Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 78 (8896 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 03-22-2019 10:52 PM
41 online now:
DrJones*, JonF, ringo (3 members, 38 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: WookieeB
Post Volume:
Total: 848,563 Year: 3,600/19,786 Month: 595/1,087 Week: 185/212 Day: 27/25 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev12345
6
Author Topic:   Uncreated Creator Argument
Phage0070
Inactive Member


Message 76 of 80 (507637)
05-06-2009 10:13 PM
Reply to: Message 74 by Blue Jay
05-06-2009 9:04 PM


Re: The cause of causality
If we are debating a non-existent concept (such as a unicorn) we are debating something that originated from human thought; before the invention of a unicorn it wasn't even non-existent as a concept. At the risk of arguing semantics we were discussing the default state of "things". In order for something to be conceptually non-existent you require the ability to conceive it.

Of course I consider this tangle to be a semantic spiral like the "Can God make a rock so big he cannot lift it?" riddle...


This message is a reply to:
 Message 74 by Blue Jay, posted 05-06-2009 9:04 PM Blue Jay has not yet responded

  
Perdition
Member (Idle past 1315 days)
Posts: 1593
From: Wisconsin
Joined: 05-15-2003


Message 77 of 80 (507691)
05-07-2009 12:28 PM
Reply to: Message 73 by Blue Jay
05-06-2009 8:54 PM


Re: The cause of causality
In a Universe where logic appears to be a way to discern things, at least at the macro level, things that are logically inconsistent or impossible don't "not exist", it's just complete nonsense to even speak of them. It's one of the side effects of language, we can make sentences that follow all grammatical rules but still result in nonsense.

It's like asking how long the 5th leg of a four-legged animal is. A four-legged animal's fifth leg doesn't just "not exist" it makes no sense to speak of it.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 73 by Blue Jay, posted 05-06-2009 8:54 PM Blue Jay has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 78 by Blue Jay, posted 05-07-2009 2:38 PM Perdition has not yet responded

    
Blue Jay
Member (Idle past 775 days)
Posts: 2843
From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts
Joined: 02-04-2008


Message 78 of 80 (507721)
05-07-2009 2:38 PM
Reply to: Message 77 by Perdition
05-07-2009 12:28 PM


Non-Existence
Hi, Phage and Perdition.

(Sounds like a delightful crowd there.)

Existence and non-existence are not an "A or B" dichotomy: they are an "A or not-A" dichotomy. Whatever doesn't fit "A," by definition, fits "not-A": it's really that simple.


-Bluejay (a.k.a. Mantis, Thylacosmilus)

Darwin loves you.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 77 by Perdition, posted 05-07-2009 12:28 PM Perdition has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 79 by Rahvin, posted 05-07-2009 4:06 PM Blue Jay has responded

  
Rahvin
Member (Idle past 1264 days)
Posts: 3964
Joined: 07-01-2005


Message 79 of 80 (507738)
05-07-2009 4:06 PM
Reply to: Message 78 by Blue Jay
05-07-2009 2:38 PM


Re: Non-Existence
Hi, Phage and Perdition.

(Sounds like a delightful crowd there.)

Existence and non-existence are not an "A or B" dichotomy: they are an "A or not-A" dichotomy. Whatever doesn't fit "A," by definition, fits "not-A": it's really that simple.

Inaccurate, at least with regards to this discussion. Consider the following:

quote:

A

{0,1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8}


What number comes before 0 in the number set?

The question doesn't make sense, because there is no number below 0 in the number set.

Does nothing exist other than the number set?

I see an A.

Asking "what came before the Universe" is a nonsense question because it attempts to use the parameters of the Universe to apply to things outside of the Universe. To continue the analogy, within the number set there are only numbers, no letters, and the question asks specifically for a number - in the question of a "cause" for the Universe, you're asking for an event in a time coordinate that doesn't exist.

It's true that existence and non-existence are mutually exclusive, either/or, black/white binary descriptors. But you have to ask the right question to get the right answer. The question "what caused the Universe" is the wrong question, because it requires things like "events" and "time" that don't necessarily apply in the same way "outside" of our Universe.

What number comes before 0 in the number set?

That question doesn't make sense. You could say that no number exists before 0 in the number set.

Does anything outside of the number set exist?

Yes. There's an A.

We don't know enough about reality as a whole, or even just our own Universe, to say much of anything about the possibilities surrounding the Universe and its origins; the Big Bang, remember, is not a theory of origins but rather a model of the Universe immediately after T=0 and of its continued expansion. Our Universe may be unique, or it may be one among many, or even an infinite number of other Universes. Our Universe may or may not exist "in" some sort of "super-Universe" with a time-like dimension that allows for an analogue of a "cause" for our Universe, or it may not.

We're at the point where we're speculating, and our guesses are barely-educated. When someone says "there must be a cause for the Universe," they're placing a restriction on the properties of the Universe with no basis for such a restriction. It's even more important to acknowledge what we don't know than to make assumptions based on what we think we might know, and we do know from advanced physics that relying on human "common sense" and experience is unlikely to result in accuracy.

The Universe may simply exist, and there could be nothing else at all. There may be some "cause" of some sort. There are any number of speculative possibilities, and we simply don't know enough to be able to pick one. The most parsimonious answer right now is "the Universe exists."


This message is a reply to:
 Message 78 by Blue Jay, posted 05-07-2009 2:38 PM Blue Jay has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 80 by Blue Jay, posted 05-09-2009 9:53 AM Rahvin has not yet responded

  
Blue Jay
Member (Idle past 775 days)
Posts: 2843
From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts
Joined: 02-04-2008


Message 80 of 80 (507969)
05-09-2009 9:53 AM
Reply to: Message 79 by Rahvin
05-07-2009 4:06 PM


Re: Non-Existence
Hi, Rahvin.

Rahvin writes:

quote:
A

{0,1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8}


What number comes before 0 in the number set?

The question doesn't make sense, because there is no number below 0 in the number set.

Does nothing exist other than the number set?

I see an A.

Granted.

I have absolutely no trouble with the principles that you or anybody else has so far presented in this discussion. The trouble I do have is that your analogies are not applicable to the set "existence," because, by definition, the set "existence" excludes nothing.

Check it out:

Let's use your original number set:

{0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9}

Now, let's label that set "existence," and define the term "exist" to refer to anything that fits in the set "existence."

Then, ask the question, "What comes before 0?"

In this set, nothing comes before 0. Anything that comes before 0 does not fit the definition of "exist" provided above. So, "things that come before 0" do not exist.

This is why these analogies don't work: because, in the case of "existence," things that don't fit into the set are, by definition, "non-existent."


-Bluejay (a.k.a. Mantis, Thylacosmilus)

Darwin loves you.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 79 by Rahvin, posted 05-07-2009 4:06 PM Rahvin has not yet responded

  
Prev12345
6
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019