1. if the universe was temporally infinite, then there would be no 1st moment
2. if there was no 1st moment, then there was no 2nd moment
3. if there was no 2nd moment, then there was no 3rd moment
4. ... and so on and so forth ...
5. ... then there would be no now
6. since now exists, we started out wrong, i.e. the universe is not temporally infinite — jorndoe

Infinity is not endless counting 1, 2, 3,...
It is a set. The set of all numbers simultaneously in one set. Eternity is all time.

First of all an infinite universe implies that everything that is possible is actual, even contradictory things. — Wosret

An infinite universe does not have to contain everything. You can have an infinity of even numbers 2, 4, 6,... but that infinity does not contain any odd number.

The symbols used in mathematics represent values, as I described, "2" represents a value. — Metaphysician Undercover

I don't see it that way. Numbers are sets that arise out of iteration and partition.
Start with /
Iterate //
Reiterate ///
etc /////////////////////////////...
Partition each step into {/} {//} {///} {////} {/////}...These are sets. Numbers are sets.
In familiar symbols these are 1, 2, 3, 4, 5,...
This is how set theory defines numbers. There are no values ascribed here.

What is often missed, is that mathematics itself is a value structure, and is therefore dependent on, and based in "value judgement". What has occurred through the history of humanity is that we have achieved significant levels of agreement, convention, concerning these value judgements of mathematics, and this has produced great confidence in the notion that "objective knowledge" is produced by mathematics. In reality this knowledge is better classed as 'inter-subjective'. — Metaphysician Undercover

Can you give an example of how mathematics is a value judgement. I suppose they are very few.

Science is a valid mode of knowing.
Philosophy is a valid mode of knowing.
Art is a valid mode of knowing.
Theology is a valid mode of knowing.

The problem is when science is epistemologically privileged over the others as a mode of knowing. Unfortunately we are in an era where the materialist reductionist perspective is dominant. — emancipate

Exactly. Science is concerned with primitive knowledge because it is concerned with matter which is primitive. Science cannot make informed judgements about ontological questions and questions about consciousness and being. These things require a higher language. The problem today is that scientism makes people believe that the language of science is the only valid language.

Some argue matter and energy have equivalency. — TiredThinker

In practical terms they are equivalent but energy precedes matter in the sense that you cannot have matter unless you have energy.

Has anyone here ever wondered if there is anything more real than this life? Maybe even thought that there had to be something more real? — TiredThinker

Matter is an image of energy. Energy is more real than matter. The material world is an image of real things. Things of the mind and spirit. These are more real than matter.

But how to feel reality without using rationality? — Ergo sum

Eat an orange. Now you know what an orange is without rational knowledge. You have knowledge by way of taste. There are many categories of knowledge and ways to knowledge - experience, consciousness...

An individual subscribes to an idea or philosophy due to their personal biases and intuitions. — clemogo

I think there are far more compelling reasons than mere confirmation bias etc. Our reasons for believing are very complex and varied.

An evolved predatory logic must be by it's nature remain incapable to:
1. Understand truths that can not be chased and exploited in a physical sense (which come to mind?)
2. Understand things that are not relevant to survival such as what is "the good". — FalseIdentity

I agree with the general drift of your argument. Evil is often about rigid control whereas the good allows the world to be free: instead of possessing life, good shares in its freedom. 'Logic' and science are easy means of control and possession and are therefore prone to serving evil. Evil is control, good is letting go. When evil tries to rigidly possess life it kills it and turns it into not life.

Is there any part of the world that is demonstrably non mathematical?

It only leaves a physical trace effect when it is being detected. Otherwise we don't know where it is, because it is nowhere (in physical spacetime). Detection means that the particle is made to create a trace effect in physical terms. This trace effect allows us to say where the particle is in 4d spacetime. But we can't really say the particle is 'there' we can only say the trace effect is 'there'. The trace effect may be particle-like but that does not mean the thing that made if is a particle. The trace effect may be wave-like but that does not mean the thing is a wave. 'Particle' and 'wave' are concepts that derive from the ordinary, physical 4d spacetime geometry. We don't really know what the thing is but it is convenient to call it a particle. We only know that there is a thing that leaves particle/wave-like trace effects. The thing that is doing this is an unknown.

Yes, but I'm speaking only about geometry/spacetime. Spacetime is a geometric concept. In real terms everything is 'here' but in geometric terms there are two geometries, quantum and ordinary 4d physical geometry. Location is a geometric concept. A particle can leave a trace effect at a location in 4d spacetime but where was it before/after it left that trace effect? Bohr says this question cannot be answered and that effectively means it is not located in a 4d geometry it is in quantum spacetime.

It is located in 4d spacetime.

Then what about the screen with the spot? — Cartuna

The spot is in this physical universe. That is, its location is in terms of 4d spacetime. The thing that made the spot/trace effect, is no longer observable and not in our 4d universe in the sense that it cannot be located here. Outside detection (ie interaction with a physical device) nothing can be said about its location.

I'm quite sympathetic to the idea that, say, photons don't exist in space-time between their creation and destruction. Makes a lot of sense to me. I'm not sure how it would work for massive particles... — Kenosha Kid

As I understand it there are two spacetimes (from a geometric point of view that is.) If the mathematics of ordinary physical spacetime is different to the mathematics of the quantum world then we are dealing with two geometries and two spacetimes. Chairs and tables live in physical spacetime, 'particles' live in quantum spacetime.

BOTH spacetimes are here in this ontological space because space is two things. It is a geometry and it is also a positive existence. It has being. Within this positive being we call space there are two geometries (at least): quantum geometry and ordinary physical geometry or spacetime. Both of them are HERE but are geometrically distinct. When a 'particle' collides with a physical object it leaves a trace effect in physical spacetime (eg a spot on a photographic plate). We don't observe particles, we observe trace effects. These trace effects are necessarily in ordinary physical spacetime because they are physical objects. This trace effect marks a location in physical spacetime and we say the 'particle' was 'there'. But what is 'there' is really a trace effect. The particle is nowhere in physical spacetime.

It used to be called "wavefunction reduction", and simply meant that, before measurement, we don't know if the system is in state A, B, C, etc. (or some mixture), but after measurement we know it's A so we "reduce" the description to that. — Kenosha Kid

Another complication involves the word 'where'. Where is the particle? Particles exist in quantum spacetime which is mathematically different from ordinary 4D spacetime. So what do we mean by 'where'? What location in what spacetime are we talking about? Bohr said it is meaningless to say where a particle is outside detection. Maybe he means it is nowhere. Nowhere in 4D spacetime that is. It lives in its own quantum spacetime. A 'location' arises when a particle collides with our 4D spacetime (ie a physical detection apparatus). The particle must appear to be located in our 4D spacetime because the detection apparatus is in our spacetime. But 'where' was the particle prior to detection? Nowhere!

Is the wave function collapsed or not? — SolarWind

I think the collapse of the wave function is only a manner of speaking. Nothing collapses in real terms. The wave function is only an abstract way of grasping the mystery. Suppose you have 50 possible destinations that you can go to. This is the abstract space that you contemplate. You make a decision on one destination so the other 49 possibilities 'vanish'. But nothing collapses in real terms. Possibilities vanish, that is all.

There's a wiki page on observers with respect to quantum mechanics. Humans aren't required. — Benkei

True. Detection only requires the particle to collide with a physical system. All this 'observer determines outcome' is bunkum.

"Good" and "evil" are mostly just arbitrary terms we give to different things according the metrics our morality/systems of belief tell us to assign to them. But beyond our preexisting systems of belief there is no clear way to explain why something is good or evil. — PseudoB

Generally speaking, good tends towards life and being. Evil tends towards nothingness. Augustine defines evil as an absence of good/being. The loss of God and being, brought about by the fall, leads to evil and nothingness.

Yes, indeed! We need to work on the definition of "exist" and "existence". Wanna give it a shot — TheMadFool

Existence is the eternal positive. Existence cannot be a property of any previous state.

Proof

Assume X has the property 'existence'. We assume X and existence are two distinct entities, otherwise X is existence and there is nothing to prove.

Now ask the question 'Does X, as a distinct entity, exist?' There are two answers-

1. X exists: In this case existence as a property of X is superfluous whence X is existence.

2. X does not exist: It is incoherent to say a non existent X has properties.

This means existence is not a property, even a property of God. Therefore existence is God. God becomes. This is being, which is evolved existence. God is existence and being. But existence is a prerequisite for being. This is the Cosmological Argument - first necessary existence then contingent creation/being.

That's the problem right there. How does Parmenides distinguish what must necessarily be, given the distinction he makes between Being and being, a "something" devoid of any and all properties that just is, no more no less, and nothing? — TheMadFool

There is a distinction between nothingness and no-thing. Nothingness is absolute nothing. It is so vacuous it is not even there. It is not even an 'it' because if it were an it, it would be something. Nothingness is not.

No-thing is no contingent/created thing. The void. The eternal positive that is existence/God. (What Heidegger calls Being).

Existence/God becomes, by evolving into being. God becomes the living God. This is consciousness.

It makes sense...in a weird way. — TheMadFool

For me it is fairly simple if we can agree to read from the same page. In the beginning as have a lump of bronze (existence: that which is). The bronze is cast in the shape of a horse or an eagle or whatever. This is being.

There seems to be 3 levels of existence.

1. The positive, necessary existence that is. The uncreated void which is existence.

2. Contingent things: stars, planets, rocks, the physical universe. These are said to be contingent because they depend on a previous state; existence. Existence becomes these things.

3. Life and consciousness, which are the most evolved form of being.

I prefer "being" rather than "existence," although I do use both occasionally. To say being is eternal or has other properties is a mistake, in my view. It's one interpretation, yes, but is confusing being with a being (with an entity). — Xtrix

There is such a confusion of semantics when it comes to this subject. It is necessary to agree on the meaning of words. For me existence is the primordial, eternal positive that is. Being is evolved existence.

What is being, with a small "b"? In my book, it's, very loosely speaking, properties: An apple is red; the apple, being red, is red.

What is Being, with an uppercase "B"? Being includes, in addition to being (properties) that which possesses said properties. The red apple is Being. — TheMadFool

It is very hard to have a discussion when the words are used in different ways. 'Being' and 'existence' are often confused with each other. It has to do with the difference between the 'presence' or something as opposed to nothing which I call 'existence'. It is also known as necessary existence. Being is evolved and contingent. It is more than existence because it is evolved. Existence is the void, the no-thing. No-thing is no created thing as opposed to nothingness which is non existence.

If we define existence as the 'thereness' or presence of what is eternally and define being as a more developed form of mere existence (life) we can say the following:

In the beginning there is existence. Existence is not a property of anything, it simply is, eternally. It is what is. Existence has properties. Evolved things are properties of existence. With Russell's apple for example, taste, colour etc. are properties of existence. When these properties form a set we call that set 'apple'. Existence is the substance of the set.

Existence evolves properties and becomes being, life (if we define being as an evolution over and above primordial existence.)

Existence is God and God evolves and becomes being, life. This is creation. (we need to make a clear distinction between primordial existence and being)

Animals are less conscious but never completely unaware — SpaceDweller

Less intellectual but not necessarily less conscious. Consciousness goes waaay beyond the intellect.

The analogy of the television has been given. The television projects sound and vision so if we did not know better we might imagine the television produces these things; it produces the music score, the script, the plot and even the actors.

See, if we damage this component the image vanishes. If we damage that component the sound goes. So the television must be the author and creator of these things right? It turns out that the script, music etc are created outside of the television and broadcast to it from a remote location. The television only reconstitutes the information into a form that is suitable for humans to understand; sound and vision. The television processes information it does not create it.

Likewise with mind and brain. The brain is a processor not a creator. The mind creates thought, not the brain.

Correlation is not always causation.

A causes X
B causes X
C causes X...

X

Ergo

A and/or B and/or C,...

The mind exists in God. When the mind thinks it moves through God/eternity. Thought is an exploration of possibility. The brain, like a television, is only a processor. It does not create the film, soundtrack, script, actors or scenery. These comes from an external source. Likewise with thought, it originates in being and is configured by the brain.

Nothingness cannot be conceived because the very act of thinking about it involves your own participation and that is not nothingness, it is thinking...

A rock has life and being potentially in it. God merely created the stuff from which stones and birds are made. He was outside the world of being and existence. Not a part of it. They created the world in their image. Not their essence. If he did then we would be the same as God. But we are not the same as them. We are no gods. — Prishon

We are new creations because we are properties of existence/God. Our essence is God, our being is created. This is what is meant by 'In Him we live and move and have our being'. We inherit our existence from God. God's existence and ours is the same thing. Everything that is shares God's existence. We become created beings. Suppose bronze is existence. Bronze can be formed in the shape of a bird. The bird is created, the bronze is.

So existence includes God? — Prishon

Existence is God. If God and existence are separate things then God is not existence so how can God exist? If God exists God and existence are one thing. Existence becomes. It evolves into life and being which is more than existence. A rock exists, a bird has life and being.

Of course not. God created existence. — Prishon

That depends on how you define existence. I am using to word to signify that which is; the eternal positive that is just there. In the beginning there is existence which is God. Existence becomes being, life.

Existence cannot be a property of something, even God. Assume X has the property 'existence'. Now ask; does X, as a distinct entity, exist? There are two answers-

1. X exists. If it does existence as a property of X is superfluous because X exists anyhow, whence X is existence.

2. X does not exist. It is incoherent to say a non existent X has properties, least of all the property of existence.

Therefore existence is not a property. Therefore existence is God. But existence has properties; star, planet, chair, tree...

The eternal existence that is, is existence. It is not that God exists as if existence is a property of God. God and existence are the same thing. Existence always is. The question about God is whether existence is intelligent, conscious, sentient. If it is it is what we traditionally refer to as God. What we call energy is existence/God.

Bingo! Matter is anything that has mass and has volume; both mass and volume are mathematically defined. — TheMadFool

Yes, even mass is understood to be a process, not a substance. See Higg's Field.

The twin paradox - if that is what you mean - is part of Special Relativity, no need for acceleration/gravity.

You should've told me this about 20 years ago! I wouldn't have made as many mistakes as I have. :sad: — TheMadFool

I'm paraphrasing Simone Weil. It is obvious when you think about it!

How do you know God has a “mind”? — javi2541997

If God created the universe He must be very smart indeed and have something that our word 'mind' approximates.

God and religion are just beliefs... — javi2541997

The main point I'm making is that matter is a mathematical reality and this is evidence for God's existence since a mathematical concept needs a mind to originate in.

Morality is based on the recognition of the value/sacredness of life.