Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 81 (8960 total)
29 online now:
DrJones* (1 member, 28 visitors)
Newest Member: Mikee
Post Volume: Total: 869,129 Year: 877/23,288 Month: 877/1,851 Week: 321/365 Day: 48/34 Hour: 0/3


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Time and Beginning to Exist
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16107
Joined: 07-20-2006


(1)
Message 28 of 268 (642025)
11-24-2011 11:20 PM
Reply to: Message 25 by kbertsche
11-24-2011 4:39 PM


Claims that the Big Bang could have caused itself, or that it needed no cause, are nothing more than "special pleading". There are no other examples of things which are either uncaused or self-caused (in the philosophical sense of causation).

God?

One might claim that a cause "outside of time itself" is also an instance of special pleading. But I don't believe this holds up. Traditional conceptions of God place Him outside of time (and space) and attribute numerous instances of Him acting in time and space from outside of it. It is not only the Big Bang as a special case, but also the incarnation, the eschaton, etc. where God breaks into time and space from outside of it.

But God himself remains a special case --- the Uncaused Cause, the Unmoved Mover.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 25 by kbertsche, posted 11-24-2011 4:39 PM kbertsche has acknowledged this reply

  
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16107
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 36 of 268 (642153)
11-26-2011 12:38 AM
Reply to: Message 32 by NoNukes
11-25-2011 7:42 AM


Can't we actually say that every caused event that we know of has a cause that is prior in time to the event?

And that every cause that we know of is not supernatural.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 32 by NoNukes, posted 11-25-2011 7:42 AM NoNukes has acknowledged this reply

  
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16107
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 37 of 268 (642159)
11-26-2011 4:14 AM
Reply to: Message 33 by kbertsche
11-25-2011 11:47 AM


Atemporal Causation And Logic
It is possible to imagine an atemporal cause. For example, image a universe which has existed for all time with the following constituents:

* a planet, on which sits
* a yielding yet resilient cushion, on which sits
* a bowling ball.

Now, without any sequence of events taking place, we would nonetheless like to say that:

* The bowling ball (and the gravity of the planet) are the cause of the depression in the cushion.
* The cushion is the cause of the bowling ball being elevated above the surface of the planet.

This is a rather contrived example, but then it has to be.

---

Now, can we analyze this causation as a logical relationship? Well, we can try. After all, clearly if the bowling ball wasn't there, the cushion wouldn't be depressed, and if the cushion wasn't there, the bowling ball wouldn't be elevated.

So the relationship in general would be: x causes y = not(x) implies not(y). E.g:

* No bowling ball implies no depression.
* No cushion implies no elevation.

And so for God to atemporally cause the universe would just be equivalent to saying that no God would imply no universe.

But there's a snag. Indeed, several snags.

Consider this causal relationship: I drop a brick, causing it to fall. Now this is fine and dandy so far --- not(I drop the brick) implies not (the brick falls).

But it is also the case that not(the brick falls) implies not(I drop the brick). Our account of cause has become so atemporal that we now have to say, not just that my dropping the brick causes it to fall, but also that the brick falling causes me to drop it.

We may note in this connection that some people have suggested that the nature of God is such that he would necessarily cause the universe. In which case not(the universe) would imply not(God). Now if these people are right, then in our "logical" account of cause and effect, it would be correct to say that the universe is the cause of God. And the mere possibility that they are right is sufficient to say that we have a reductio ad absurdum since if God would necessarily cause the universe, we would not wish to represent that fact by saying that the universe is the cause of God.

We might finally note that according to the logical interpretation of implication, not(I own a hat) implies not(unicorns exist), since both sides of the implication are true. And yet it is not true to say that my owning a hat causes the existence of unicorns, nor that even that it would cause the existence of unicorns if I did in fact own a hat. We might try to remedy this situation by observing that not(not(I own a hat)) also implies not(unicorns exist), but this is a thought I shall look at tomorrow, because I am sleepy.

So it seems at least that simple propositional logic is a broken reed for the purpose of giving an account of causality. What kbertsche actually has in mind is of course for him to say.

---

I shall go back to thinking about epistemology, which is easy.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 33 by kbertsche, posted 11-25-2011 11:47 AM kbertsche has acknowledged this reply

Replies to this message:
 Message 39 by PaulK, posted 11-26-2011 9:50 AM Dr Adequate has responded

  
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16107
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 44 of 268 (642199)
11-26-2011 2:36 PM
Reply to: Message 39 by PaulK
11-26-2011 9:50 AM


Re: Atemporal Causation And Logic
Even if we assume that the cushion could react instantaneously to the presence of the bowling ball (which a real cushion could not) and we are as generous to the proponents of the kalam argument as intellectual honesty allows, we are still left with no reason to say that the depression was actually created by the bowling ball. That requires distinguishing between the case where the ball did create the depression and the case where the depression existed all along (in the terminology kbertsche probably prefers, the case where the bowling ball is logically prior to the depression and the case where it is)

Well, the cushion is resilient. If the bowling ball wasn't there, the cushion wouldn't be depressed, it would spring back into shape. Therefore I think it's reasonable to say that the depression is caused by the ball.

This is strengthened by the fact that we thoroughly understand the nature of the causal relationship: we know about gravity, we could draw a force diagram. Of course, we know about this by our experience of non-static events ... if we were ideal observers only of this toy universe, we should never have found out the causal relationship, but it would still exist.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 39 by PaulK, posted 11-26-2011 9:50 AM PaulK has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 48 by PaulK, posted 11-26-2011 4:44 PM Dr Adequate has responded

  
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16107
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 45 of 268 (642200)
11-26-2011 2:38 PM
Reply to: Message 43 by Thugpreacha
11-26-2011 1:34 PM


Re: Atemporal Causation And Logic
I too am unclear as to what your argument is, but see the last paragraph of my previous post.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 43 by Thugpreacha, posted 11-26-2011 1:34 PM Thugpreacha has not yet responded

  
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16107
Joined: 07-20-2006


(1)
Message 69 of 268 (642306)
11-27-2011 12:50 PM
Reply to: Message 51 by Chuck77
11-27-2011 1:08 AM


Re: Reply to PaulK
Some might say that you are committing the logical fallacy of the appeal to authority with "smacks of divine intervention" in quotation marks obviously referning to Hawking, again.

Well, it's worse than that, since Hawking was describing the views of people other than himself. It's as though you said "Dr Adequate thinks there is no God", and someone quoted you as saying "There is no God". Which you did ... just after the words "Dr Adequate thinks".

It's not just an appeal to authority, it's deeply dishonest, since Hawking himself thinks the exact opposite of the view designtheorist wishes to ascribe to him.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 51 by Chuck77, posted 11-27-2011 1:08 AM Chuck77 has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 79 by designtheorist, posted 11-27-2011 9:52 PM Dr Adequate has responded

  
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16107
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 71 of 268 (642309)
11-27-2011 1:16 PM
Reply to: Message 48 by PaulK
11-26-2011 4:44 PM


Re: Atemporal Causation And Logic
Yes, but that is a sustaining cause, maintaining the depression, rather than a creative cause bringing the depression into existence. And given a real cushion creating the depression would require time, which is not available. The argument I am dealing with clearly requires a creative cause (and it is an argument for a creative cause). Thus, a sustaining cause is not relevant (and would require a different argument).

Well, it does all that I required of it: it's something that we would wish to call a cause without a sequence where cause precedes effect.

It's not exactly like God sitting outside time and creating the universe, but then what is?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 48 by PaulK, posted 11-26-2011 4:44 PM PaulK has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 72 by PaulK, posted 11-27-2011 1:41 PM Dr Adequate has responded

  
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16107
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 73 of 268 (642313)
11-27-2011 1:46 PM
Reply to: Message 72 by PaulK
11-27-2011 1:41 PM


Re: Atemporal Causation And Logic
Then obviously you didn't require it to refute my argument. Which doesn't assume "a sequence where cause precedes effect".

I must have been distracted from the all-important task of refuting your argument by my foolish obsession with replying to kbertsche, who suffers from the common misfortune of not being you.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 72 by PaulK, posted 11-27-2011 1:41 PM PaulK has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 74 by PaulK, posted 11-27-2011 1:56 PM Dr Adequate has not yet responded

  
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16107
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 76 of 268 (642339)
11-27-2011 7:57 PM
Reply to: Message 75 by frako
11-27-2011 2:44 PM


Re: Reply to Percy
Ah, but in designtheorist's imaginary alternative universe Hawking also denies that the Big Bang happened. You see, his delusional world all fits together with perfect consistency, and is also bollocks.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 75 by frako, posted 11-27-2011 2:44 PM frako has not yet responded

  
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16107
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 81 of 268 (642356)
11-28-2011 12:12 AM
Reply to: Message 79 by designtheorist
11-27-2011 9:52 PM


Re: Reply to Dr Adequate #69
At the time he wrote the passage I quoted, Hawking did not dispute the fact the big bang "smacks of divine intervention." In fact, it was this fact that cause Hawking to go searching for another explanation for the beginning of the universe. Only in his most recent book has Hawking said a creator is not needed.

Not one word of this is remotely true.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 79 by designtheorist, posted 11-27-2011 9:52 PM designtheorist has not yet responded

  
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16107
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 105 of 268 (642442)
11-28-2011 9:44 PM
Reply to: Message 102 by designtheorist
11-28-2011 6:17 PM


Re: Reply to PaulK
As you can see, the argument is not logically consistent.

You have not explained the specific relevance of your ability to produce illogical arguments. We know you can ---indeed, we've hardly ever seen you do anything else. Is there any reason why you wished to do so on this particular occasion, or are you just keeping in practice?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 102 by designtheorist, posted 11-28-2011 6:17 PM designtheorist has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 126 by designtheorist, posted 11-29-2011 3:13 PM Dr Adequate has responded

  
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16107
Joined: 07-20-2006


(1)
Message 108 of 268 (642450)
11-29-2011 1:10 AM
Reply to: Message 107 by NoNukes
11-29-2011 12:56 AM


Re: Reality of Time
Ideas have influence over reality only because people who hold those ideas in their heads act on those ideas. People are motivated to act based on lots of things such as fear, anger, love, and faith, none of which are physical.

But they all have a physical basis, do they not? Which I think is what Jon means.

In fact people are motivated to act by things that do not even exist.

The ideas exist, the things they have ideas about may not.

Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 107 by NoNukes, posted 11-29-2011 12:56 AM NoNukes has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 115 by NoNukes, posted 11-29-2011 8:07 AM Dr Adequate has not yet responded

  
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16107
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 138 of 268 (642563)
11-29-2011 6:18 PM
Reply to: Message 135 by NoNukes
11-29-2011 6:04 PM


Re: Reality of Time
I accept that thoughts have a physical basis. But ideas do not and they are not a form of thought. Four is an idea. You are capable of thinking about the number four and of communicating the idea to others. But four itself is an immaterial concept.

But the idea only exists because some particular people have the thought.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 135 by NoNukes, posted 11-29-2011 6:04 PM NoNukes has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 140 by NoNukes, posted 11-29-2011 6:56 PM Dr Adequate has responded

  
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16107
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 139 of 268 (642564)
11-29-2011 6:21 PM
Reply to: Message 126 by designtheorist
11-29-2011 3:13 PM


Re: Reply to Dr Adequate #105
When someone has an unexamined/implicit argument, one has to make it explicit so it can be examined. This is the way logic is done. The fact the argument is incoherent is not of my doing. I'm simply making the argument explicit so PaulK can have a chance to modify it or reject it.

Put plainly: you are making up some nonsense, attributing it to PaulK, and then criticizing your nonsense as though it was his.

This is not "the way that logic is done".


This message is a reply to:
 Message 126 by designtheorist, posted 11-29-2011 3:13 PM designtheorist has not yet responded

  
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16107
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 141 of 268 (642566)
11-29-2011 6:57 PM
Reply to: Message 140 by NoNukes
11-29-2011 6:56 PM


Re: Reality of Time
I'm not sure this statement is true, but what if it were? Would it then follow that ideas are material?

That they have a material basis, yes.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 140 by NoNukes, posted 11-29-2011 6:56 PM NoNukes has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 156 by NoNukes, posted 11-30-2011 6:01 AM Dr Adequate has not yet responded

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2020