(The 3 extra dimensions being perpendicular to large 3 dimensions). — Hillary

How you do dat? :nerd:

Universe without a beginning means a universe with infinite past events, which means there is no space for new event to add up to infinite number of events. — SpaceDweller

I'm still chewing on this. . . . . :roll:

How you do dat? :nerd: — jgill

A cylinder looks 1D if it's radius is very small. Everywhere on the cylinder, there is a small circle perpendicular to the length direction. Same for three dimensions. Ìf,in 6D, three circles are perpendicular to the other three dimension, then, law and behold, you have a 3D Planckian hypersphere in 6D which looks globally like 3D. Like the circles on a cylinder look pointlike particles in 1D from afar. The Lorenz contraction only happens in the direction of motion, so the Planck length is constant! Damned! :nerd:

Not if there is a causal, unidirectional time, and a causeless none directional, fluctuating one.

(Ignoring for a moment that this sentence is a bit non-sensical ...)

3. therefore there is no space for any further events because infinity can't be used in mathematical operations. (Hillbert hotel problem) — SpaceDweller

It's a futile pursuit.

Hilbert's Hotel is counter-intuitive but does not derive a contradiction.
Wittgenstein gave a simpler (less technical) argument to the same end, not a contradiction either, but rendering an infinite past counter-intuitive more easily.
Seems they fall back on sufficient reason, so that's what's meant by "absurd" here (yes, Craig has used that word as well) — no sufficient reason, our intuitions violated.
Craig's 1st premise is a special case of sufficient reason.

Yet, what about a definite earliest moment, then? Say, 14 billion years ago (as of the other day)?
Well, why not 20 billion, or, in fact, any other age?
Again, no sufficient reason. Not when temporality is of the universe, and that's what we already asserted.

So, we've hit a (logical) limit of sufficient reason. It's metaphysics anyway, so kind of inherently suspect.

By the way, cosmology typically considers another option: no definite earliest time, and not an infinite past duration. Call it "edge-free" if you like. This option itself seems counter-intuitive, at a first glance at least. Yet, it might be worthwhile.

There are other reasons to bin these cosmological arguments.

So even if the past is finite, we can still use the term "eternal" to refer to something that exists at all times. — Relativist

I disagree because usage of the word "eternal" here for universe which has a beginning brings only confusion into discussion.

For universe it's more natural to say finite vs infinite, eternal vs non-eternal, termporal vs timeless etc. at least everybody can understand what one means by this.

I'm still chewing on this — jgill

From video I posted...
Consider a sequence of an infinite number of dominos representing an infinite number of past events that happened.
The last domino is current event, the present or today.
If you knock down earliest domino so that dominoes start to fall down then today cannot be reached because there is infinite amount of them to fall down until today (present) is reached.
Which is an impossibility.

Wittgenstein gave a simpler (less technical) argument to the same end — jorndoe

Do you have a link to his argument somewhere, I don't know what I'm looking for.

If you knock down earliest domino so that dominoes start to fall down then today cannot be reached — SpaceDweller

There is no earliest domino. In an infinite series of big bangs there is always one banging.

I disagree because usage of the word "eternal" here for universe which has a beginning brings only confusion into discussion. — SpaceDweller

I don't care, it's just semantics. My fundamental point is that it's coherent to say material reality exists at all times and this precludes it being caused.

You can make different metaphysical assumptions that would make a creator necessary, but you can't prove those assumptions true. That's the nature of all "proofs" of God: they depend on debatable metaphyical assumptions, made conveniently by theists to convince themselves they've "proven" God.

I don't care, it's just semantics. My fundamental point is that it's coherent to say material reality exists at all times and this precludes it being caused. — Relativist

It's not just semantics. Existing at all times is not existing eternally. Of course something exists as long as it exists so at all times there are. How else can it be.

That's the nature of all "proofs" of God: they depend on debatable metaphyical assumptions, made conveniently by theists to convince themselves they've "proven" God. — Relativist

Not all proofs of god assume the gods before.

Not all proofs of god assume the gods before. — Hillary

Give one.

You can see them in dream epihany. Quantum mechanis offers the possibility. There are no laws contradicted. You might hear them speak. I consider that proof.

You can see them in dream epihany — Hillary

I don't. Therefore your proof is false.

...

Correction, it's attributed to Wittgenstein, not sourced, here's my paraphrase:

Wittgenstein overhears someone saying “5, 1, 4, 1, 3. Done.”
He asks what that was about, and they respond that they just finished reciting π backward.
“But, how old are you?”
“Infinitely old. I never started, but have been at it forever and finally finished.”

Why finish right at that time, and not some other time, any other time in fact?
Counter-intuitive implications, no sufficient reason.

James Harrington: Time: A Philosophical Introduction
Craig Skinner: Ask a Philosopher: Questions and Answers 47 (2nd series) #94

So, sufficient reason is violated in both of those two cases, counter-intuitive (but not contradictory) implications.
Limit of sufficient reason.
Futile pursuit.

In other news:

Ethan Siegel: Surprise: the Big Bang isn’t the beginning of the universe anymore (Oct 13, 2021)

To you, yes. For me no.

To you, yes. For me no. — Hillary

Therefore it is not a proof.

Therefore it is not a proof. — Jackson

For you not. For me yes. No, for you too. If I have seen gods in my dream, how you proof it's not directly from the gods. I can proof it is. Because they showed me the true reality of nature.

For you not. For me yes. No, for you too. If I have seen gods in my dream, how you proof it's not directly from the gods. I can proof it is. Because they showed me the true reality of nature. — Hillary

A proof is not the mere telling about one's experience.

Ethan Siegel: Surprise: the Big Bang isn’t the beginning of the universe anymore (Oct 13, 2021) — jorndoe

I could have told him that two years ago already.

A proof is not the mere telling about one's experience. — Jackson

The mere telling is no proof no. But the experience is.

The mere telling is no proof no. But the experience is. — Hillary

Clearly, that is what I meant.

Clearly, that is what I meant. — Jackson

That the experience is no proof? Then you need to reconsider your proof.

Then you need to reconsider your proof. — Hillary

I do not understand this sentence.

I do not understand this sentence — Jackson

You say that if I tell you I saw gods in my dreams showing heaven and the reason for creation is no proof. I ask you to reconsider. Why is that no proof? Because I can lie about it?

You say that if I tell you I saw gods in my dreams showing heaven and the reason for creation is no proof. I ask you to reconsider. Why is that no proof? Because I can lie about it? — Hillary

You proved nothing. You just related an experience. Since I do not have that experience you proved nothing.

You proved nothing. You just related an experience. Since I do not have that experience you proved nothing. — Jackson

Ah, because you didn't experience that. Well then, what more can I say...

The mere telling is no proof no. But the experience is. — Hillary

The methodology of Carlos René Romero described at "Did Jesus Really Visit the Americas?" (Jul 2008)

Argument from inconsistent revelations (Aug 2018)

You're free to believe whatever, but you're not going to convince anyone else by this methodology.
Maybe you could start providing claims (the more the better) that others can then go out and check?

It's not just semantics. Existing at all times is not existing eternally. — Hillary

You're objecting to the meaning of the word "eternal". That is arguing semantics.

Of course something exists as long as it exists so at all times there are. How else can it be.

I didn't merely say it exists at all times it exists. I said it never DOESN'T exist. There is no time prior to its existence, and it never ceases to exist.

To be clear, I'm referring to the fundamental basis of material reality, whatever that might be. This doesn't preclude multiple dimensions of time. I merely assume there is a fundamental basis that is sine qua non for material existence.

You're free to believe whatever, but you're not going to convince anyone else by this methodology. — jorndoe

The difficulty is that the inner experience, the dream, is of another quality than experiences in the sciences. We can all see the stone falling to Earth or the diffraction pattern behind the double slit. At the same time, mass psychosis can rule supreme in the sciences and one sees what one wishes for badly. How can we establish a theological methodology, like a scientific methodology?

, well, if you think such claims are applicable to everyone/everything...

Maybe you could start providing claims (the more the better) that others can then go out and check? — jorndoe

Slap Trump in a dream, check if he has a bruise the next day, don't forget to apologize?

didn't merely say it exists at all times it exists. I said it never DOESN'T exist. There is no time prior to its existence, and it never ceases to exist. — Relativist

But there are two different kinds of time. The emergent causal thermodynamic time and the non-directional, fluctuating time state before that. It doesn't make sense to say the TD timeless state exists in time. That timeless state doesn't need time to be created. It doesn't exist in your time-framed way. It's in direct contact with heaven. Though here I maybe go a bit to far.

Slap Trump in a dream, check if he has a bruise the next day, don't forget to apologize? — jorndoe

If only I had access... :lol: