So this already created world is B. How is it that the following is not saying that God creating a different world is not even possible? — wonderer1

It's not possible that God created a different world, because the world that we have is the world that God created. However, at the time when God was about to create, it was possible for him to create whichever world he wanted.

I don't see why that is hard to understand.

No. How would you draw that conclusion?

Would you agree that there is no possible world in which God creates B and therefore it was necessary that God create A? — wonderer1

By what Walter stipulated, A and B are incompatible, so not only is it impossible that such is necessary, I would say that it is not even possible that God create A, if God has already created B.

How would you know if 101 was actually spelled backward or not? How would we know if all those people like Banno who appear to be looking backward aren't really looking forward?

So. the Will of God is a property of God and this Will of God is the same, whether A of B is created?
And God's action to create A is the very same as God's action to create B? — Walter

I think we're back to the beginning, and you are just going around in a circle. God only makes one of the two choices, A or B. The choice was A. So we have "God's action to create A". There is no "God's action to create B" because God did not make that choice. That is a false premise. So your conclusion "God's action to create A is the very same as God's action to create B" is an unsound conclusion because it requires the false premise that God created bot A and B.

Maybe you ought to consider it in terms of a counterfactual. Take your own will for example. Suppose you could have gone to work this morning, but you stayed home instead. Therefore "went to work this morning" is a counterfactual, it is not what you really did. And if I say "you went to work this morning" when you did not, that is a false premise. It is not a true description of you. Likewise, if God chose to create A, then "God's action to create B" is a false description of God, in the very same way. Therefore to say "God's action to create A is the very same as God's action to create B" is false in the same way that "your action to go to work is the very same as your action to stay home" is false.

What I would like to ask you now, is are you really having so much trouble understanding this? Or, are you just refusing to understand, denying, for the sake of supporting an obviously ridiculous argument?

Does an inch exist on a ruler without someone looking at it? — jgill

A ruler has markings, it might say "inch", or it may not. I don't see the relevance, an act of measurement was required to produce that marking.

Long ago, one of the regulars here insisted that Mount Everest did not have a height until it was measured. The prognosis was advanced pragmatism, unfortunately incurable. — Banno

Reminds me of the time when I argued that a jar full of marbles does not have a number until counted.
But I'm in no way a pragmatist. This was in a thread about quantum mechanics, and it was an example of the point which a physicist (I believe it was Bell) had made about quantum measurement. Measurement, he explained, whether quantum, or any type of measurement, is fundamentally not what the average person thinks it is. The value which we assign is not there until it is assigned.

Edit: The last sentence ought to be revised, the value is never actually there in the thing, it's simply what we say about it.

Very good logic. We are all right therefore we all agree.

I have been talking about God's Will to create A and God's Will to create B.
Are they different or is God's Will to create A the same as God's Will to create B? — Walter

I think you are misunderstanding what is meant by "God's Will". The will is the source of action, as the cause. So there is only a will to create A (cause of A) if A is created, and a will to create B (cause of B) if B is created. If A and B are conflicting there cannot be the will to create both.

If they are different, then they are contingent properties. — Walter

They are not properties of God at all. As I said earlier, "God's Will" refers to the property, the Will of God is a property of God. "A", or "B", is what we use to describe what has been created by that will. Our description of what God has Willed is not a description of God's Will.

The measures simply are. — jgill

That's a mistaken idea. Measurements need to be made, and measurement is an act which requires time. The simple fact that any measurement requires time is a fundamental premise of Einstein's special relativity, which produces the concept of the relativity of simultaneity.

Yes, you can remove the temporality from measurement, and work with measurements which "simply are", but that is to assume a static world which you are working with. This is adequate for many applications, things in the same frame of reference, static relative to each other. Even the locations which are used to produce the "rest frame" are taken to be static locations which "simply are", as indicated by "rest frame". The assumed "rest" provides the premise required to remove temporality.

But as an ontological principle, the "static world" assumption, the assumed "rest" which is required to remove the temporal aspect as you describe, is a false premise, therefore producing unsound logic for any ontological purpose.

This is a very good demonstration of why Banno has much difficulty understanding metaphysics. Banno seems to think that axioms of mathematics which have been proven very useful in a wide range of physical applications can automatically be given an even wider range of application, a metaphysical application, without first undergoing the critical analysis of a metaphysician. Not recognizing that metaphysics is a broader field than physics, and that some axioms which are very useful to physics will turn out to be inapplicable in the wider field of metaphysics, and therefore very misleading if applied by a pseudo-metaphysician, is a fundamental misunderstanding of the field of metaphysics. That is a failure to recognize the difference between a trained metaphysician and a pseudo-metaphysician.

Oh, I was thinking of the height, say above sea level, decreasing as one moves away from the peak - not the apparent height of the hill. Interesting take. — Banno

This is very clear evidence that your claim is simply unintelligible. No one can even figure out what the hell you are saying, and to make yourself understood you need to add the temporal aspect ("decreasing as one moves away from the peak"), which you are insisting can be removed. That's hypocrisy plain and simple, and hypocrisy demonstrates with actions the exact opposite of what one is arguing in words.

The example I gave was the height of a hill with regard to distance from the peak. The height changes over distance, not over time. — Banno

The distance from the peak does not change without a change in location, and this requires time. What you can say, that the distance to the peak (height) differs according to location is a simple statement of difference, not change. You seem to be confusing difference with change.

As javra indicates "The height changes over distance, not over time" is not even intelligible.

And of course, there's the hypocritical anti-philosophy types who don't wish to be doing philosophy, and even claim not to be doing philosophy, while not having the will power to prevent themselves from doing philosophy... and so they go, into the production of depraved philosophy.

So the mother both of and prior to all human mothers is not human, or not material? — tim wood

I just cannot see how you could possibly come to this conclusion from what i said.

Um, science has determined that there is not an infinite regress of material things? — tim wood

There is a first material thing, it's called "the universe", and it came into being at the Big Bang. Therefore no infinite regress of material things. What was prior to the Big Bang cannot be said to be material, because matter is dependent on the spatial temporal conditions of our universe.

I'll take your insistence that change requires time as axiomatic, then. — Banno

Ahh, now you're catching on, but not quite right. If it was mathematical, we might call it axiomatic. But this is philosophy so we call it "self-evident". There is a difference between the two, the former being mere stipulation, and the latter being supported by empirical evidence.

God is simple and immutable, but He can be red of blue?
The redness or blueness of God is a contingent property. But if God is necessary and simple He is identical to all His properties. But how can a necessary being be identical to a contingent property? — Walter

You have not been saying that God is red or blue, you have been saying that God can choose to create A or B. The property we are talking about is a property of God, and this is God's will. We are not talking about a property of the thing which God creates, such as if the thing created is red or blue. So the example is not analogous.

It appears like you do not respect a separation between God and the thing which God creates, so that if God creates a thing describable as A, you want to say that A is a property of God. That would be a pantheist way of understanding God, and this is not Thomistic.

I had a brief look, but came up empty apart from anti-left, anti covid, anti philosophy; I don't feel like it is a great loss to the forum, but someone could show me some gems if I have missed them. — unenlightened

Anti-philosophy! That sounds like very good reason for banning from an explicitly philosophy forum, to me.

. Consider it proved that either there is an infinite supply of mothers, or there must be a first motherless mother. The matter settled; we just don't know which. — tim wood

The type of mother in question here is explicitly the mother of a human being. So the infinite supply you suggest as a possibility, would imply that human beings have always existed. Science has determined otherwise, so we really do know which.

The conclusion I stated remains sound, there is a mother which is prior to all human mothers. Likewise, science has determined that there is not an infinite regress of material things, so the conclusion that there is an immaterial cause which is prior to all material existence, remains sound as well.

Which reminds me of Russell's joke that while every individual human being has a mother, it is a fallacy to supose that therefore the human species has a mother...

The mother of the race is a limit, not an item in the sequence...

But Mitochondrial Eve ruined the joke. — Banno

The limit to a type is completely different from the cause of an individual. So what Russell shows is that switching from individuals to types is nothing but a category mistake. To avoid the category mistake we must remain with individuals, and not switch to "the race" as you do.

Taking the stated analogy, the point which the cosmological argument makes, is that if every individual human being has a mother, then there is necessarily a mother which is prior to every human being, and therefore not a human being.

So, in the terms of the cosmological argument, if every material thing has a cause, then there is a cause which is prior to every material thing, therefore not material, i.e. immaterial.

To redefine "cause" with the intent to remove temporal priority is simply avoidance, just like redefining "change" to remove temporality is avoidance. Finding clever ways to avoid the truth of what an argument demonstrates is not philosophy it's denial.

That means there are two Gods — Walter

As you said, God does not will both A and B, God wills one or the other. Therefore we cannot conclude that there is two Gods.

Various quantum effects, for a start. — Banno

That the cause is unknown to us does not imply that there is no cause.

In general, this is the problem with free will, and intention, as "cause", we do not properly know this type of causation, but this does not imply that we can exclude intention as a cause

The bowling ball causes the depression in the cushion. — Banno

The bowling ball example is a misrepresentation. Since there is not an action described, only a static object, "the bowling ball", there is not the premise required to say that the ball causes anything. It is always an activity of an object which is causal. We do however assign causal capacity to objects in the case of intentional acts, final cause, when "the object" is an intentional being. In this case we say that the act which is causal, comes from within the intentional being itself.

Cause is not always prior to effect. Indeed sometimes it is impossible to decide which event is the cause and which the result. — Banno

This makes no sense. Whenever it is impossible to determine which is prior, we can conclude that it is impossible to determine which is the cause and which is the effect. There is no premise to allow us to conclude that in cases where we cannot determine which event is prior, and which is posterior, we can conclude that the cause is posterior to the effect.

The question is: was it possible for God to create B instead of A? The Thomist's answer is yes. — Walter

So, how do you perceive this to be a problem? If God had created B instead of A, then there would be B instead of A. How is that a problem for divine simplicity? The fact is that God created the one, and not the other, and if He had created the other, He would have created that one instead. It is never implied that God could actualize (or will) both.

Well, we are not talking about God creating A at t1 and B at t2, we are talking about God creating B instead of A, which, according to most Thomists, is prefectly possible. — Walter

How is that a problem? God created (or actualized) B, and God did not create (or actualize A). Where's the problem?

Well, I am not saying that God can will conficting things. But God's will to create A cannot be identical to God's will to create B, unless God is not simple or has no control over what He creates.
A Will, no matter what it exactly is, is intrinsic to a person. — Walter

I don't understand your point. Let's say that at t1 God wills to create A, and at t2 God wills to create B. We could say that A and B are each a part of God's bigger plan, but I don't think that expressing these as distinct parts denies God's simplicity. It's just a feature of how we describe the situation, as A being something distinct from B, when the truer description would show the whole. Then A being distinct from B is just an artificial separation created by human analysis.

Possible worlds are simply a way of saying if God what could be/have been the case.
According to most Christians, including Thomists, it could have been that God created a completely different world or even no world at all.
My question is if God's essence is his existence , how can He end up xiiling to create different things? — Walter

This does not produce the problem you mentioned. If God's intention is to create A, then A is created, and if God's intention is to create B, then B is created. If there was confliction between A and B then God would know this, and not will both. Nowhere is it implied that God would will conflicting things.

But that's the problem. God's intention to actualize A does conflict with God's intention to actualize B.
So, ther can be no intention to actualiz A or B in God's mind. How can God have control over whther A occurs in that case? If God's will is is unified and consistent, then it cannot lead to A in one possible world and B in another, at least not if God is supposed to be in control. — Walter

I don't see how you can introduce possible worlds to the scenario. What God wills is necessary by His act of willing it, therefore it is actual. You cannot say that God wills A in one possible world and B in another possible world, because that would contradict the nature of God as 'His essence is His existence'. Therefore God is necessarily actual, and this excludes Him from "possible worlds" which is a tool of the human intellect. Attributing possible worlds to God is to attribute matter to God, but God is immaterial.

Sure, the speed of light is constant, but as is the case with all motion, the speed is always relative to a frame of reference. That's why your statement ("The result comes out of consideration of speed 'relative to our position.' It is not an actual speed") is nonsense. All speed is relative, and to distinguish "actual speed" is nonsense.
I suppose you are going to argue that the speed of light is relative to nothing, and this makes it an actual speed rather than a relative speed?

Points and continuums, space and time . . . . . remain beyond complete understanding, although we manipulate them confidently. When I asked an old friend, an analytic number theorist, what he thinks of real analysis, he says, "It's very, very complicated and it starts with a metaphysical notion, points." — jgill

The issue I see with the "expansion of space", is that in order to conceive of numerous distinct locations from which everything is receding, it is necessary to assume that these locations are "points" in space which have real substantial existence. These points are not particles of mass or any form of elementary substance, but points of space itself. So this requires a type of understanding of space which allows for real points (as opposed to arbitrarily assigned points of location), and a determination of the characteristics of these points which would allow them to be identified.

The speed of light is relative. It is the same relative to any frame of reference. That's the principle which allowed Einstein to include the motion of light into relativity theory, in his special theory of relativity.
Can't you ever say anything intelligent?

According to Wikipedia, "proper speed" is the speed from the observer's frame of reference, which in your example, would be equivalent to "relative to our position". So if "actual speed" is meant to be "proper speed", there is no difference between the speed relative to our position, and the actual speed. That is what leaves your statement as utter nonsense:

The result comes out of consideration of speed 'relative to our position.' It is not an actual speed. — universeness

And perhaps a newer, emerging math replaces that which has served so well up to this point. — jgill

That's what I'm talking about, a mind open to the possibility of solving the problems rather than denying that the problems exist.

Remember that the proposal that the edge of the universe may be expanding at a superluminal speed, is a 'relative' measure. The result comes out of consideration of speed 'relative to our position.' It is not an actual speed. If you were at the edge of the universe, you would not be travelling at a superluminal speed. — universeness

This image you propose, of an expanding "edge" of the universe presents a misunderstanding of "expansion". It makes no sense to say "If you were at the edge of the universe". And your mention of "speed' relative to our position'...not an actual speed" is utter nonsense, because all speed is "relative", and this leaves your "actual speed" as totally meaningless. That's the point of relativity theory.

The more we learn about it, the more complicated the expansion of the universe seems to be. In the region near our galaxy, the expansion seems less rapid than for the universe as a whole. In fact, it appears that the combined gravitational pull of a very large cluster of galaxies in the constellation Virgo is actually retarding the local rate of expansion to half the rate for the universe as a whole. We're finding evidence of how gravity attracts even over distances of hundreds of millions of light years. Although there must be many very distant galaxies and quasars that we are not yet able to detect, astronomers have observed radiation from an even more remote source, literally at the edge of the observable universe. — https://history.nasa.gov/EP-177/ch4-9.html

There is a limit to how far we can "see", or observe, within the universe, determined by the speed of light, and the amount of time that the universe is known to have existed for. This is known as the cosmological horizon, "the edge of the observable universe". It could be called a temporal edge:

https://www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2020/07/22/what-is-it-like-as-you-approach-the-edge-of-the-universe/?sh=43e638da7152

Or, it might be said to be not an edge at all, just the illusion of an edge:

https://www.skyatnightmagazine.com/space-science/does-universe-have-edge

Does "simply move apart" imply motion in the common sense? Can something move without motion? — jgill

The problem though, as I've read, is that this "moving apart" can be much faster than the speed of light. And since the motion of objects is limited by the speed of light in relativity theory, this "moving apart" cannot be categorized as motion, in order to avoid contradiction. So in the following example, a galaxy can be observed to be "...receding from us well in excess of the speed of light...", bit in reality, that galaxy is "...hardly moving at all!', "...moving through space at ~2% the speed of light or less...".

If we were to ask, from our perspective, what this means for the speed of this distant galaxy that we're only now observing, we'd conclude that this galaxy is receding from us well in excess of the speed of light. But in reality, not only is that galaxy not moving through the Universe at a relativistically impossible speed, but it's hardly moving at all! Instead of speeds exceeding 299,792 km/s (the speed of light in a vacuum), these galaxies are only moving through space at ~2% the speed of light or less.

But space itself is expanding, and that accounts for the overwhelming majority of the redshift we see. And space doesn't expand at a speed; it expands at a speed-per-unit-distance: a very different kind of rate. When you see numbers like 67 km/s/Mpc or 73 km/s/Mpc (the two most common values that cosmologists measure), these are speeds (km/s) per unit distance (Mpc, or about 3.3 million light-years).

The restriction that "nothing can move faster than light" only applies to the motion of objects through space. The rate at which space itself expands — this speed-per-unit-distance — has no physical bounds on its upper limit. — https://www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2020/06/12/ask-ethan-how-does-the-fabric-of-spacetime-expand-faster-than-the-speed-of-light/?sh=1753c4723b5f

The very real problem, is your irrational worldview of the past, current and future efficacy of all scientific endeavours. — universeness

This is not at all true, I have very real respect for sicentific endeavours, and I am truly amazed, even awed by the great achievements derived from scientific knowledge. The fact that I practise philosophical skepticism has little if any bearing, on the great respect that I have for the scientific method.

You, on the other hand, profess a false premise that philosophical skepticism is derived from an "irrational worldview".

Again we see your lies. We all know we can assign point A and B and we can traverse the distance between them. You accept that demonstration but you will not accept that demonstration as proof that your statement of: — universeness

I did not accept your demonstration, I proved it to be equivocation. Your seat and your toilet can not be said to be "points", in any rigorous logic. Since we are concerned with the rigorous logic of mathematics, your use of "point" here is equivocal.

You can define "point A" and "point B" in any way that you please. But if you stray from the mathematical definition of "point", then you argue by equivocation, because problems of mathematics is what we are discussing here. Therefore your argument is bogus, and irrelevant, as being nothing but an equivocation fallacy. — Metaphysician Undercover

A point is a 0-dimensional mathematical object which can be specified in n-dimensional space using an n-tuple (x_1, x_2, ..., x_n) consisting of n coordinates. In dimensions greater than or equal to two, points are sometimes considered synonymous with vectors and so points in n-dimensional space are sometimes called n-vectors. Although the notion of a point is intuitively rather clear, the mathematical machinery used to deal with points and point-like objects can be surprisingly slippery. This difficulty was encountered by none other than Euclid himself who, in his Elements, gave the vague definition of a point as "that which has no part."

The basic geometric structures of higher dimensional geometry--the line, plane, space, and hyperspace--are all built up of infinite numbers of points arranged in particular ways.

These facts lead to the mathematical pun, "without geometry, life is pointless."

The decimal point in a decimal expansion is voiced as "point" in the United States, e.g., 3.1415 is voiced "three point one four one five," whereas a comma is used for this purpose in continental Europe. — https://mathworld.wolfram.com/Point.html

Your "demonstration" was very obviously an argument through equivocation, and therefore invalid. So I am still waiting for a proper rebuttal, something more substantial than a hurling of insults.

You have already agreed that the point you made about 'uncertainty' in science is trivial, and it also may be simply down to the currently available tech, methodology or understanding needed to completely solve most or all levels/manifestations of uncertainty. — universeness

All the points I have been making are trivial, accept the point about JS's denial. The indicated problems are trivial, but denying that a trivial problem is a real problem, turns a trivial problem into something substantial. O, what a tangled web we weave...

Despite this, you continue to way overblow the significance of such points and you also hold up esoteric style shinies to distract from your unimportant points, such as: — universeness

What I have been doing precisely, is to emphasize that the problems I refer to are very real problems, regardless of how trivial these problems are. The degree of triviality of the problem is irrelevant. That the problem is very real is all that matters.

So when truth is replaced with a stand-in, because there is a trivial problem which prevents a statement of the truth, and the stand-in is accepted as the truth, rather than recognized for what it is, a stand-in rather than the truth, then a very trivial problem can develop into a significant problem. That is because we are inclined to forego the search for truth because the stand-in is already accepted as the truth.

I have bolded some of the utter piffle from the quote above, as an example of the type of nonsense shiny you hold up! — universeness

I'm still waiting for your rebuttal, to demonstrate why you think my statement is "nonsense". Clearly, nothing is ever really at point A or point B, according to the principles employed in modern physics. Obviously it's your talk about moving from point A to point B which is nonsense.

My understanding is that two objects move further apart with time; space itself (whatever it is) doesn't change. — jgill

However, I don't think it is proper to call this "motion" because the activity known as spatial expansion is not consistent with our conceptions of "motion", and the physical laws which describe "motion".

My opinion remains that he shot you down in flames, and you have been trying to pick up little trivial pieces since. — universeness

I think we'll just have to wait to see what JS says after reading up on it more thoroughly. JS already said "The 'problem' you describe was solved by calculus". But I suspect that JS will be changing tune again, as the uncertainty of the uncertainty principle clearly demonstrates that the 'problem' is yet to be resolved.

Remember, JS's tune has been changing ever since we first engaged. First JS said, "Whatever the gaps are, they are not what you described - if we could label them, we could have fixed them by now". But then what was said was: "I challenge you to point out one such problem that has been labelled, and is not something that modern mathematicians want solved...". Obviously there is a big difference between 'if they were labeled they'd be fixed', and 'if they are labeled mathematicians want to fix them'.

What is laughable, is that you really do think you are making a really important statement here!
Any uncertainty principle shows a current problem that we have no current solution to Sherlock. It does not mean that science is absolutely incapable of ever finding a work around or a direct solution to such issues. You make mundane points that most on TPF are already very familiar with and you think you are being deep and profound. — universeness

What makes you think that I believe myself to be making a really important statement? That's an unjustified conclusion, and this is the lounge. I am actually making, and believe myself to be making, a statement of trivial fact.

The bizarre thing is that there are people here who incessantly deny the truth of such a trivial, yet basic, fact of reality. What could be the motivation for such a denial? Denial of trivial fact does not advance one's knowledge, nor does it advance one's social status. So how could it be becoming of one who holds a title, to deny the reality of a basic, trivial fact?

The point was that Jaded Scholar insisted that these problems pointed to by Zeno had been solved by mathematics. The uncertainty of "the uncertainty principle" demonstrates very clearly that the problem described in "the arrow paradox" has not been solved.

We have progressed from Zeno to Heisenberg. Do you really think our scientific findings will end there? — universeness

Same problem, different name. Now if the PhD's in Physics of the world deny that the uncertainty principle is a problem, and thereby refuse to develop an understanding of that problem, then yes, scientific findings will end there. No physicist would ever develop a true understanding of the real relation between space and time. Then the issue would no longer be trivial. In this way, the matter of "denial" turns a very trivial fact into a substantial problem.

What significant academic quals do you hold MU and what field of expertise do you have that others may benefit from? — universeness

I don't brag about owning titles. If I was charging you a fee for my work I would show you credentials so that you'd feel confident in paying me. But I'm not, and I offer you my work on a take it or leave it basis, the choice is yours. You'll have to judge my work for yourself however, or else you just demonstrate prejudice, and this judgement requires critical analysis which you are showing a lack of in your rejection. Either that or you haven't read it and your judgement is just common prejudice. Did you even take the short time required to read the references which justify the position I'm arguing?

Here, I'll explain in simple terms for simple minds. Zeno's arrow paradox shows that there is an incompatibility between occupying a space (having a location), and being in motion. The Heisenberg uncertainty principle, in its common representation, says that the more accurately a particle's position (location) is known, the less accurately its momentum (a property inherent to its motion) can be known, and vise versa. Do you see the resemblance between these two? Zeno said that the arrow cannot be both moving, and also have a location, at the same time, because this is contradictory. The uncertainty principle validates this, because it shows that if we know one of these, either the particle's position, or the particle's motion (momentum) with a very high degree of certainty, we cannot know the other at all.

The mathematics of calculus with the Fourier series provides a system of balance between these two, as explained in my reference above.

This is where the uncertainty principle steps in. Instead of pursuing infinite accuracy in either frequency or time, we can harness the uncertainty principle, allowing us to gain insights into both quantities at a reduced resolution, all the while maintaining balance. — https://towardsdatascience.com/how-does-the-uncertainty-principle-limit-time-series-analysis-c94c442ba953

It is clearly not the case that the mathematicians have resolved Zeno's arrow paradox. They have produced a workaround which is adequate for many applications, but the consequence of this workaround is the uncertainty principle. The very problem which Zeno pointed out more than 2000 years ago persists today as the uncertainty principle.

He just points at ever reducing gaps and exclaims 'look! everyone! look, look look! gap there, gap there, gap there! — universeness

Most people appreciate having the gaps in their thought pointed out to them, that's a sign of healthy intellectualism, and the route to self-improvement. Unfortunately, some do not appreciate this; they turn away, attempting to deny the reality of the gaps which are obvious. Some may even insult and ridicule the one who is pointing to the gaps. That is a symptom of conceit, which I mentioned above.

He did get on Twitter and told them to be peaceful and go home, to respect law enforcement, etc — NOS4A2

Looks like "giving comfort" to me. No?

...it is just the vision of some racist cunt... — Ø implies everything

An expression of strong feelings says much in the silent language. Do I detect a hint of social rejection, detachment?

Again, all you do is point out what science does not know for sure yet, and you imagine that in some way, that means you know what you are talking about. — universeness

All I'm talking about here, is what science does not know. I have no pretense of holding the solutions to these unknowns. Therefore it looks like I really do know what I'm talking about, as you say, I have accurately pointed out what science does not know. But I have no idea of what you're talking about. Your words are not making very much sense.

In no way has Jaded Scholar shown me that all the problems in mathematics which have been labeled, have been fixed. That is what JS claimed. And, I've provided a multitude of references which demonstrate that the uncertainty principle is a problem which is a result of the mathematics employed. This problem is clearly labeled "uncertainty". Therefore the evidence is quite strong that I have gone ahead and proven JS to be wrong in those assertions made.

Yet another example of the absolute BS you offer. There is no infinite rate of acceleration. When I move from A to B I do not need to infinity accelerate to get there, or else I would never get from my seat to the toilet! As I am incapable of infinite acceleration, so stop positing absolute piffle!!!!! — universeness

Your seat is a seat, and your toilet is a toilet. Neither is a "point", so this in no way qualifies as moving from point A to point B.

I create purpose and I create meaning so I can assign point A and point B. — universeness

You can define "point A" and "point B" in any way that you please. But if you stray from the mathematical definition of "point", then you argue by equivocation, because problems of mathematics is what we are discussing here. Therefore your argument is bogus, and irrelevant, as being nothing but an equivocation fallacy.

Hey, you did some research! — Jaded Scholar

I should have addressed this as well. What I did was not "research", but a matter of "Google search" to produce references for what I already knew, due to past research. There is a big difference between researching to expand one's knowledge, as i did in the past when I wanted to better understand the uncertainty principle, and searching to find authorities to support one's prejudice. Now, I will continue to support my prejudice, since conventional knowledge seems to agree with me, and the research I did, which created my current prejudice, seems to have served me well, according to the references from my Google search. And you have provided nothing but hot air, toward making me want to reconsider.

You it appears, like to make all sorts of assertions concerning things you know nothing about, holding up a card with an embossed "PhD in Physics", to create the illusion of authority.

But I will read up on it more thoroughly and get back to you. — Jaded Scholar

Good idea! Time for you to read a bit ,instead of spouting your mouth off in ignorance. Regardless of whether you hold the degree you claim, it's never a good idea to make assertive claims of certainty about that which you know not. Like I've pointed out, this attitude of conceit has already led you to "change your tune" significantly, concerning the problem which mathematicians have and have not resolved.

However, I am going to stick to my other stated principles and am now going to do my best to ignore you until after I have time to fully reply to universeness and jgill, because they seem, like me, to be primarily motivated by the desire to learn, instead of your objective of, like, pwning noobs or whatever it is. — Jaded Scholar

Your "other stated principles" are nothing but insults. Now I have one for you. You are a pompously conceited ass hole. And unlike your use of ad hominem, mine is fully justified and true.

"Pwning noobs", haha I like that. Maybe I should change my moniker to "Noob pwner". I bet if we met in a real lounge, with a couple of real drinks we'd turn out to be best of friends, instead of meeting here where it seems like everyone has to pretend to be what they are not.

Merry Christmas!

The first multiverse theories (namely, Everett's) were founded wholly on the goal of finding some interpretation of quantum uncertainty that did not result in genuine randomness being a feature of nature. I. E. Reinterpreting quantum randomness not as randomness in the outcomes of physical laws, but in seemingly-randomised measurements actually giving every possible result by bifurcating our universe at every such measurement point, and the true randomness being just in which one of those universes we "observers" happen to be in. — Jaded Scholar

Start reading boss. "Indeed, the uncertainty principle has its roots in how we apply calculus to write the basic equations of mechanics." There is a fundamental incompatibility between a describable state of "being", and an active event of "becoming", which is well demonstrated by Zeno in his arrow paradox. This produces an appeal to "infinite" in any attempt to reconcile the difference, bridge the gap. This is what creates the need for an infinite rate of acceleration at the moment when an object changes from being at rest to being in motion, which I referred to.

Especially when we all know that you can get from point A to point B, despite Zeno's rather boring thought experiment. All Zeno did, was the very trivial finding that the concept of infinity is problematic. No shit Sherlock! — universeness

I would not be so adamant with such a misleading statement universeness. Of course, it appears to be an obvious truth, "we all know that you can get from point A to point B. However, we cannot truthfully model this procedure, getting from being at one point to being at another point, mathematically. That's exactly what makes Zeno's paradoxes so compelling, the mathematics cannot represent what appears to be so obvious to us.

"Change" has elements which are fundamentally unintelligible, and cannot be represented by human mathematics. This casts the doubt of skepticism on the description of "change". To begin with, we can ask whether it's really true to say that one is at point A, or at point B. And then we see that this is just an over simplification, an approximation. The physical principles of relativity are premised on the proposition that we cannot know anything to be at any specific point. Then we must concede that it's not really true that "you can get from point A to point B" because one is never truly at point A or point B.

Now, I'll leave you noobs to your useless ponderings, based in false premises, and your senseless pandering, and instead indulge myself in some good old fashioned Christmas cheer.

To more specifically address Zeno's paradox/es: The mathematical implications of these questions were not solved by adding some extra features, but in the exact opposite of what you claim. These problem(s) emerged from Zeno's problematic and ideologically-motivated additions to the axioms of conventional mathematics (around his opinion that we should actively avoid every treating "the many" and "the one" in similar ways, mathematically - he was specifically trying to attack the mathematical operations of multiplication and division for ideological reasons, not academic reasons). And these problems were solved by removing his deliberately problematic axioms. And this was highlighted not just in modernity, but by Zeno's contemporaries too! — Jaded Scholar

Zeno's paradoxes involve problems with the human understanding (misunderstanding) of the relationship between time and space, which creates the appearance of infinity in the human attempts to represent motion.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zeno%27s_paradoxes

See above. It's one of the earliest integral transforms to be derived, but it's completely ridiculous to claim that the attributes of the general case are derived from the attributes of one narrow specific case, and not vice versa. — Jaded Scholar

See below.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uncertainty_principle

Indeed, the uncertainty principle has its roots in how we apply calculus to write the basic equations of mechanics. — https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uncertainty_principle

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourier_transform

Functions that are localized in the time domain have Fourier transforms that are spread out across the frequency domain and vice versa, a phenomenon known as the uncertainty principle. — https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourier_transform

https://math.unm.edu/~crisp/courses/wavelets/fall16/ChrisJasonUncertaintyPple.pdf

1 Introduction
Fourier Analysis is among the largest areas of applied mathematics and can
be found in all areas of engineering and physics. Atomic physicists use the
Fourier transform to characterize and understand molecular structures, optical
physicist use Fourier series to decompose and resconstruct ultrafast photonic
pulses and particle physicsts use the ideas of orthogonal basis and Fourier coefficients to describe the wave functions of particle states.
One of the most well known concepts in modern physics is the Heisenberg
Uncertainty Principle which tells us that we cannot know both the position and
momentum of a subatomic particle within a certain accuracy. To understand
this principle in some detail, we look to the subject of Fourier analysis. We
begin by motivating the idea that such a mathematical relationship exists and
then proceed to derive and describe the uncertainty principle in the formal setting of Fourier analysis. After this, we discuss Fourier analysis as it is used and
understoof by physicists in quantum mechanics for several simple examples. Finally, we will attempt to see the relationship between our formal discussion of
the principle and some of the physical laws that govern the natural world. — https://math.unm.edu/~crisp/courses/wavelets/fall16/ChrisJasonUncertaintyPple.pdf

https://www.math.uga.edu/sites/default/files/uncertainty.pdf

In Harmonic Analysis, the uncertainty principle can be succinctly stated as follows: a nonzero function and its Fourier transform cannot both be sharply localised. That is, if a function is restricted to a narrow region of the physical space, then its Fourier transform must spread (be essentially constant) over a broad region of the frequency space. It then expresses a limitation on the extent to which a signal can be both time-limited and band-limited. — https://www.math.uga.edu/sites/default/files/uncertainty.pdf

https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/uncertainty-principle-derivation-from-fourier-emanuele-pesares

When applying this reasoning to filters, it is not possible to achieve high temporal resolution and frequency resolution at the same time; a common exemplification is the resolution issues of the short-time Fourier transform. Namely, if one uses a wide window, it is possible to achieve good frequency resolution at the cost of temporal resolution, while a narrow window has the opposite characteristics. — https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/uncertainty-principle-derivation-from-fourier-emanuele-pesaresi

https://towardsdatascience.com/how-does-the-uncertainty-principle-limit-time-series-analysis-c94c442ba953

However, the Fourier Transform (FT) comes with a trade-off: it strips away temporal information as the uncertainty principle shows, rendering us unaware of when these frequencies manifest in the series. This is where the uncertainty principle steps in. Instead of pursuing infinite accuracy in either frequency or time, we can harness the uncertainty principle, allowing us to gain insights into both quantities at a reduced resolution, all the while maintaining balance. — https://towardsdatascience.com/how-does-the-uncertainty-principle-limit-time-series-analysis-c94c442ba953

https://mathworld.wolfram.com/FourierSeries.html]

A Fourier series is an expansion of a periodic function f(x) in terms of an infinite sum of sines and cosines. Fourier series make use of the orthogonality relationships of the sine and cosine functions. The computation and study of Fourier series is known as harmonic analysis and is extremely useful as a way to break up an arbitrary periodic function into a set of simple terms that can be plugged in, solved individually, and then recombined to obtain the solution to the original problem or an approximation to it to whatever accuracy is desired or practical. Examples of successive approximations to common functions using Fourier series are illustrated above.

In particular, since the superposition principle holds for solutions of a linear homogeneous ordinary differential equation, if such an equation can be solved in the case of a single sinusoid, the solution for an arbitrary function is immediately available by expressing the original function as a Fourier series and then plugging in the solution for each sinusoidal component. In some special cases where the Fourier series can be summed in closed form, this technique can even yield analytic solutions.

Any set of functions that form a complete orthogonal system have a corresponding generalized Fourier series analogous to the Fourier series. For example, using orthogonality of the roots of a Bessel function of the first kind gives a so-called Fourier-Bessel series. — https://mathworld.wolfram.com/FourierSeries.html

Notice the use of "analogous" in the last paragraph: "Any set of functions that form a complete orthogonal system have a corresponding generalized Fourier series analogous to the Fourier series." It is not as you say, that the particular is derived from the general. It is a simple procedure of inductive reasoning whereby the general is derived from the particular. The Fourier transform provides a mathematical principle for time/frequency relations, and this is extended to many domains such as position/momentum, which can be expressed in the required, related, terms.

Fair enough, mate. It was an interesting exchange and I appreciate your contributions to my thread. I will be honest: I ran out of ideas and arguments to keep posting and replying to you. So, instead of wasting your time, I think I must stop because I am ending up in a meaningless circle, the victim of my own comments. — javi2541997

I think this conversation has pretty much run its course. Thank you very much, I enjoyed it.

My only, I promise the last, conclusion (regarding our exchange on the perception of suicide by the receivers) is that if I kill myself, people in the 'real' (outside the internet) world would not care. Maybe you will care cohabiting with me on the world and reality of The Philosophy Forum. — javi2541997

I think it is a mistake to exclude the internet world from the real world. Let's say you have a dual identity, you inhabit two distinct social worlds. The issue being that one, the one you call the real world is not a social world at all, it is a world of social exclusion, within which you are alone. However, you have also the internet world within which you are socially active.

Is it a contradiction or a paradox? I don't know which one to pick up. This is why I used the example of the falling tree. The main point is as it follows: If I were absent for many months here, I think that some of you would wonder and ask what is going on with Javi. If, in this case, you noticed my death, you would care, even if you haven't even seen my face yet. But, paradoxically, it will not have the same impact on the people who see me every day.

My suicide would be like the tree which fell down unnoticed in the physical (non-virtual) world.

I hope I explained myself a bit better this time... — javi2541997

Are you saying that people who see you every day would not even notice if suddenly you were not there? Is this to say that they see you without noticing you? That's not quite the same as the tree falling in the forest example. It's more like the inverse of "can't see the forest for the trees". The person who can't see the forest is too intend on looking at particular trees, and does not see the whole, the forest because of this. But what you describe is people who see the whole, crowds of people every day, but do not notice any individuals, like yourself. So. in seeing the forest everyday, and you being a tree in the forest, if you were suddenly gone they would still see the forest, and not even notice that an individual tree went missing. This is a matter of inattentive seers, who do not notice what they are seeing.

And, as you highlighted, I also want to know with more detail the thoughts of Fosse regarding suicide after reading some of his novels. — javi2541997

I don't know if I will ever read any of Fosse's novels, but let me know if you do.