You totally and utterly seriously lost me here — Hillary
If you had some knowledge of physics I would accept that. But you havent! — Hillary
You implied that I envisaged an electron as being stuffed with photons. — universeness
was just trying to be as ridiculous as you were being.
You implied that I envisaged an electron as being stuffed with photons.
I tried to explain to you that I found your suggestion as ridiculous as suggesting that everything in the Universe was made from the 4 elements the ancients believed made up the Universe.
32mReplyOptions — universeness
Your point here is moot as I am not challenging your physics with mine, I am challenging your physics with what other physicists say. — universeness
How else if you envision it as absorbed? — Hillary
Oh I know enough about physics and I can understand what other physicists say to understand your proposal for a T.O.E is highly unlikely. We all have our subject specialisations. I probably know a lot more about computing science than you will ever know about physics but such comparisons are fruitless and pointless.But you dont understand other physicists. What then do they say? Quote please! you make things up! — Hillary
A photon is an energy packet, not a billiard ball, of course, it can be absorbed. What's happening in photosynthesis if energy cant be absorbed? — universeness
Oh I know enough about physics and I can understand what other physicists say to understand your proposal for a T.O.E is highly unlikely. We all have our subject specialisations. I — universeness
Of course, logically, a God is also not necessary — Philosophim
Of course, logically, a God is also not necessary
— Philosophim
A god, better, lots of them, are logical necessary to provide final closure. If the final gap is closed, only gods offer reason. A logical conclusion. You can't argue gods away by logic. — Hillary
1.It is necessary that something is self-explained.
2. If something is self-explained, there are no prior rules that explain why it existed.
3. Because there are no rules that limit why or how a self-explained existence can be, one cannot put a limit on what could possibly be self-explained when one does not know the origin(s) of the universe. — Philosophim
Oh I know enough about physics and I can understand what other physicists say to understand your proposal for a T.O.E is highly unlikely — universeness
The past existed during the present; only a record of it exists now. The future does not exist; it is expected to become the present. Past and future are words without existence; they do not exist. — val p miranda
...only a record of it exists now. — val p miranda
The past existed...a record of it exists now. — val p miranda
Oh I know enough about physics and I can understand what other physicists say to understand your proposal for a T.O.E is highly unlikely — universeness
Past and future are words without existence; they do not exist. — val p miranda
1. It is necessary that something is self-explained.
2. If something is self-explained, there are no prior rules that explain why it existed.
3. Because there are no rules that limit why or how a self-explained existence can be, one cannot put a limit on what could possibly be self-explained when one does not know the origin(s) of the universe. — Philosophim
The point is, you don't understand what my theory is about. And you can call in the physical infantery, the "hot-shots", but they dont have a true counter. And WTF means highly unlikely? More likely that they are right? Oooookaaaaay.... woowoooooooo... kedeng kedeng....woowoooo!!! — Hillary
It is not necessary something is self explained. The universe can't explain it's own existence. Gods, being eternally intelligent, don't need an explanation. Gods are the only reasonable reason for the universe's existence. — Hillary
Your first premise is false because it should start with "IF" rather than "IT", that is, under assumption that something is self-explained rather than claim that something is self-explained.
We know nothing in the nature is self-explained, do you have anything that is self-explanatory? — SpaceDweller
I proved it was logically necessary here. https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/12098/a-first-cause-is-logically-necessary — Philosophim
How do posits like the multiverse or the Penrose bounce affect your view on the infinite regression and a necessary first cause? Does it not matter how many times, time is reset back to 0? — universeness
Is it only the 'first time' that time progressed from t=0 that a first cause is needed? and if so, does it matter how far back that was? — universeness
Would this first cause still need to have a significance to our Universe other than as some original mindless spark that occurred at the start of an unknown number of t=o resets ago? — universeness
One can expect the present to contnue — val p miranda
The first uncaused cause — val p miranda
The term uncaused cause makes no sense, it's like saying the nonexistent existent — universeness
It’s not nonsense to say that a cause is itself uncaused: it causes, but is not caused. — Jamal
I realise, you are just discussing the term uncaused cause from the standpoint of logic and contradiction but I think it does fail in that aspect as well. Which rule in propositional logic validates uncaused cause? — universeness
If you say God caused the physical universe, that would be an efficient cause — Jackson
Yes, unless you are willing to accept such (imo) very dubious (in the best case scenario) as uncaused cause for the specially pleaded case of god.Then you would look at God as needing to be caused as well. — Jackson
I think Aristotle solves the problem by making the physical world always existing and 'God' (Prime Mover) also uncaused and co-existing — Jackson
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.