I would question whether even God can exist without logic (and maths is an extension of logic).

What is logic? It is information (statements with their truth value). True and false are 1 and 0. In a world without logic it's impossible to tell true from false so there is no information. I don't think anything could exist without information and information (being able to differentiate between things) implies logic.

He can't make square-circles or 2-2=7 because he permanently designed logic as well, in a way that is infinite yet understandable to human or more specifically, contingent perspectives — SethRy

I don't see how you could 'design' logic if logic did not exist. You would not be able to design anything without knowing the difference between right and wrong.

So, I personally believe, that God, not only a god, created mathematics and utilised it to construct the cosmos. — SethRy

I think it is probable that the universe was constructed using mathematics but I don't see how God could have constructed mathematics itself. For example, its not possible to construct a coherent maths where 1+1!=2, IE maths is invariant - whoever 'creates' it creates exactly the same thing each time... hence it seems 'discovered' is a more appropriate word.

Well we can say that an infinite regress is impossible - it has no start - so how could any of it come about? So the only way to avoid an infinite regress is a first cause.

Then we have the start of time (see OP); that requires a timeless first cause too.

So I would argue my position is the most logically coherent model for the start of the universe.

Silencing the debate is not in the interests of truth.

ither NOTHING exists...or at least ONE THING had no cause. — Frank Apisa

Correct. The timeless prime mover has no cause. That is what started everything else off.

As if it were astonishing that the word "peanut" can be about any peanut, anywhere: '"Peanut" is universal and transcends the universe'.

Mathematics is constructed, not found. — Banno

The concept 'Peanut' does not predate the universe.

1+1=2 in all universes. π is the same in all universes. So if maths is constructed; it is constructed the same in all universes. IE it is discovered.

The universe is discrete at macro and micro levels so I think we can at least conclude the concept of 'one' is built into the universe.

Because if you argue that mathematics was not invented, it was infinite, then that unstoppable regress would live by the existence of the cosmos and the world — therefore essential to the universe, to the world. — SethRy

Not sure what you mean; can you expand?

Everything that exists in time needs a temporal start point. Things that exist outside of time don't.

Therefore Santa Clause exists at the north pole — coolguy8472

Your argument shows that Santa does not exist. That does not show my argument is invalid.

The point of time where any would-be starting point may not exist but that particular point of time still exists except does not have the property of being a "starting point". Any point in time next to this point of time also exists. So we could say the point of time "next to start" does exist except the point it's next to does not have the property of being the "starting point". Like the North Pole and the place next to the North Pole still exists regardless of whether or not Santa Clause exists there — coolguy8472

Just because time still exists, does not mean that the object existed at that time. We know the object has no temporal start point so the object will not exist at the next point in time (even though that point of time exists).

Referencing our universe from a non-existent point of time or a point of time in parallel universe — coolguy8472

I am not; it is a fact that the start is connected to the end. So if the start does not exist, the end does not exist. All that is required is to know that the start is missing.

Granting this: "So it must have experienced some events greater than any number [you select] of years ago." is not implying the existence of a number greater than all numbers. — coolguy8472

But how many events has the being experienced? If it always true that it is 'greater than any number we select', then we can conclude that 'the number of events the being has experienced is greater than any number'.

Unless we say that there is no number of event that the being has experienced because the being has no temporal start. But we know the being has experienced events so there must be a (total) number of events. Goes to show how things without starts don't make any sense.

Universes that have a beginning need a temporal start but that does not mean that universe that don't have a beginning need a temporal start. — coolguy8472

The OP contains an argument that a particle needs a temporal start to exist. For particle you could read universe.

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/5302/an-argument-for-eternalism/p1

Similarly if you have the statement "if something begins to exist then it needs a cause". This statement is not disproven when you show the universe had no cause. We can take the contrapositive and say "if it does not need a cause" then "it does not need a beginning" — coolguy8472

My stance is that the universe has a cause and has to have a beginning. No beginning lead an impossible infinite regress (as well as not existing due to having no start). Having a beginning gets around these two logical problems.

I think we might be going in circles at this point.

Pretty close to agreement. It's more like "if age of the universe is finite then it has a numeric property". By proving the age of the universe does not have a value in an eternal universe does not contradict that statement because it's a conditional. — coolguy8472

I could say if the universe does not have an age; it is not a universe. Having no age implies the universe has no temporal start implies none of it exists.

not in conventional math. At best we could say as x approaches infinity x+1=(no limit) or infinity as a symbolic value to mean no upper bound — coolguy8472

Yes I was referring to transfinite mathematics.

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

I consider a limit from calculus to be an example of potential infinity. Set theory is the only place in maths I know of that deals with the Actually Infinite.

Proving the universe did not have a cause in an eternal universe does not make the statement false. It makes A false but not "if A then B". — coolguy8472

You have lost me. An eternal universe would not have a cause makes sense.But apart from that I not sure what you mean?

Agreed, but the point of a brain in a vat is that you can't prove the existence of other brains independently of them telling you they exist. — Edward

If you ask someone to work something out, say what is 193*636?, and they tell you the answer and it's correct, that seems like strong evidence that an independent logical mental capacity exists, IE a brain.

You know for sure that some thinking took place somewhere logically different to where you do your thinking, hence it proves there must be a logically separate brain.

I think that: 'you think therefore you are' means we are logically (if not physically) separate brains.

And you have a different memory to me. Different thoughts plus different memory equal different entity.

So that rules out 'brain in a vat', but leaves 'brains in vats' in play.

I think therefore I am. You think therefore you are. Hence solipsism is wrong. Simple.

What would be an example of unsuitable math? — DingoJones

Some speculative parts of physics treat time as a complex number. It seems very much a scalar quantity so I suspect this will turn out to be one of those cases of unsuitable maths being used to describe part of the universe.

In general maths describes the universe. Actual infinity is not part of maths IMO so we have a finite universe (and a finite God, if he exists).

"Mathematics is essential to the world.
— SethRy

Nuh. Mathematics is essential to our descriptions of the world, That's not the same. — Banno

But nature and reality appear to use mathematics:

https://www.planetdolan.com/15-beautiful-examples-of-mathematics-in-nature/

We can say mathematics predates the universe. We can also say that mathematics is universal and transcends the universe (in the sense if there are other universes, maths will be exactly the same in those other universes as our maths).

God if he exists is a mathematician, but he did not invent maths, he just discovered it.

I suppose the best way to describe the reality of an eternal universe is that it would exist with an actual infinite age but any attempts to quantify it would fall within potential infinity — coolguy8472

The age of the universe is a numeric property; it takes a single numeric value. Actual infinity has no fixed value. Having a fixed value is the defining characteristic of a number. So Actual infinity is not a number. So it cannot be used for the age of the universe, size of the universe or any other real life numeric property.

Within your proof you try to disprove it by appealing to the actual infinity which doesn't work within real number math. — coolguy8472

Actual infinity has its own mathematical rules like:

∞+1=∞

Which make no logical sense. An object that when you change it, it does not change? There is no such object so the actual infinity concept flies in the face of our everyday experience and logic.

But there is no "start" because there is no beginning — coolguy8472

It does not matter if it's called 'start' or 'beginning', objects must have one in order to exist.

Also would it not be possible for a universe to be created with infinite age by a god? — coolguy8472

I'd argue that infinite beings are impossible:

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

So God it he exists is timeless rather than of infinite age.

Our certainty can be more or less, and maybe absolute or maybe not , but it is certainty of truth that is or isn't absolute, not truth itself. — unenlightened

'absolute
adjective
very great or to the largest degree possible'

https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/absolute

When we say 'absolutely true' we mean 'absolutely certain to be true'... it's just implicit that the qualifier absolute applies to 'certain to be true' rather than true on its own. It's just an abbreviation.

But fuzzy logic is not the logic of our ordinary speech. — unenlightened

Yes it is. 99% of stuff we do in our everyday lives is based on induction (so therefore fuzzy rather than boolean logic) - should I cross the road? Did not get run down last time... induction. So when we use terms like absolute truth we are referring to the % inductive likelihood of something being true.

What is not 100% is certainty, but a pocket that is 99% empty is not at all an empty pocket. — unenlightened

Absolute denotes 100% certainty so it is a valid qualifier to use with 'truth'.

there is nothing between true and false — unenlightened

'Fuzzy logic is a form of many-valued logic in which the truth values of variables may be any real number between 0 and 1 inclusive'

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

Good point. In a universe with no absolute truth, how can you ever judge true from false? Truth looses its meaning so can't even talk about absolute truth.

But for an inductive argument, its truth value is neither 100% true or 100% false but somewhere in-between. So propositions can be 'somewhat likely to be true' or 'almost certainly true' or 'absolutely true'; the last indicating 100% certainty.

There is no difference between the truth that my pockets are empty. and the absolute truth that my pockets are empty. — unenlightened

Yes there is. You may know inductively that your pockets are empty (because you checked a second ago), but what if a tiny pixie has crept into your pocket since then? So 'my pockets are empty' is inductive knowledge whereas 'its absolutely true my pockets are empty' is claiming absolute knowledge about the contents of your pockets (which is impossible).

But 'truth' has to be qualified. I think it is valid to qualify it with 'absolute'. For example, all of these are (arguably) absolute knowledge:

- true!=false
- 1 + 1 = 2
- 'I think therefore I am'
- https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/271054

Contrast 'absolute truth' with other types of truth:

- Deductive truth. Depends on the truth of the underlying axioms. Is therefore not absolute truth
- Inductive truth. Depends on the reliability of the statistics. Not absolute truth.

So the qualifier 'absolute' is needed in some cases when talking of truth. I agree when it's used casually/inappropriately it can be redundant.

It's all down to dopamine and similar reward chemicals in the brain.

Meaning of life = high dopamine levels.

Or just do what makes you happy. If doing what you are doing makes others unhappy, they will make you unhappy so you will stop. So it should all just work out automatically.

I see your point. But you could regard 1 as saying that we have split the set of statements into two parts:

- The statement 'there is no absolute truth apart from this statement' is absolutely true
- All other statements are not absolutely true

That seems the only way to make sense of it.

I think the statement is an abbreviation for one of the following:

1. there is no absolute truth apart from this statement
2. there is no absolute truth including this statement

So 2 is as you say self-contradictory. 1 is not contradictory.

Its clever, but the statement 'Absolute truth is impossible' is ambiguous, does it mean:

- All statements including 'Absolute truth is impossible' are unverifiable
or
- All statements apart from 'Absolute truth is impossible' are unverifiable

I think it probably is meant to mean the 2nd. In which case 2 does not follow from 1

Cool. That shows that you are working with an unhelpful definition of infinity. Treat it rather as an unbounded number larger than any real number. — Banno

No such number exists (as proved above).

What exactly is an 'unbounded number' anyway? Numbers have fixed values; that's why they are numbers; that's their defining characteristic... they are not variables.

So one of the (many) problems with infinity is that it's of no fixed value. That plays havoc with maths and logic. How can you have a number without a fixed value?

It is like in logic, if in addition to 'true' and 'false' I introduced a 3rd truth value of no fixed value, say 'true-and-false'. Now almost everywhere I use the 3rd truth value, I would introduce ambiguity, much to logic's detriment. Infinity damages maths like a 3rd truth value in logic would.

No it's not an assumption - assumptions are not absolute knowledge. It's a deduction that works without assuming its premises are correct - it has no premises really.

If we want to know about X, if we can show:
X & Y = false
X & ~Y = false
Then we know absolutely that X is false irrespective of the value of Y. So no premises/assumptions/axioms are introduced to establish the falsity of X.

Absolute knowledge is knowledge which does not rely on any previous axioms. I was pointing out a type of deductive reasoning that allows acquisition of knowledge without introducing axioms.

That flies in the face of the definition of infinity as the biggest thing ever. You cannot have more than one biggest thing ever.

The multiple infinities appear as a result of the questionable bijection procedure. Any method of comparison that claims the naturals and rationals are the same size is clearly marsh gas.

I reject the proposition because it 'fucks' with logic - two things that are different are not equal.

Maths can do perfectly well with potential infinity only (limits); actual infinity (transfinite numbers) is not required.

I explained above that I believe there is only one type of infinity so therefore it is OK to take ∞ from both sides of an equation.

I reject infinity as a valid quantity. So I do not believe it can be used as the value of real world quantities like the size or age of the universe. So I believe the universe is finite both in space and time.

I do not regard ∞+1=∞ as a valid logical proposition. I think the bijection procedure in set theory yields the wrong results. I think set theory has other flaws around handling of infinite sets. Set theory fails to pass muster as logic IMO.

What mistake did I make?

I'd argue that a reasonable definition of infinity is: 'something larger than anything else' so that precludes the existence of more than one infinity and therefore we can write:

∞+1=∞
implies
1=0

Which is not a promising start for transfinite mathematics.

Even if you hold to multiple infinities, there is something deeply wrong with:

∞+1=∞

In english, it says there is a thing that when we change it, it does not change. This does not make logical sense.

At best this could be an argument that infinity is not an integer. — Banno

Or a rational, real, complex, vector, matrix... not any sort of number or quantity. Infinity is a concept only and a flawed, inconsistent concept at that.

'In cosmology, the steady state model is an alternative to the Big Bang theory of the evolution of the universe. In the steady state model, the density of matter in the expanding universe remains unchanged due to a continuous creation of matter, thus adhering to the perfect cosmological principle, a principle that asserts that the observable universe is basically the same at any time as well as at any place.'

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

I would point out that the universe cannot expand 'forever' - there would be a point in the past where it was not expanding - so with infinite time it can best be oscillating. Then with continuous matter creation we would still reach infinite matter density.

Hm. Have you ever visited Hilbert's Hotel? It will help with the mathematics — Banno

Yes and its marsh gas. Such a hotel could never exist in reality so we can banish any considerations of such a monstrosity when considering the universe.

Says who? Devans? — Banno

What is the point you are trying to make?

Well, no. It shows instead that for presentism there is no start to time — Banno

No the first part shows that for presentism and eternalism there is a start of time. You have still not read the OP properly.

You might enjoy reading up on Steady State theory. The calculations you want were done last century. — Banno

What calculations?

This makes no sense for me. There are no big bangs going on in my lounge-room; I would have noticed. And simple mathematics shows that your last sentence here is problematic. The sequence of reals contains infinite positive numbers, while leaving room for infinite negative numbers... — Banno

But we are assuming that 'something comes from nothing' naturally. So for arguments sake, I've said that matter is created during Big Bangs. They would be very occasional events but with infinite time, there would be an infinite number of them so matter would reach infinite density.

And it is your maths that is letting you down; if you have a fixed volume of space with infinite matter in it then density is infinite. It does not matter that space is infinite - matter is appearing everywhere.

Really? What is it? — Banno

The first integer is conventionally chosen as 1 or 0.

So your argument becomes: Devans thinks there must be a start time, therefore presentism is wrong. — Banno

The first part of my argument proves there is a start of time. Then that result is used for the proof of eternalism.

You could try reading it before criticising it.

If you assume only now exists, then there is no past, and hence no start to time. The argument falls apart. — Banno

Exactly... a start of time is impossible with presentism... so the argument moves on to consider eternalism.