It exists in your mind, your imagination, but not in the physical world. I can imagine a point. I can also imagine a line, which is continuous.

I don't think we're getting anywhere. I'm going to leave it at that. — T Clark

As you wish.

Hypostatisation. Another case of folk mistaking a way of talking for a thing. — Banno

Ok!

1 – This means nothing. — Lionino

It means something. It means given the laws of nature you can predict the behavior of entities. The laws of nature cannot however be explained. That is what I mean by at the fundamental level.

2 – I said physics is concerned with 'how', not whether we know how this or that particular fact. — Lionino

Ok, so you are correcting yourself.

3 – You then proceed to give a physical — though incorrect — explanation of how light propagates, self-refuting your claim that physics isn't concerned with how. — Lionino

I mean an explanation in terms of the laws of nature. By this, I mean given the laws of nature you can explain things but you cannot explain the laws of nature.

4 – This phrase "temporal change" isn't used in physics. — Lionino

It is used. Change can be temporal or spatial. By temporal I mean the strength of the electromagnetic field for example changes at a point in space by time.

5 – That is electromagnetic induction as given by B-S's Law and L's Law. Nothing to do with propagation of the electromagnetic wave. — Lionino

You can produce electric field if magnetic field changes by time. You can also produce magnetic field in absence of electrical current if electric field changes by time. That is how light propagate in space.

6 – Cut the nonsensical "fundamental" out of the phrase and it is evidently wrong. Even with the "fundamental" there, one could argue it is wrong too, resorting to relativistic explanations. — Lionino

By fundamental I mean we don't know how the laws of nature work.

lol — Lionino

So you know!?

A point does not exist in the everyday world. It is an abstraction, and idealization - imaginary. It has no size. It 's zero dimensional. It does not take up space. A center of gravity is a point and, as such, is also an abstraction, imaginary. — T Clark

Are you claiming that something which is an abstraction cannot exist?

A point is an abstract mathematical entity which doesn't correspond with any phenomenon in the world of our everyday existence. — T Clark

The center of mass of your body is a point. The center of mass of your computer is a point as well. There is a distance between these two points. The question is whether this distance is discrete or continuous.

The same is true of a continuum. — T Clark

Well, that is the subject of discussion.

You are talking out of your butt. — Lionino

That is a typical response from a person who either does not understand an argument or does not have any argument to add something fruitful to a discussion. Do you know how a temporal change in the electric field produces the magnetic field?

The sciences are concerned with how. How does light propagate, how are chemical bonds formed, how do worms reproduce. — Lionino

Physics is not concerned with how at the fundamental level. We know how light propagates. A temporal change in the electric field produces the magnetic field and vice versa. That is how we explain the propagation of light. Yet we don't know at the fundamental level how a temporal change in the electric field produces the magnetic field and vice versa.

To be fair, I should have added that boredom would not the only one reason that after a certain point such an endless life would be unbereable. But in any case, I'm not sure how you have not conceded my point, i.e. that such a 'relative perfection' is undesiderable. We seem to agree that an endless life with only finite goods becomes after a certain point unbereable. — boundless

Perhaps good is not finite. If it is and life is eternal then we are in trouble.

Yet, you seem to say that a state of 'relative perfection' is 'better than nothing'. How can an 'endless unbeareable life' be better than 'nothing'? — boundless

Well, either the state of relative perfection or the state of suffering. Which one do you pick? By nothing I didn't mean permanent death.

But if there is nothing that guarantees that I may not fall from such a state of 'relative peace' (assuming that it is a positive state), then such a state is not possible (for instance, in traditional theism, God is the foundation of the stability of the beatitude of the blessed). — boundless

A state of relative peace is possible.

Also, if it is too similar to the present life - after all, if it is seen as a perpetual struggle, the comparison is IMO apt - I am not sure how it is better than nothing. If I really think that this life will last forever, well I think it will be at a certain point unbereable (due to boredom... after all, finite goods can give finite happiness). — boundless

Correct. Life becomes boring if it is eternal.

An enlightened society without nation state politics but rather one world government, something like USA but on a global level would reduce wars or wars within itself because the interests of the whole would align with the interests of the individual we could eliminate wars entirely. — kindred

Very correct!

A utopia could in theory be isolated from the rest of the world where a sufficiently advanced civilisation has no need to impose its ideals on other nation states and sufficiently strong enough to be unbothered by wars waged on it by other nation states or actors. In a society where the basic human needs are easily met with ease would be the starting point of such a civilisation. — kindred

Very correct!

If this obstacle was overcome by everyone in that society having the same vision of what a utopia should be then then there would be no need for authoritarianism, in fact it would be the opposite of what utopia entails. Perhaps in such a society the role of government would be minimal although laws would still exist albeit they would be irrelevant as this society would compromise of enlightened citizens who know right from wrong without laws telling them so. — kindred

Very correct!

A society without pain, suffering, disease, wars, poverty or even death. — kindred

Pain and pleasure come together so we cannot have one without another one. They are related to our physiology and without them, we don't learn anything. Suffering is a broad concept. We can get rid of a part but not all of it. We can get rid of most of the diseases in the far distant future. Wars and poverty are our faults. We can avoid them when we are wise enough. Death is unavoidable though.

The angle of my question is not aimed at the human obstacles of achieving such a civilisation or whether it’s technologically possible but rather whether it’s philosophically possible. — kindred

Technological advancement without ethical advancement leads to disasters.

What would Joy feel like without pain, what would riches mean without poverty or what would health mean without sickness. What would life mean without death? — kindred

Joy and sadness come together. Richness and poverty are our fault.

For this reason I don’t think Utopia is possible as life is about opposites ying and yang otherwise it would just be all yang and without ying. All black or all white. But what do you think ? — kindred

What do you mean with Utopia?

Ok, fine. But the 'relative perfection' you mentioned earlier didn't sound as something desirable, something to seek etc if it is a constant struggle. — boundless

Well, the state of relative peace is better than nothing. The better you understand life it becomes easier to achieve relative peace.

Well, in any case, your conception of 'relative peace' cannot be a real 'peace'. If we have to continue to struggle to maintain it, it inevitably involves suffering. — boundless

Well, I mentioned that if perfection is boundless then we cannot possibly reach the state of absolute peace but relative one. There is nothing we can do about it.

Well, at least hypothetically/logically I think that it isn't true. I can imagine an interrupted continuum of neutral and/or positive experiences. At least I do not see a logical impossibility here. — boundless

Well, I can imagine a state of peace and harmony (what I call perfection) as well but our current state of affairs is not like this.

Why should humans care how much BALANCE of suffering occurs in the universe, when it is him/her that is being subjected to suffering in various amounts, perhaps on the more negative end of the equation? — schopenhauer1

We are curious creatures so we are wondering why life looks like this. I don't think that there is any sort of suffering that leads to a completely negative end whether you believe in a God or not who is in charge of enforcing Karma. For a moment think that there is no God. Think of a situation in which a child is born with cancer. Both the child and relatives suffer in such a situation. What is the human response to such a situation? We try to find a medication to cure the child. So our overall state of life improves with time as we face challenges and sufferings.

In other words, for humans, why should it matter how the "overall picture" looks from their point of view, if they are the ones suffering!? — schopenhauer1

The same answer as above.

But are specifically discussing the "Abrahamic" God from the Biblical narratives here or is this just MoK's own version of things? — schopenhauer1

We can discuss other sorts of Gods as well. I am open to discussion. I however have problems with Abrahamic God.

Ok. But if this peace is 'relative', as you say, what guarantee we have that we do not lose it? — boundless

There is no guarantee that we don't lose it. It is a constant challenge to stay in a state of relative peace.

Also, is this scenario desirable because suffering is less than pleasure in this 'relative peace'? — boundless

I don't equate a state of peace with a state in which we experience more pleasure than suffering. A state of peace is neutral. By neutral I mean you neither suffer nor have pleasure.

All I see here is an assertion that change always entails 'suffering'. For instance, the reason why I believe that transience entails suffering in this world is that there isn't an unbroken continuum of pleasurable/positive experiences. Sooner or later, the 'continuum' of positive experiences will have an end, due to illnesses, other kinds of suffering, and death. — boundless

Yes, we cannot avoid suffering if perfection is boundless.

On the other hand, if there were only positive experiences and the succession of these experiences would continue forever, I would say that there would be no suffering in this case. This is to say that I don't think that logically change necessary entails suffering. — boundless

Correct. But you ask whether we can make any progress without suffering. I mentioned that there could be progress without suffering if there is no experience. I then mentioned that change is not possible without experience. Progress is a change. Therefore progress is not possible without experience. I also don't think that you can make progress without suffering. That is how life is!

You just contradicted yourself. It doesn't matter what the outcome is. — schopenhauer1

It matters.

So here we have the following:
1) A perfect god wouldn't have needs
2) A good god wouldn't want suffering — schopenhauer1

Well, God could be both good and evil. Such a God however is Just. By Just I mean God delivers good or evil in a proper amount depending on the situation. So the existence of suffering in the universe is not a problem for such a God as far as suffering leads to a positive result. That is correct that a good God wouldn't want to see suffering but even such a God might want to create a universe full of suffering if the outcome of suffering is positive and good.

Now you can contest this, but then that's my point, what is a perfect and good god? Generally, a perfection doesn't lack anything. — schopenhauer1

I agree that a perfect God does not lack anything and creation does not add anything to a perfect God but that does not mean that such a God wouldn't want to create a universe if the outcome of creation is positive.

Now if I was to be real abstract about it, I would again point to the idea of a multiverse whereby everything that exists is god, and thus, at the least, one of the universes has to have the shit end of the stick with suffering. If not one, then vastly infinite amounts perhaps, and we are but one of them. — schopenhauer1

I agree that the whole is boundless and there could be any agents one can imagine.

All we have to admit then is that THIS god you describe, the one Just-Centric god that rules this universe is not perfect. Our disagreement comes from our definitions of perfection. For me, a perfect being has no needs, is not dissatisfied with its own supernal nature. Thus, whatever deity it is that devises a plan whereby they play out acts of goodness and badness, and acts of godliness and sins and acts of "Holy Hosannas!" and repentance to appease the God. A god that has a plan for a universe whereby people must act in a way to bring about a future World to Come apocalypse, where he then reveals himself in his full glory after an absence.. Whatever else it is, that is not perfection in that it is a designer of a game that it is playing. He creates the players, he creates the systems, and wants to see the players play ball in the system and see how it turns out.

That is a very human-like god. That makes sense since humans created it. A god that needs humans (to play his game), is a god that NEEDS things. — schopenhauer1

I understand that a perfect God does not need anything but that does not mean such a God would not want to create a universe with positive outcomes. The creation of the universe does not add anything to a perfect God but it adds to existence if existence is positive. So I don't understand why a perfect God would not want to create.

This all makes no sense, so I'll leave you to your own musings unless you want to explain your use of "against wisdom" here. — schopenhauer1

First of all, I have to say that I don't have an argument for a God who is the creator of everything from nothing at the beginning of time. All I am saying is that if there is a God who is perfect, whether perfection is bounded or boundless, in all his attributes would not create any lesser agent than God who is subject to suffering since the suffering cannot be justified. This however requires the existence of a God who can create another God and It is Just. If these two conditions (a God who can create another God and a God who is Just) do not meet then we are dealing with a variety of Gods so creations also look different depending on the type of God. For example, we can have a God who is Just but cannot create another God. So, such a God can create a universe in which agents within are subject to suffering. Such a God however only creates a universe if suffering can be justified. This however requires that suffering is fruitful and something positive would come out of it. There could be a God who is Evil or Good too. A God could also be malicious. What could we do with a malicious God? Nothing but accepting our fates and suffering eternally.

Also, why would a perfect deity care about creating anything? — schopenhauer1

Well, that depends on the definition of God (the types of Gods as it was discussed in the last comment) that we have to agree on. The act of creation is positive if something positive comes out of suffering for example.

The only way to get around this is to define God as everything that ever exists in every possible mode that can ever happen. It is akin to the Many Worlds hypothesis in physics. We are playing out one mode of existence out of an infinite array. In this world, we have suffering. In this world, there might even be a hidden deity that enjoys creating beings that have to overcome obstacles and realize he exists, but this would just be one world out of many worlds, as clearly, a perfect God would have no need for creation, so perhaps there is a world where there is a perfect god and a creation set of nothing. So if a perfect god exists, it is not THIS world, but it MIGHT BE some world of all the infinite sets of worlds, perhaps even most of them. Maybe we are of the lesser variety of God's infinite set, that has deities with imperfect NEEDS to see creation play out in a "right action leads to rewards and wrong action leads to punishment" (or its cousin, the Eastern version of Karmic causal effect for that matter). In that sense, we would be living out in a sort of Spinozist world of infinite modes, sort of. Our world would be of "the lower-than-average suffering and deity that has needs that need to be met" variety. — schopenhauer1

I think that the whole, what you call God, is boundless and I have an argument for it (you can find the argument in my threads). So, any sort of agent that can be imagined exists if the whole is filled with stuff. Therefore, I agree with this part of your statement that there could be spiritual agents that for example in charge of enforcing Karma.

Ok, I see. But if suffering is literally endless, how can such an endless effort be something desirable to us? — boundless

If suffering is endless then we cannot reach the state of absolute peace but we can reach the state of relative peace.

For instance, IIRC, Kant's view was that the progress to ethical perfection is endless but I don't think that after a certain point, it involves suffering. — boundless

If suffering is endless then we cannot achieve a state without suffering.

This leads to me to another question. Do you think that any kind of 'dynamic progress', so to speak, necessarily involves suffering? If so, why? — boundless

Well, it depends if experience is necessary for any sort of dynamic progress. If progress can be achieved without experience then there would be no suffering otherwise there would be. Change to me however is not possible without experience. The argument for this is very long and technical. If you buy this argument for the sake of discussion then it follows that suffering is involved in any sort of dynamic progress.

But if such a goal is utterly unachievable and suffering cannot be eliminated, why we should seek it? — boundless

We can reach a state of relative peace even if suffering is boundless.

Another version of why this is incorrect:

A pencil exists at the same instance in time, all along it's length. But that's a continuum, not a set of discreet points appearing at a particular point in time. — AmadeusD

I don't understand what you are trying to say.

Not correct. — Relativist

It is correct given the definition of gap. The events lay on the same point if there is no gap between them.

There is no gap on the real number line. — Relativist

If that was true then Aleph_1 was the largest cardinal number.

What is your definition of change?

And that is the reason your argument isn't compelling. — Relativist

Can we make a correct argument without properly defining the terms used?

I see absolutely no reason to think there's a "gap" between instants of time, regardless of whether it's continuous or discrete. — Relativist

If there is no gap between two instants of time then they lay on the same point. Is this correct or not?

What is your definition of change?

You have demonstrated that you argument DEPENDS on assumptions. If I'm wrong, then recast your argument using my definition of time, events, discrete and continuous time. — Relativist

No, my arguments depend on the definitions. So again, consider a change. Is there a gap or isn't? Take your pick.

What is your definition of change by the way?

You seem to be making a number of specific metaphysical assumption that I disagree with, so it's pointless to continue. — Relativist

I don't think that all the arguments that I provided are assumptions. You are free to finish the discussion if you wish.

Change doesn't occur at a point of time. Change entails a passage of time. — Relativist

Correct. Perhaps using the term process is misleading. By process, I simply mean a set of events that occur either in a single timeless point or temporary. The set of events therefore is simultaneous in the first case and temporal in the second case. If you are not happy with the term process then let's call it a set of events or simply S for the sake of discussion.

I get the impression that you are treating time as a metaphysical entity, which I don't agree with. I consider time to be a relation between states. So a passage of time entails transitioning from state to state, while each emerged state is an event. — Relativist

Well, I think that time is a physical entity. This can be shown but it is not fruitful in the current stage of our discussion. I will need to discuss it later so let's wait for the proper time.

Also, what is an event? I view an event as a state that was caused by a prior state. — Relativist

By event, I mean a substance that exists in a specific state.

Describe it. I'll point out that as you make more assumptions, you weaken your case - because each assumption can be rejected (unless you can show it to be logically necessary). — Relativist

By discrete time I mean a time that occurs at certain points each consecutive points are separated by a constant interval.

I don' know if your use of "evolve" is meant to refer to biological evolution, but if so, no we as individuals don't evolve. Species evolve. — wonderer1

By evolve I mean both spiritual growth and evolution which only occur in species.

So do you think it is the case that we simple aren't the species that God wants, and God is waiting for some species to come, and doesn't care about the suffering it takes to get there? — wonderer1

I think humans can enlighten so we can reach a state of harmony and relative peace if each individual puts into practice to achieve enlightenment. I think that humans are subject to further evolution as well. I also think that God cares about the level of suffering that we receive. Too much suffering can lead to the extinction of humans. We won't evolve further if the suffering does not exist at all. So suffering should be in the right proportion.

I don't think that it is necessary that a 'boundless' state of perfection contains suffering. But IMO, why seek it if suffering is literally endless? Seeking an end to suffering seems to be the most natural thing to seek (even if it would be impossible). — boundless

Well, that is unfortunately not completely up to us. If perfection is boundless then we suffer eternally since we cannot possibly achieve it. If perfection is bounded then we can achieve it hence there will be an end to our sufferings.

I see your point, but IMO everyone desires to be from suffering in a very intimate level. Why should I seek a state of perfection if I will still suffer? — boundless

Well, if we achieve perfection we won't suffer anymore. That is the goal of our lives!

I read your long post twice and here you can find my response to it: I think it would be fruitful to discuss the idea of God in the first place since I don't believe in the concept of Jewish God that for example has foreknowledge. Apart from the paradox (the paradox that our fates are fixed) you mentioned there is another paradox that I can summarize in the following. Let's assume that I meet God in Heaven face to face and I can ask questions to God. I can simply challenge God's foreknowledge by asking a simple question of whether I am going to do a certain act. If God answers that I am not going to do then the question is whether I can do the opposite or not. If I cannot then I am not a free agent which is problematic. If I can then God does not have foreknowledge. That is one problem aside: God does not have foreknowledge. The second problem is related to the fact whether God can create God or not. It is against wisdom if God can create God but wouldn't create God, instead creating creatures who must undergo all sorts of troubles and sufferings. Therefore, I believe that God cannot create God therefore the creation, like it or not, looks like the things that it is, people suffering but evolving, and people do wrong so they get punished... So here we are involved in something people call life, like or or not, we have to play it out.

Do you think that this 'evolution' has an 'end'? Or is endless? — boundless

It depends on what the state of perfection is. If the state of perfection is boundless we will ever suffer. If the state of perfection is bounded then we will soon find peace.

Yes, suffering can teach many things but I would hope that life is not an inseparable feature of life. — boundless

Fortunately or unfortunately, suffering is an inseparable feature of life! Fortunately, because we have a way to evolve. Unfortunately, because we have to suffer.

Why should I want to suffer if I have no chance to somehow find an escape from it? — boundless

You need to get enlightened if you want to reach a state of relative peace.

OK, I see your point. However, that approach is vulnerable to objections based on special relativity (see this article). Since we're talking about the metaphysics of time in general, it usually makes more sense to consider the temporal evolution of the universe: the universe evolves from state S1 at time T1 to state S2 at time T2. T1 and T2 are points of time, and also correspond to events. On this global scale, there are no "simultaneous events". Does this work for you? — Relativist

I am familiar with the Relativity of simultaneity but that is not what I mean by simultaneous process. By simultaneous process, I mean a process in which all events occur at a single timeless point. Let me give you an example: A film is made of discrete frames. You can watch frames in order one frame at any given time. What you experience is a temporal change namely the movie. You can also watch all the frames at a single point. That is what I mean by simultaneously.

Yes, you are. Here's an excerpt from the Wikipedia article on the chronon:

"A chronon is a proposed quantum of time, that is, a discrete and indivisible "unit" of time as part of a hypothesis that proposes that time is not continuous. In simple language, a chronon is the smallest, discrete, non-decomposable unit of time in a temporal data model. "

You're trying to divide something that is indivisible, treating time as continuous (that's what you're doing when you consider the chronons divisible into points) - but events are merely advancing in stutter-steps. You can't have it both ways. — Relativist

I am not talking about the quantization of time in which time is made of indivisible units so-called Chronon. I am talking about the classical discrete time.

I think, BC, that this question reveals an even more disturbing question- what kind of god wants his creations to suffer? — schopenhauer1

A God who wants evolution in life. Suffering is an inseparable feature of life, without it we don't learn many things, and without it we don't evolve.

And that is a problem. You are not critical of your own beliefs. It seems you are here to tell us what you believe, but not to listen or think about things in a new way. Not to do philosophy.

Challenge yourself. — Banno

I am critical of my beliefs. I thought you could find a problem with my belief.

The definition of god is of a being that is perfect in every way. All knowing all good all powerful. Perfect in all aspects. — kindred

Cool. The next question that you have to ask yourself is whether such a God can create another God.

These statements suggests that your concept of God is too small. A being who is present in all times--past, present, and future; and in all places, knows all, and has unlimited power can't be contemplated using humanoid traits, like thrift or duty, or by comparing God's omniscience to our measly flashbacks. — BC

I don't know all the attributes of God. I think that humans are not perfect so they don't psychologically have access to all the possible attributes including attributes of God. We have instinct. We can think logically. We have the impression of intuition. I don't know what wisdom is but people talk about it. People talk about meaning too but I don't think that any human has ever experienced it yet. And so on. To complete I don't think that God has access to the future since the future is not decided yet.

An altogether unlimited God presents problems. We ask, "Well, why didn't God create a world without suffering? Or, why didn't God make people who were good from the start and stayed that way? And so on. We look at this unlimited being from our extraordinarily limited being's perspectives, and think we see God's mistakes. Highly presumptuous. — BC

Without suffering no organism can evolve. So suffering is an inseparable aspect of life. Why God didn't create a perfect agent? God couldn't since a perfect agent by definition is God.

Look, I don't know any more about God than anybody else. It's just that if we want to CLAIM that god is unlimited, then we have to accept that we will never understand such a being, will never understand the Divine plan of Salvation, or anything else about God. We don't have to reject the existence of this unlimited God, but our severe limitations in understanding God put the ball back in our court.

In other words, our problems are our problems. — BC

Yes, our problems are our problems but that does not mean that God is not in charge.

And what do you think are the problems with this view? — Banno

I don't think that there is any problem with this view. If you think that there is a problem then please tell me.

If god cannot create perfect humans then he is not god. — kindred

A perfect agent is God and not a human with all human limitations. Humans have to get through, evolve further, and grow to become perfect (if that is possible at all). Therefore, humans are not perfect yet. If God can create a perfect agent then God should only create God!

In the bible it said that he created man in his image therefore perfect. — kindred

As far as I remember from the Bible Adam looks good in the eyes of God and not perfect. I don't interpret the Bible literally. I don't know what image means. Do you? In regards to humans, we know that humans are the result of evolution and humans were not created at once.

Yet we have children who are born disabled how can you explain that? — kindred

Bad Karma from the past life.

In that case the perfect creator cannot exist. So no god. — kindred

What do you mean by the perfect creator?

No, it isn't.

But perhaps you can't bring yourself to see that, because your faith depends on it.

If the world is already just, then there could be no "duty" for us to make the world just. Another contradiction in your position. — Banno

I said this to another poster and I think it is proper for our discussion too: "I think God cannot create perfect humans in one instant since God cannot cheat life. So we have to get through, evolve, and grow."