And, deductively, that's about it, according to Gassendi (1592-1655). — jorndoe

Yes, from Wikipedia:

‘Apparently, the first scholar who raised the "I" problem was Pierre Gassendi. He "points out that recognition that one has a set of thoughts does not imply that one is a particular thinker or another. Were we to move from the observation that there is thinking occurring to the attribution of this thinking to a particular agent, we would simply assume what we set out to prove, namely, that there exists a particular person endowed with the capacity for thought". In other words, "the only claim that is indubitable here is the agent-independent claim that there is cognitive activity present”.’

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cogito,_ergo_sum

'Thinking' requires a 'thinker' - by definition I would say this is true. Gassendi seems not object to thoughts being attributed to an agent in general, rather to the attribution of the thoughts to a particular agent.

So the question is are they my thoughts or someone else's? What does 'my' mean? Maybe it is the set of things that appear connected to you and over which you appear to have direct control.

We can influence and change the thoughts so they must be 'our' thoughts rather than someone else's.

So I am not personally convinced by Gassendi's objection.

Everything may be just me. — Frank Apisa

I guess that depends on how you interpret 'me':

- If you interpret 'me' as your conscious mind and memories only then there are other entities.
- If 'me' includes the subconscious mind I suppose it could be argued that the other entities might be part of the subconscious mind.

The 2nd definition is unusual in my opinion: if you have no control over these entities, including them in the definition of 'me' seems somehow wrong - they are clearly 'other'.

2) There is no way in Hell I know that YOU think...or that therefore you are. — Frank Apisa

You can tell by reading this sentence that it is produced by an entity other than your own conscious mind. So there is at least one entity in additional to yourself. So that eliminates solipsism.

It's is true that other entity could be Descartes's evil demon (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evil_demon). I am not quite sure how to get around that. Perhaps making two people speak at the same time - then it would be apparent that there are two other entities; at least one of which is not the evil demon.

If you are acknowledging that a thing can EXIST without a cause...

...you have defeated your own argument. — Frank Apisa

It is very simple:

- things in time all need a cause
- timeless things (IE the first cause) don't need a cause

Then everything adds up; everything has a cause except the one thing that does not need a cause and there are no (impossible) infinite regresses. It's the only way things can be - I do not believe a valid counter argument is possible - and none have been forthcoming - so maybe I should consider the matter settled and move onto other things.

f you are positing a "first cause"...whatever it happens to be today (we all know it is going to end up being this god you guess exists)...then that is something that exists without a previous cause. — Frank Apisa

The question I posed was:

Then Demonstrate how anything in time can exist without a first cause please

The first cause does not exist in time so is not subject to causality so does not need a previous cause. IE I'm asking how anything else but the first cause could exist (if the first cause did not).

But I'd argue he would enjoy eating people only in the short term - characteristic of a wrong decision.

In the long term, S and his cannibalistic culture would likely be punished - again characteristic of a wrong decision.

Long term > short term so the right decision is not to eat people (to avoid punishment in the long term).

YOU CANNOT SHOW A "FIRST CAUSE" WITHOUT SHOWING SOMETHING THAT CAN EXIST WITHOUT ONE — Frank Apisa

Eh? Showing something can exist without a first cause (which is impossible BTW) is not a prerequisite for showing there is a first cause. You are confusing me.

Essentially the same physiology yet two very different moral frameworks — praxis

Cannibalism has consequences. The culture that is cannibalistic is doing the wrong thing so would be shunned and punished by other cultures. So in effect the same moral framework applies to both cultures - cannibals are punished. Hence cannibalism is not popular.

So pressure from the peer group - in this case other cultures - ensures that we have a communally shared sense of right and wrong.

Demonstrate how anything can exist with a (first) cause! — Pattern-chaser

I, with obviously lots of help from Thomas Aquinas, have done that here:

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

The point I'm making is there are lots of ways to show there must be a first cause and no ways to show anything could exist without one. I would draw a cast iron conclusion from that - there must be a first cause.

First I'm not asking for what is right or wrong, rather were do our sense of right and wrong come from — hachit

Long term > Short term

So Right is what is optimal for the long term (exercise, healthy diet, helping others)

Wrong is what is optimal for the short term (sweets, laziness, harming others)

So we have no way of knowing if time is made up of point-like instants, or just tiny but nonzero intervals.

It's the ancient mystery of the continuum. — fishfry

If spacetime was created, and it seems it was, then is it possible that spacetime is a continuum?

It can argued that creating something infinitely big is not possible (not enough time).
Likewise it could be argued that creating something infinitely small is impossible (would never finish chopping).
So the very fact that spacetime is a created thing, means it is discrete?

I would say if you could plot the distribution of simulations by size, our 'simulation' would be an extreme outlier. `To what purpose would a simulation of such size serve? The technical difficulties increase with the size of the simulation.

So you think Bill Gates is running this simulation in his garage circa 1980-something? "Check this out guys, I'm simulating a model of the entire universe, every particle and living organism in existence, for my next trick I'm going to create Windows 3.0"? — whollyrolling

Lets assume hyper-advanced computers that have had billions of years of development. Then we can use scale - assume the computer running the simulation has a billion times more particles than the known universe (yet is laptop sized to the vast beings who operate it)... then maybe, with lots of heuristics, a simulation might be possible. Seems unlikely though.

One very strong argument against a simulation is that every particle in the universe effects every other particle (via the 4 forces). How many particles in the observable universe? 3.28 x 10^80. No computer could manage the computations. We can’t even do the 3 body problem.

A very strong argument for a simulation is there is one base reality but innumerable simulations so it is very probable that we are living in a simulation.

IMO the argument against is stronger that the argument for a simulation.

What evidence?

Maybe along similar lines:

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/4920/could-a-non-material-substrate-underly-reality/p1

In short there seems to be information missing from this reality, where is it? This might tie in with the possibility of a non-material God (which I like to speculate on).

I do believe there is overwhelming evidence that we are not living in a simulation.

But it is absolutely possible for things to just always have existed and that's it — Despues Green

I argue that things can't 'always' exist:

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

Similar to how you assume that a Higher Power in God existed to create these things we're talking about — Despues Green

I do not assume God exists, I do argue that a first cause must exist:

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

Now is so small in length that to me it cannot be measured or understood with the human's limited capability... — RBS

Imagine a clock travelling at almost the speed of light zooming past one of those super slowmo cameras.

We perceive "reality" differently from other organisms. — whollyrolling

True, but I would say that we see the same reality through different sensors rather than nothing being real or there being different objective realities. A variety of different prey animals all react consistently to a predictor for example. If you mean can it be proved that reality is real? Not deductively I would agree. But there is overwhelming inductive evidence that it is real.

Again, Time is a measurement that we, Humans, created. Whether you want to use the terms "Timeless" or "Eternal" doesn't matter, the point is that it is absolutely possible for all of this to just always have existed. And you don't need Time to make that measurement, because Space is independent of Time, it only needed the Space. — Despues Green

But there is something in addition to space. If it were only space, there would be no movement. So time exists, is real IMO. I do not see space as independent from time in this universe - things of duration 0 seconds do not exist so time seems required for existence.

The original post is hazy as to what it's asking or asserting. My point is that nothing is "real", and the "length of now" is a variable, a potentiality, it depends on whether what we perceive as "reality" is finite or infinite. — whollyrolling

Nothing is real? Even if we were in a simulation, there would be (maybe) system time and base reality time and both would have a start and be in some sense real. If the simulation has its own time, it would be probably be discrete (in a computer).

Both time and space drop away as we understand them. The grounds of existence for the natural are not the same grounds for the spiritual. — Daniel Cox

Presumably adrenaline? Can slow our perception of time. So the biological perception of 'now' is alterable by hormones it seems. Wonder how far we could take this. How slow could time be made to run for a human injected with a large dose of designer hormones? I believe small animals like insects have far faster reactions than we do. Maybe they sense time differently; it runs slow for them.

I wonder if an analogy with computers is appropriate: smaller, simpler processors can have a higher clock rate. So small animal run at a higher clock rate than humans and time seems to them to run more slowly.

Hmm, I mean reading this thread and that thread, I feel the need to refer back to Frank Apisa's statement that you already have your mind made up on what you want to think and you seek to carry it in your trajectory. — Despues Green

Its more I suspect things are a certain way (finite, discrete) and I'm trying to analyse the evidence to see if there is support for it. I maybe wrong... time will tell.

I believe you were the person who talked about being released from the gravity of Time and that being indicative of Spiritualism. — Despues Green

Does not ring a bell... someone else I think.

Even utilizing your own example in how a Photon can exist without Space nor Time, it's quite easy to fathom that it is also possible that certain things just always existed. — Despues Green

You cannot 'always' exist in time - you would have no start - so nothing at all would exist (see https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/5242/infinite-being for more reasons why existing 'forever' in time is impossible).

Let us also not ignore the old "Matter cannot be created nor destroyed" Law. Wouldn't the very beginning of the assertion support this notion of not everything has/ needs a start date. — Despues Green

It could be that timeless matter pre-existed the universe and when into making it (IE the matter becomes part of time somehow). Note TIMELESS - this is the only way something can have permanent existence / exist 'forever'.

There is also the Zero Energy Universe Hypothesis - that matter can in fact be created in exchange for negative gravitational energy.

The definition of "Now" is extremely Subjective, though it is still shared. But see, that is the difference between Subjective reality and Objective Reality. But it's Subjective only in the realm of our innate Passions which we have to find by being exposed to them and then honing in on them.... but again, that's Subjective because it's entirely on our own clocks. — Despues Green

We have some sort of personal, biological, subjective 'now'. Then there is an objective, physical, shared 'now'. At least it appears to be shared - it is unclear to me from special relativity whether it could be said there are multiple 'nows'. So there maybe a biological length of 'now' - the limit of what you can sense. The question remains is there a physical length of 'now'?

Let C = The speed of light is as fast as you can travel
Let X = minimum unit of distance in the (discrete) universe

time = distance / speed
So
minimum unit of time = X / C

So if time is discrete, the unit of time / physical length of 'now' is truly microscopically small - the length of a biological 'now' would be enormous in comparison.

I'm not sure what self-awareness is. If it is self-identicality, tthe ability to turn back towards the 'self' that I was a second ago without my exposure to the world intervening and changing the sense of what it is I turn back to, then there is no such thing as self-awareness. — Joshs

I think self-awareness at a basic level is the ability to differentiate oneself from the environment. No easy task. Imagine having to create a computer that could do it? Yet tiny animals with a few hundred neurons are self aware.

For me, one of the basic factual issues is that there's a lot of evidence that the active mind is pre-conscious. — Unseen

I think emotions and instincts are pre-conscious signals that are interpreted by our conscious minds.

Maybe we started as very primitive animals with our emotions/instincts hard wired to reactions. For example: sense pain -> react by moving. As evolution progressed, perhaps the circuitry connecting our instincts to actions became more complex and evolved into the conscious mind. Perhaps the processing of the pain signal evolves to 'move then scratch' then to 'move or scratch' and onwards towards more complex logic (and consciousness).

A conscious computer. Consciousness stems from the need to survive in a potentially hostile environment. How would we endow a computer with self-survival instincts I'm not sure. It would need to sense danger and pain.

I suppose the nearest everyday equivalent to a computer consciousness is an operating system. It is constantly active (or at least active one every 1/60th of a second or so) and controls the running of the whole computer. An OS is not self aware though. They do not have a nervous system.

Or cruel. Or not so powerful. Or a combination. Potentially dumb, cruel and not so powerful. — S

Is God Cruel? Even God cannot know if there is another greater god than him in existence somewhere. Even if you grant God omniscience, a future greater god is possible (or we could all gang up on God). If God ever meets a greater god/force, the outcome is as follows:
- Greater god is evil, our god is good, our god is punished.
- Greater god is evil, our god is evil, our god is punished.
- Greater god is good, our god is evil, our god is punished.
- Greater god is good, our god is good, our god rewarded.
The only satisfactory outcome is if our god is Good. God was intelligent enough to create the universe so he will have worked out the above and hence will be a good god.

God must be powerful and intelligent enough to create the universe. That would need a lot of power and thinking.

But none of this matters, because there's no good reason to believe that God exists. — S

Then Demonstrate how anything in time can exist without a first cause please

You said that Time is a "measurable degree of freedom". Freedom from what? That is an entirely subjective topic. — Despues Green

According to Einstein, you can slow down your progress through time by moving at close to the speed of light. So we have some control over time. So it counts as a degree of freedom in the same way as space does - you can choose how fast you move in the time dimension/direction.

As you get closer to the speed of light, as time slows, I wonder if a 'frame rate' from the discrete nature of time might become apparent? So if we could film a spaceship travelling at 99.999% of the speed of light, would the occupants of the spaceship seem to move in a jerky manner as with a film that is played in slow motion?

I mean, without Space, events couldn't occur, but Space could easily exist independently of Time. — Despues Green

Photons travel at the speed of light so don't experience time, but due to length compression, they don't experience distance either. So a photon would not seem to have a 'now' or a 'here'. I am not sure what a photon is or how spacetime works in this regard. It's confusing, you would have thought the photon needs a non-zero time duration to actually exist. But photons exist, seemingly without time or space.

In our universe, space does not seem to exist without time - would something exist if it existed for 0 seconds (excepting the photon)? Outside/before our universe, could space exist without time? It would seem maybe but it would be completely static and unable to give birth to the universe in any way - so I don't see the universe being born that way (unless God is non-material or future real eternalism applies).

If Time really is that Subjective, wouldn't that be more evidence that it doesn't really exist, but as a unit of measurement? — Despues Green

You would agree that time cannot have existed for ever? It would form an infinite regress if it did which is impossible (no start - no first moment - so no subsequent moments are defined). So the fact that time had a start suggests it is something real and substantial (see https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/5302/an-argument-for-eternalism/p1 for another argument that time had a start). Also if time enables movement then it must be real because movement is real.

A lot of consciousness is self-awareness. I read somewhere that self-awareness comes from the need to be able to differentiate between oneself and the environment. They gave an example of a very simple life form of a few hundred neutrons, one of which was dedicated to this function of differentiating self from environment.

There is the famous mirror test - they paint a spot on an animal and put the animal in front of a mirror and see if it rubs the spot - ants pass this test - so consciousness is something quite primitive / ancient.

BB Theory stands on no beginning and is called an incident. Then how can an incident happen if something was not there to exist in first place. If it was existed from eternity with no beginning cannot be an incident. — RBS

I don't buy the Big Bang theory lock, stock and barrel. I believe a timeless God preexisted and caused the Big Bang rather than it was caused by quantum fluctuations or some other random natural process.

Secondly, as the BB theory is standing on the concept of eternity with no beginning then they are not paying attention to the fundamentals of a thing being eternal which must exists from beginning and that both falls in inconsistency with one and other. — RBS

I think there are variations in what people believe but often there is a belief in infinite time with quantum fluctuations somehow leading to the BB. This common viewpoint fails for at least two reasons:

- If quantum fluctuations generated matter and time was infinite then matter density now would be infinite.
- Time itself forms an infinite regress of moments. Each moment defines the following moment. With infinite time, there is no first moment, so the whole of time does not exist.

Why do we easily believe in the creation of something is because for us human beings it is easy to accept the notion of something that is being created rather than that thing being there from beginning? The human mind goes blind when we talk of an infinite beginning as we cannot grasp the idea fully and our brain cannot process that function. — RBS

It is logically impossible for the universe to have existed forever in time. Something timeless (that itself needs no cause) must preexist it.

What do you think of Big Bang, do you believe it was or is a possibility or is or was absolutely necessary? — RBS

I think God wanted to create a universe and life somehow. But look how complex we are with our brains and nervous system and glands and hormones - way too complex to design (even for God). So God decided to generate life instead. He set off the BB. He is playing a giant game of Conway's Game of Life with the universe - the stars are the energy sources for life and the planets are the living surfaces for life.

I didn't say it was anchored "at infinity", I said its anchor "is its infinity". — whollyrolling

I'm not sure what you mean by that? Past eternity is not possible - it can have no substance because it has no start.

Another possibility without "first cause" or "first mover" is a complex algorithm, a simulation. Maybe we're a computer program and there's an argument outside this universe as to whether we "exist" or are "sentient" at all. Or maybe whoever coded the simulation didn't even notice that some of the code started perceiving itself as conscious. We're a blip in a vast loop of calculations, we're accidental artificial intelligence. In this case, we don't exist except as symbolism and require no creator, at least not in the sense that everyone wants so desperately to believe. — whollyrolling

If we are in a simulation, then there is base reality outside and a base reality time. An infinite regress will not be possible out there either - a first cause in base reality is still required.

It is very probable that God is not aware of our existence in a specific sense. He is aware of the existence of life in a general sense. I was thinking of doing a post on the Simulation Hypothesis some time. With the Simulation Hypothesis, it is interesting to note that we maybe the non-material ones and God is material - the other way around to usual.

Its anchor is its infinity. — whollyrolling

You can't anchor anything at infinity it has no start:

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

No start as indicated by the ...

The start determines all the rest. With no start there is nothing. Take this finite regress example from Pool:

{ 'cue hits white ball', 'white ball hits black', 'black goes in pocket' }

If you remove the first element of the sequence, then the sequence ceases to exist in its entirety. So it is not possible to anchor anything at infinity because its has no start.

So then God is a bit dumb? — whollyrolling

Not omniscient. Fine-tuned the standard model to support life. Must be pretty smart but not infallible.

If a model of infinite reality consists of infinitely larger- and smaller-scale "universes" all subject to time and space in proportion to their position on the infinite scale. What seems like an eternity in this universe is just a brief moment in another, and so on. — whollyrolling

Interesting. I would have thought there would be a 'top level' / base reality time and a top level first cause who is responsible for everything.

Or do you see realities extending to infinity both up and down? If that is the case, there is nothing to anchor reality - nothing equivalent of base reality - so logically there would be nothing (no start or end so how can there be?)

Considering the number of extinctions we're aware of, including our own, I'd say it's not fine-tuned for life. — whollyrolling

Life is very resilient. There are occasional asteroid strikes but they diminish with time and any half developed civilisation can develop counter measures against them. I think it is unrealistic to expect a perfect universe. God had to start with the Big Bang; its not like he could hand craft the whole universe; it is a remarkably habitable place considering what it could of been - most randomly configured universes consist of just particles bouncing off each other endlessly - no adhesion - no complex matter at all - never mind stars (energy sources for life) and planets (living surfaces for live).

It is absolutely impossible to ever be certain there are no gods. — Frank Apisa

I think you can disprove the existence of THE GOD by showing the universe was not created. Or by showing it was not fine-tuned for life. That might still leave room for 'minor gods' of some sort I suppose. I am not sure you could ever disprove the existence of those.

If we trace back to Adam and his creation in heaven, that was well before what we call it time. That was a time in a different plan and dimension — RBS

The problem is though if God has any sort of time means he is in an infinite regress which means he has no temporal start, no coming into being, which is impossible. So he must be timeless and thus seemingly changeless.

These things are hidden for the soul purpose of understanding so that us as humans should acknowledge the existence of Supreme being of God and that there are things that are not in our control and that we are weak as a leaf on a tree and have the knowledge of a new born child when it comes to understanding the universe — RBS

Understanding the universe is a struggle, but we have made some progress; the Big Bang theory is a marvel - understanding of the process right back to the singularity.

I believe God was responsible for the Big Bang and that he used his either non-material or extra-dimensional properties to escape the fallout of the explosion.

God has created time and space and is not bound to anything at all — RBS

I am in agreement. I believe God could be non-material (see https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/5606/could-god-be-non-material/p1)

I am certain that he is timeless; as the creator of time he must be. Timelessness seems to imply eternalism (in that a timeless God would be able to see all time in one go).

With my meaning the Great Time or Pure Time is God’s explanation of time to us and how he measures his creation which is “Time”… To God a day is very much different than a day that we count. — RBS

One of the central problems is that any sort of time implies an infinite regress which is impossible. So it seems God (the first cause) has to be timeless (its impossible to exist 'forever' in time), yet also capable of change. I am at a loss as to how to square this circle - hence my thoughts have been turning to a non-material God. The other possibility is that change is an illusion and its full on eternalism (future real), that way God could be static when viewed from the 4D spacetime perspective. Static and unchanging as the old time theologians believed.

From my perspective the humans have so far been able to see the particles called Peron which makes Quarks.... for now I think the “Present” or "Now" is of that duration in size, but in reality probably it can be even and much more smaller than that...... — RBS

It is true that matter was long thought to be continuous but turned out to be discrete. Maybe the same will happen for space and time?

It's both. We use reason to make choices based on determined data. — NKBJ

But the logic we use is deterministic logic. We go from deterministic input data, through deterministic logic to deterministic output data.

We can never do it, but if you could put a person in exactly the same situation and state say 1000 times then I would guess them to make the same decision 1000 times out of a 1000 (even for something as arbitrary as 'will it be heads or tails?').

That's because it's reasonable to choose the same thing given the same data — NKBJ

So therefore there is no free will. We respond to input data in a deterministic manner. No choice is involved.

I like Devans...I read every one of his "ideas"...and I comment on them. — Frank Apisa

Thank you Frank and I like you too! Appreciate you listening and engaging with my 'ideas'.

I'm NOT trying to shut discussion down...I am merely pointing out the futility of thinking "my take is the logical take...to the exclusion of the take of others." — Frank Apisa

It's important we keep the discussions going. We will not reach the truth if we do not. It can get a bit heated at times but that seems to me to be healthy.

I do believe the truth is possible to reach even for questions like 'is there a God'. I think you on the other hand have less faith in human ingenuity?

It's contradictory to speak of choices and then claim free will is an illusion. — NKBJ

OK by 'choices' I meant 'the things that we do'.

Making a 'decision' is just like running a computer program IMO: same data, same program, always same results.

In what way?

I did try to read your post. I'm of the opinion that free will can be understood; we have none. Am I missing something?

I hope I don't have to define Freewill but what I understand of it is that to possess it one must be able to make choices without being influenced by anything. — TheMadFool

It is obviously impossible not to be influenced by anything when making choices. A choice would not be possible without influences; we'd have nothing to graduate the decision by.

Do you agree, then, that Freewill can't be understood because it can't be explained since that would require a causal (deterministic) model? — TheMadFool

I agree with your analysis. I think we are just like computers, our inputs (senses) determine our outputs (what we say and do).

So, in a sense, determinism is what makes having choices possible — NKBJ

The choices we make are determined by emotions (glands, hormones), logic, memory and senses. All of these things operate in a deterministic manner. I'm with Einstein on this one: free will is an illusion.

Thank you. So in summary:

- we can see how things could exist with a first cause
- we cannot see how things could exist without a first cause

All you have said is what about God? Doesn't he need a cause? To which I have pointed out that God is timeless so no he does not need a cause. So I am still waiting for an answer to the question:

How anything in time can exist without a first cause?

So you admit you cannot answer the question:

How anything in time can exist without a first cause?

if all objects are either motionless or if all objects or matter are moving at the same speed it is impossible to measure time due to Einstein's view of the universe. — christian2017

Does time still pass in this case? My understanding is that it does. I imagine a clock and next to it empty space. Time passes for the clock (in motion), but surely it must pass also for the empty space?