I don't really understand what a circular time dimension is. But then again, I never took a physics class. — Purple Pond

The idea is you can imagine 4D by imagining 3D. So instead of trying to visualise 4D spacetime directly which is impossible, you visualise 3D, but with 2 spacial dimensions and one time dimension. So one of the spacial dimensions gets swapped for time. Then you can think of things in spacetime as 3D objects.

In the case of circular time, the universe itself is shaped like a torus in 3D space and time runs around the outside of the ring.

But that wouldn't be living after you die. It's just you reliving your life. (If that's even possible). — Purple Pond

It happens 'after life' so it technically counts as an afterlife.

Bad idea to start with axioms that you invent...which is what you do...and which is why so many people charge you with variations on "pontificating." — Frank Apisa

Which of my axioms is 'invented'?

You MAY BE correct about a first cause, but you may be dead wrong. — Frank Apisa

Is there any philosophical question to which your answer is not 'I don't know'?

Can you see that as meaning..."the existence of a soul" is not one of my blind guesses about the REALITY? — Frank Apisa

I don't make blind guesses; I deduce, induce, abduce and estimate. I think you will find that consciously or subconsciously you use the same methods. There is substantial evidence (MRI scans etc...) that the mind is wholly part of the brain. So a soul is very unlikely. Induction.

I think the whole idea of life after death is incoherent. Death is the end of your life, so there can't be life after death. There's no beyond the end. Maybe you mean you can survive the death of your body? You'd first have to convince us all that there is a you above and beyond the body, aka the soul. — Purple Pond

The angle I am coming from is eternalism - there is a possibility that the past and maybe also future are 'real' in someway. So think Einstein's 4D space time.

Then think of the world - if you walk far enough in one direction - you end up back where you started - so thats an example of a circular spacial dimension. What I am talking is a circular time dimension.

So you are born, you die, time comes around again (after billions of years) and then you are born again, you die, etc... So death is indeed the end of your life, its just your life is lived over and over again.

I don't believe in the soul personally.

The thing you are refusing to see, Devans...is that while you have the white ball hitting the black ball and going into the hole using a cue stick held by something that ALWAYS WAS. — Frank Apisa

ALWAYS WAS is only possible via TIMELESSNESS - once you accept that infinite regresses are impossible, thats the only way it can be logically. I am not claiming that the first cause is God, just claiming that there is a first cause.

I am afraid I do not see the flaws in my argument... please enlighten me.

Would you recognise it if they had? No. So is it worthwhile having a discussion with you about it? No. — S

I think it would be documented on the web somewhere if there was such an obvious hole in the prime mover argument... really you are clutching at straws. You are wrong on this one and just won't admit it is one possibility. The other is you are just too dumb to comprehend the dynamics of the situation.

No-one has pointed out Aquinas's error in 800 years. You certainly have not.

Did you read the link I gave you? For example, if a particle has no temporal start, how can it have innate attributes like mass, charge? There is no time at which those innate attributes could have been acquired.

So to be anything other than void and null requires a start.

Aquinas is regarded as one of the most intelligent men ever. You are saying he is wrong. You are wrong.

Sorry, I should have said reality instead of universe. For now, recent observations rule out the probabilty of a Big Crunch because it doesn't appear that there's enough density to fight back the expansion. I know, bummer... — Vince

I don't think we need to be completely negative - it is space itself that is expanding and the rate of expansion has changed in the past (eg the end of inflation) - it could change again. So we are currently in an expanding phase; the contraction phase will start in X billion years. Also:

- If energy is conserved then the energy of the Big Bang must of come from somewhere - the only possible place is the Big Crunch.

- The state of the universe is identical at the Big Bang and Big Crunch so it is the natural place for time to loop around.

And what would happen after the crunch? A Big Bounce? Time reversing? They all imply boundaries, I'm only talkling about a smooth causal reality loop. — Vince

If you imagine the whole universe in 4d space time as a torus. It would be very narrow at one point where the Big Bang / Big Crunch happen. Very wide at the opposite point of maximum expansion. Imagine a spotlight moving around the torus - wherever it lights up part of the torus - that represents 'now' - this is naturally called the moving spotlight theory of time.

I believe that without doing some serious math, we just can't answer the big questions. — Vince

The maths is beyond me. Something maybe possible though. See for example:

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

Imagine you're in a causality feedback loop universe. Causality is only necessary for the guy in the loop, not for the loop to exist. And your chances of living after death are 100%! — Vince

Circular time would be a causality feedback loop I think. It's not so far fetched - the only place in spacetime you can get enough matter/energy for the Big Bang is the Big Crunch - so the crunch causes the bang - time circles around at that point and everything happens again (all of our lives play out again identically).

I think circular time is the Occam's Razor design for life after death - it is the simplest solution I can think of. It also gives a nice, simple, self-sustaining model of the universe.

I don't think it is possible for time to be eternal - that would require everything (matter etc...) to exist 'forever' which does not seem possible:

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/5242/infinite-being/p1

There would be an infinite chain of causes. Your reasoning is completely erroneous because it begins by assuming a first cause, and then imagines that it is gone, yet you nonsensically refer to the absence of a second cause, and a third cause, and so on. There was never any first or second or third to begin with, just an infinite chain. Not nothing, not a first, second, and third from a first start, just an infinite chain. — S

No my (and Aquinas's) reasoning points out that an infinite chain of causes has no start and because of this, none of it can exist. It does not matter whether we can trace back through each member of the infinite regress; we know it has no start and nothing in the regress is defined without a start (does the black go in if you don't hit the white first? No - a regress does not exist without a first member).

I've proved this for you with the pool example. I don't understand why you cannot get this point... it is so simple. If you need more examples of why things can't exist 'forever' in time, see:

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/5242/infinite-being

A lack of first cause means a lack of 2nd cause, a lack of 3rd cause etc...

I really don't get you, the argument is about a lack of first cause - nowhere is it assumed that there is a first cause.

Who is your favourite?

Think of a finite regress like a pool table:

{ 'cue hits white', 'white hits black', 'black goes in hole' }

Would the black go in the hole if the cue did not hit the white?

No. So if the start element is missing, there is no regress. So there can be no infinite regresses.

Infinity / Eternity looks like this:

{ ..., 2016, 2017, 2018, 2019 }

The ... indicate it has no start.

Is that a copy and paste? I've already addressed this. Your first two sentences go without saying, and by your first sentence, you jump straight into a fallacious begging the question by assuming a first cause. That's why you're not being reasonable. — S

Where exactly do I assume a first cause?

Sure but current day knowledge is likely shot through with holes too: infinity, dark matter, set theory, etc... Whatever source you goto, you have problems.

But we know that infinity has no start. So there is no starting event. And the starting event causes the next event and so on and so forth. Without the start there is nothing. This is why I say I think you believe in magic - an infinite regress is just that magic - it would be a conjuring trick if it existed in reality.

What criticisms do you refer?

Yes, but repeating doesn't solve the problem. — S

I explained my pool table analogy for a regress... if you won't accept that, I'm not sure there is anything that will convince you.

"We can deduce that the first cause is timeless.
— Devans99

How? Without scientific data, we cannot deduce anything at all. — Christoffer

All explained here:

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/5577/was-there-a-first-cause-reviewing-the-five-ways/p1

There is no way for anything to exist without a timeless first cause - time just forms an infinite regress going back forever - which is impossible - you have to have a timeless first cause to kick everything off.

The universe is fine-tuned for life. This seems to requires intelligence. Intelligence beings are benevolent. I have a 2nd argument for benevolence too.

In order to escape the blast from the Big Bang, the first cause has to be non-material or extra dimensional.

I agree with the criticism brought up by both Christoffer and Frank about the logical leap, or trivial semantics, from a first cause to God. It is not the first time that I heard that criticism. I first read Bertrand Russell's History of Western Philosophy about ten years ago. — S

That criticism is far enough. I think he should have restricted himself to a 'timeless first cause' in his argument. But he was maybe under social pressure to support the Church.

I have also criticised your argument regarding the ruling out of an infinite regress, as you well know. — S

Aquinas's and my arguments. They are sound arguments. Nothing can exist without a start. I will not go though it again here as I've repeated so many times.

Aristotle was incompetent. — whollyrolling

Dude!

"Aristotle (/ˈærɪˌstɒtəl/;[3] Greek: Ἀριστοτέλης Aristotélēs, pronounced [aristotélɛːs]; 384–322 BC)[A] was a philosopher during the Classical period in Ancient Greece, the founder of the Lyceum and the Peripatetic school of philosophy and Aristotelian tradition. Along with his teacher Plato, he is considered the "Father of Western Philosophy"."

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

Aristotle had the same argument.

Ah, okay. Confirmation bias, you mean? It's not a bad argument when it's about God. — S

No you go by the axioms used - do you believe the axioms? If you believe the axioms and the logic is sound... In the case of the 5 ways, it is mainly about causality.

I believe it because its based on causality not because it deduces the existence of God.

You need belief outside of the conclusion in order to attach what that first cause was — Christoffer

We can deduce that the first cause is timeless. And some other attributes such as intelligence and benevolence are probable. Being extra-dimensional or non-material is likely too.

You might want to study philosophy from Aquinas and forward to really get the depth of how simplistic his argument really is — Christoffer

The simplest arguments are the best. It has stood the test of time (apart from the 4th argument).

They all end with..."...this everyone refers to as God." — Frank Apisa

Apart from that bit which I agree is a stretch, what do you disagree with?

Do you reject the logical necessity of a first cause?

I deduce my beliefs from my axioms. Causality is one of my axioms. That leads to a first cause. That agrees with Aquinas's arguments.

I agree the 4th is not valid. What are your objections to the others?

Ah, okay. So everything is water. — S

Obviously have to be selective about it. Some obvious arguments like 4 elements turned out wrong. In the case of the 5 ways, he is mainly using cause and effect for an axiom so the reasoning is as sound today as it was then (for the macroscopic world which is what matters).

As I mentioned above, the most obvious, best arguments come up first. So you have to look back in history for these arguments.

"The Summa Theologiae (written 1265–1274 and also known as the Summa Theologica or simply the Summa) is the best-known work of Thomas Aquinas (c. 1225–1274). Although unfinished, the Summa is "one of the classics of the history of philosophy and one of the most influential works of Western literature."

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

He is regarded as one of the greatest philosophers of all time. Certainly you should not dismiss him without at least spending some time on the 5 ways.

OK I'm not getting any value out of talking to you so I quit.

It cannot have existed forever in time. Thats impossible as Thomas Aquinas showed and I have shown many times on this forum.

Oh. But isn't that what you do with a first cause? You go: one, two, miss a few, it can't go for infinity for no apparent reason, so there must be a first cause! — S

At least I don't assume the universe was created by magic.

No, I'm not pedantic, you need a solid ground for your argument. How can you demand us to accept a theory that is flawed? That is not philosophy, that is an evangelical sermon of your opinions. — Christoffer

It is not a theory, it is an estimate. There is a difference. Estimates are part of everyday life; we do it all the time. Why do you have a problem with estimation? Some questions are not answerable logically, mathematically or statistically so we have to estimate.

Your allowance does not support 50% to be a number that is true. Your allowance is not grounds to support your premise. Your allowance is your belief, nothing more and nothing that can make your premises true out of what you allow. That number is your invention, nothing more. — Christoffer

My allowance of 50% was based on a head versus heart argument I gave above. I am personally divided over whether eternalism is true and the 50% reflects that uncertainty.

That is 1 dimension. 2 has X and Y, 3 has X, Y and Z. 4 becomes a tesseract (hypercube), hypothetical string theory allows up to 11 dimensions. The possibilities punch holes in your logic by being possibilities alone, ignored by you and your argument. — Christoffer

But each dimension individually is a line - it has no further structure - so no further variations are possible.

It is a high level estimate, meant as the basis to start a discussion, I was not presenting it as the finished goods, analysed to the nth level of detail or anything.

Part of the purpose of the post is to collect more data on the proposition by discussing it.

No, I'm doing proper philosophical discourse here, get in the game.
And... THAT IS NOT A VALID COUNTER-ARGUMENT — Christoffer

Its a high level estimate only, you are being pedantic.

So you need it to be true, therefore, your argument is invalid as your premise is assumed to be true before proven true. — Christoffer

No I allowed a 50% probability of eternalism being true.

Prove that linear and circular is the ONLY concepts to be true before you can claim the possibility of more to exist — Christoffer

A dimension can be visualised as a line. A line only has two possible topologies, open or closed.