everything — Gregory
"X: represents an existent prior causality to Y."
First cause — Gregory
Z: Represent an existence caused by Y."
World — Gregory
"Alpha: A Y existence that is identified as having no prior causality."
Alpha is X — Gregory
a. There is always a X for every Y. (infinite prior causality)."
So a first cause for every series — Gregory
"b. The X/Y causal chain eventually wraps back to Y/X (infinitely looped causality)"
Making the loop based on the first cause — Gregory
"c. There comes a time within a causal chain when there is only Y, and nothing prior to Y. This Y is Alpha. (first cause)"
There can still be a world. Begging the question — Gregory
A physical Alpha? — Gregory
There doesn't have to be a loop or an infinite past. The first motion is the first motion and there is nothing prior. In physics this is the big bang. There is no past for the big bang. But I think your correct that a first act is needed — Gregory
Ok, but imagine if all that existed was an infinite spiral water slide going vertically down forever. The water that has always traveled on it has the slide as their alpha or reason for moving. But the slide is eternal so there is actually an alpha supporting an infinite series. — Gregory
There was no sarcasm in any of the above conversation.I was arguing the opposite, that the numbers need not exist for the sum of 1 and 1 to be 2.
— noAxioms
Ha ha! Well done! I mean this genuinely and not sarcastically. — Philosophim
What is ‘generally accepted/known is a matter of mere opinion. If there are multiple valid interpretations, it cannot be knowledge. That’s just a basic rule of being open minded.Always question and poke at "generally accepted knowledge". My point was that we can't take the standpoint that they're merely assuming what is generally known.
Absolutely. But the topic under discussion is not about social issues.We can give credit that theirs is the societally reasonable stance
That’s not the scientific way to go about it. If one is to assert the alternative view as wrong, that’s what needs the evidence. That’s the scientific method: falsification. I’m not asserting anything is wrong. I’m just saying it isn’t knowledge because there’s an equally valid (and likely more valid) alternative view.if we are to challenge it, we must given evidence that it is wrong.
But I didn’t assert that the OP was wrong. I just pointed out that it made various assumptions, and thus the conclusions might not follow if different assumptions are made.Its just that you need to demonstrate why they have merit, and why the show the OP to be wrong.
You honestly don’t see begging in that answer, do you? You’re invoking the premise “Something must exist to type a reply” to demonstrate the premise. The statement is a positive example, which falsifies nothing. To do the latter, one must posit the negation:It begs its conclusion.
— noAxioms
Can it be falsified? Yes. If something does not exist, then it cannot type a reply. Since you typed a reply, we've concluded you exist. — Philosophim
I didn’t make any mention of ‘current’, so I stated neither thing. The statement was carefully worded in B-series, which forbids implied references to the nonexistent present since any such statements would be begging a different view. Please read up on this and actually understand it before asserting that it is wrong. If you can’t understand it, then don’t argue against it.The alternate view might say that on Feb 5, 2022 we all observe the state of the world of Feb 5, 2022 (at least the nearby stuff), and not some other state. That date is no more or less 'the past', 'the present', or 'the future' than any other date. They all have equal ontology.
— noAxioms
No, that's incorrect. By using dates, you are stating that there are states that are not "current", and states that are "prior to the current state".
Oh I assert its validity. But asserting the necessary truth of any interpretation of something kind of goes against an open minded attitude.If you're just throwing out "Maybe its this," without any type of assertion to its validity
I’ve not heard of counting electron cycles, but fine. Since one electron might cycle thrice as many times between events A and B (events where both electrons are in each other’s presence), it isn’t measuring ‘the rate of time’ between those two events, it is measuring something specific only to each electron.No, they just measure the rate of time from future potential to relative past. A second for example is X number of electronic cycles
Its just that you need to demonstrate why they have merit, and why the show the OP to be wrong.
But I didn’t assert that the OP was wrong. I just pointed out that it made various assumptions, and thus the conclusions might not follow if different assumptions are made. — noAxioms
You’re invoking the premise “Something must exist to type a reply” to demonstrate the premise. The statement is a positive example, which falsifies nothing. To do the latter, one must posit the negation:
P1: Property of existence is not necessary for the interaction between entities.
P2: Two entities X and Y interact.
Now prove that X and Y necessarily have the property of existence without begging your premise. Then you’ve falsified it. — noAxioms
I drive at this point because there are valid interpretations of the world that don’t give any meaning to ‘property of existence’ since ‘exists’ is not defined as a property but rather as a relation. You’re asserting that such an interpretation is necessarily wrong, despite the growing support. — noAxioms
I didn’t make any mention of ‘current’, so I stated neither thing. — noAxioms
Assumptions are not right just because they’re valid.It is appealing to define the world in such a way that all definitions and assumptions are valid, because then you feel like you can never be wrong. — Philosophim
That sounds hokey. Assumptions are valid or they are not. There’s not much more-or-less to it. You might make an argument about more or less likely to be true. Apparently the flying spaghetti monster is a valid argument, but not likely a true one.The problem is, it breaks down because you arrive at a glaring contradiction. I can claim, "No, some definitions/assumpsions are more valid than others," which is a direct challenge to your viewpoint.
Where’s this supposed contradiction in ‘my view’? I mean, I haven’t really expressed ‘my’ view, just a different and very valid one.I've shown you hold a contradiction …
I've claimed your viewpoint is invalid
I would say that the existence of a valid alternate view very much poses a challenge to what might otherwise be an unchallenged view.just because you can propose an alternative definition or assumption, it in no way means its existence challenges or defeats another definition or assumption.
Sorry, but I only remember one sentence, which was:That did not show how my two sentences begged the question.
That doesn’t follow (non-sequitur). In order for it to follow, one must posit that “Something must exist to type a reply”, my words, but begging exactly what you’re trying to show. So I illustrated how to go about demonstrating that premise, which is by presuming the negation, and driving that negated premise to self contradiction. But instead, all you wrote way this:If you don't exist, you won't type a reply.
which is just a mild rewording of the original non-sequitur, not any kind of logical demonstration of the correctness of the assertion.If something does not exist, then it cannot type a reply. Since you typed a reply, we've concluded you exist
That’s an assertion, not a definition. A definition would be more along the lines of what you mean by ‘exists’ or ‘reply’ or some such.Stating what a definition entails is not begging the question.
Yea, duh. English language gets in the way of an awful lot of physics and philosophical definition. For instance, in English, velocity is a property synonymous with speed. But in physics, it is defined as a vector change in position relative to an explicitly defined frame.According to your logic, you proposed a definition for existence which does not follow English.
Ooh, that sounds so much closer to my definition, where existence is only meaningful in relation to other entities.To exist, is to have the property of interacting between other existences/entities.
That sounds more like the standard definition of existence as a property, but the requirement of this property in order for a pair of entities to interact does not follow from this definition.To be an entity, is to exist.
Funny, because the word ‘relation’ or ‘relative’ does not appear anywhere in the OP. It seems instead to be about first cause.You need to re-read the OP. The entire OP is about relational existence.
No, since I made no claim of its correctness, only a claim for the validity of the interpretation that denies a current moment. So you need to demonstrate the self-contradiction that invalidates it.Its been a focal point of the discussion. If you assume that "current" is not anything more than an assumption, then you'll need to demonstrate why your assumption that this is the case, is real.
It wasn’t a comment about the OP, something to which I agreed if you remember.… I don't understand how the B series revokes the OP
It is appealing to define the world in such a way that all definitions and assumptions are valid, because then you feel like you can never be wrong.
— Philosophim
Assumptions are not right just because they’re valid. — noAxioms
That sounds hokey. Assumptions are valid or they are not. There’s not much more-or-less to it. You might make an argument about more or less likely to be true. Apparently the flying spaghetti monster is a valid argument, but not likely a true one. — noAxioms
I’m just saying it isn’t knowledge because there’s an equally valid (and likely more valid) alternative view. — noAxioms
just because you can propose an alternative definition or assumption, it in no way means its existence challenges or defeats another definition or assumption.
I would say that the existence of a valid alternate view very much poses a challenge to what might otherwise be an unchallenged view. — noAxioms
You need to re-read the OP. The entire OP is about relational existence.
Funny, because the word ‘relation’ or ‘relative’ does not appear anywhere in the OP. It seems instead to be about first cause. — noAxioms
Sorry, but I only remember one sentence, which was:
If you don't exist, you won't type a reply. — noAxioms
… I don't understand how the B series revokes the OP
It wasn’t a comment about the OP, something to which I agreed if you remember. — noAxioms
No argument there, so point taken.No, my point is that just because you make an assumption, it doesn't make them valid or right. — Philosophim
Are you claiming that your premises are in fact correct or at least better?These are not claims in a vacuum, they are claims that are a counter to my claims.
OK, since you asked:If you think other assumptions are better than the OP's, then you need to show why.
Don’t be silly. Different interpretations of a thing usually contradict each other, so they obviously cannot all be factually correct.If you think that all assumptions are equally valid and logically and factually correct
Presuming that ‘X is true and false’ in the same sense, that’s a self contradictory set of premises, trivially falsified. It is therefore not a valid set of premises, by definition.If one assumes that X is true, and one assumes that X is false, only one can hold.
But I’m not asserting the rightness of any particular interpretation. You seem to be, since you talk of being right or not. To me, an assumption is just that, a potential thing, not some truth to be believed with certainty. One should be open to alternatives.If you are holding assumptions contrary to the OP's, then only one of us can be right.
I suppose so. I find it more difficult to talk ones way out of some of the problems listed above than problems listed for the B view.so you have the concept in your head about something "likely more valid".
Sounds like Y is explained by an X or not, making X fairly irrelevant to explaining Y.To me, the entire abstract is about selecting a state, and noting that a prior state could exist for the current state to be. In my view, this is a relative state comparison of causality. Why does state Y exist? Because of a prior state X, or Y has no prior state X and exists without any prior explanation.
Given the above quoted premise, I agree. I just don’t hold that premise to be necessarily true, or even meaningful for that matter. I also don’t assert the premise to be false. I’ve never said it was wrong.”If you don't exist, you won't type a reply.”
True, my mistake, that was one sentence, not two. Despite this, I made no logical fallacies in concluding you, who has typed a reply, exist. — Philosophim
Well, the replies are typically in response to the quoted comment, wherever the conversation seems to have gone.I am going to assume your points are to the OP, and not extra asides.
But you asked quite a few questions in your last post that are a response to my comments, and not directly related to the OP, such as why I suspect the A interpretation of time is questionably valid.Lets minimize what is extra, and only focus on what is necessary for the discussion please.
These are not claims in a vacuum, they are claims that are a counter to my claims.
Are you claiming that your premises are in fact correct or at least better? — noAxioms
I greet Bob as we walk past each other. Relative to me, the Andromeda generals have currently (as of the present) not yet decided to launch a war fleet. Relative to Bob, the war fleet is currently in flight, having already been launched. If there is a current moment over there at Andromeda, then the fleet cannot be in a current state of having been launched and not launched. — noAxioms
There is no coordinate system that foliates all events in all of spacetime, which means that there are events that are not ordered (are neither past, present nor future) relative to any time say here on Earth. — noAxioms
Thirdly, and most importantly, how did time get going, and if it was always going, how did the universe suddenly ‘happen’ when there wasn’t anything before it. How does one explain the reality of whatever one asserts to be real? — noAxioms
Lets minimize what is extra, and only focus on what is necessary for the discussion please.
But you asked quite a few questions in your last post that are a response to my comments, and not directly related to the OP, such as why I suspect the A interpretation of time is questionably valid. — noAxioms
I said pretty early on that I have no problem with uncaused events. You speak of chains like a given occurrence has but a single linear set of causes before it, when in actuality there are probably countless factors that came together to cause the occurrence in question. — noAxioms
1. Either all things have a prior cause for their existence, or there is at least one first cause of existence from which a chain of events follows. — Philosophim
’A’ claim: All events are objectively in one of three ontological states of past, present, and future. The A-theorist might or might not apply the property of existence to past and/or future states. The universe is 3D only if past and future states are nonexistent.If you're claiming your premises contradict mine, I don't think they do. Meaning, they might be able to co-exist without issue. — Philosophim
There’s no time dilation in the Andromda example. It is an example of relativity of simultaneity. Dilation is better illustrated with the twins 'paradox' rather than the Andromeda 'paradox'. While we're at it, the barn-pole 'paradox' illustrates relative length contraction. These things are only paradoxical under A theory.. . . If there is a current moment over there at Andromeda, then the fleet cannot be in a current state of having been launched and not launched.
— noAxioms
Basically Einstein's time dilation.
To put it in a non-interpretation-specific way, Y is simply the state at (or immediately prior actually) the time of the measurement.Y is simply the current state we are looking at.
Nobody is examining any state, and there’s no dilation example. What’s going on simultaneously with Bob and I greeting is outside both our light cones and is entirely unmeasurable by either of us. Measurements were not the point of that example.Taking your time dilation example, we just have to examine the state properly.
Or you simply don’t know you’re doing it. OK, so you don’t understand the second argument either. The A theory demands one preferred coordinate system, and all the other ones are wrong. My argument against that is that there is no coordinate system that meets the requirements, forcing the interpretation to deny the existence of parts of spacetime.Fortunately, I'm not using a coordinate system.
That makes it sound like X occurs before Y, which is a contradiction if there’s not yet time until event Y.Thirdly, and most importantly, how did time get going,
— noAxioms
That would be subsumed in the OP. Lets call the existence of time Y. If there was something that caused Y, that answer would be X.
AgreeWhy can self-explained states exist? There is no answer, because they have no reason to exist.
I had responded directly to that one in an early post with the coin example. All the prior cause did was change the arrangement of the coins over time. I don’t consider that a change to anything’s existence, hence I think it a category error to speak of existence being something caused.1. Either all things have a prior cause for their existence, or there is at least one first cause of existence from which a chain of events follows.
— Philosophim
Besides clarifications on my arguments about interpretations, I am actually trying to get the train back on the original track. Mostly with that last comment...I feel like I understood your points much more this time, and I hope I followed up adequately in my answers.
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.