Summations Only

2 snufflepuffs + 2 snufflepuffs equals 4 snufflepuffs.

The truth of this isn't dependent on snufflepuffs existing in any sense whatsoever. Nor is the logic in your example dependent on the existence of snufflepuffs.

So I think we can meaningfully say that these logical relationships (2+2=4 and "If ALL X are Y and ALL Y are Z Then ALL X are Z") exist without invoking any Platonic snufflepuffs.

There's a decent discussion taking place in the thread linked below. It's in Free for All, and I just wanted to link it up to a topic where the title also leads directly to the discussion instead of just tangentially.

Also, because I want to. Maybe I want to keep an order on the board, maybe I just like things to be in an order in my head. But probably because I'm just bored.

It's about here: Message 342.
Mostly onward from there, but also backward somewhat too, I think.

The discussion I've linked to is mostly about basic physics... describing why time is a dimension in the first place, and more than just "an idea we have in our heads."

Oh yeah... that's the stuff... nothing quite like the feeling of pandering to the demands of irrational OCD

To save the argument then, we need a rigorous definition of "beginning to exist", we need to show that it is in fact true that everything that meets this definition has a cause - taking care to deal with the extreme cases - and we need to accept this definition when building on the argument.

Even if our premise was right, everything exists only because it has been observed to exist which collapsed the Wave Function that started the whole process of Cause and Effect.

This scientifically based idea futhermore requires that an initial observer, one outside of the Universe, was required to have observe the first split seconds of the Big Bang which collapsed the Wave Function of the Quantum particles that transmuted into matter.

1) The key concept of the theory, which forms a central part of the Copenhagen Interpretation, is known as the "collapse of the wave function".

2) The theory seeks to explain how an entity such as a photon, atom, or an electron, could "travel as a wave but arrive as a particle."

3) According to the interpretation, what is passing through the split experiment is not a material wave at all, but is a 'probability wave'. ....That wave merely contains the "probability" for what COULD be real.

4) Once the thing is observed, the wave function collapses and the photon, atom, and electron, or the whole world becomes a reality

5) Nothing is real until it has been observed!

6) We really are saying that in the 'real' world - even outside of the laboratory - until a thing has been observed it doesn't exist. ....But, by observing, all things materialize

7) This implies that there MUST actually be something 'outside' the universe, (God?), to look at the universe as a whole and collapse its overall wave function.....
Then, the Universe materialized and continues to so do.

http://www.thekeyboard.org.uk/Quantum%20mechanics.htm.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copenhagen_interpretation

leads directly to the discussion instead of just tangentially.

...oh,...
we can discuss stuf tangentially now?

tyhis is the third post that says the same thing, but the moderators kept telling me that my posts are too disracting from what the moderaters were discussing on the other threads.

I got suspended for some reason.

I think I had better keep on topic, like the post aboce, which says things only exist when we observe them.

Once something has been observed, the Wave Funtion collapses and then in the material world, Cause and Effect follows.
But this implies that God was the first Observer.
Thereafter, Cause and Effect in the material universe followed.

5) Nothing is real until it has been observed!

Nonsense. That's just taking a misunderstanding of QM and running with it.

Bolwing balls do not behave like particles. They exist at a point even when nobody is observing them. Only really small things behave like probability waves that collapse upon observation.

Nonsense. That's just taking a misunderstanding of QM and running with it. Bolwing balls do not behave like particles. They exist at a point even when nobody is observing them. Only really small things behave like probability waves that collapse upon observation

Hmmm...

Check out this video which uses electrons and atoms in the double slit experiments.

The spirit world of Quantum Physics

Also, the bowling balls only exist because the initial quantum particles during that first 1X10^143 sec of the Big Bang was seen by that Observer who we therefore call the Creator.

Once all matter appeared with the quantum particle wave collapse, bowling balls were merely Cause and Effect between natural phenomenon.

Edited by kofh2u, : No reason given.

Check out this video...

A few things here: 1. this is a written discussion site and we don't debate by link, write it down in your own words. 2. I'm at work and don't want to be sitting here watching vidoes, but I can read and write all I want. 3. I've already seen that video.

which uses electrons and atoms in the double slit experiments.

High energy helium atoms... not bowling-ball-stuff. My point stands: QM does not apply to large massive objects.

Also, the bowling balls only exist because the initial quantum particles during that first 1X10^143 sec of the Big Bang was seen by that Observer who we therefore call the Creator.

That is simply an unevidence false assertion that I can dismiss just as easily as you made it up.

Once all matter appeared with the quantum particle wave collapse,

That's not really how it works, but regardless, not all matter would have appeared then anyways. The heavy metallic elements that are present in my bowling ball were fused within the cores of stars much much later.

bowling balls were merely Cause and Effect between natural phenomenon.

Actually, when humans create things, like bowling balls, we refer to those as artificial rather than natural. Nature doesn't make bowling balls.

Catholic Scientist writes: Bolwing balls do not behave like particles. They exist at a point even when nobody is observing them. Only really small things behave like probability waves that collapse upon observation.

Would it be correct to say that the bowling balls do behave in the same way... it's just that the bowling balls are constantly being "observed" by many things. Like the air particles all around them and colliding and such, or the machine or wood they're resting on, or even all the particles of the bowling balls themselves running into each other?

Would it be correct to say that the bowling balls do behave in the same way... it's just that the bowling balls are constantly being "observed" by many things. Like the air particles all around them and colliding and such, or the machine or wood they're resting on, or even all the particles of the bowling balls themselves running into each other?

I don't think so. Large massive objects just don't exhibit that wave-like propagation. And I think the observation comes when you actually measure one of the properties of the behavior. The light still interacts with the double-slit screen, and that's why it shows the diffraction patterns, its only when we measure its position with the detector, that the wave-function collapses. ABE: sort of, but not really. You can still see the diffraction pattern of a laser on a wall being shone through a double slit, even thought there's no detector there. ABE2: I guess it after the light reflects off that wall and then gets detected by our eyeballs that the wave-function collapses.

A sufficiently large double-slit screen would never cause a bunch of bowling balls to create a diffraction pattern.

Edited by Catholic Scientist, : No reason given.

Edited by Catholic Scientist, : No reason given.

QM does not apply to large massive objects.

I think QM does apply to large massive objects. QM predictions simply collapses to conventional physics as objects increase in size. For example, QM predicts that electrons can tunnel through potential barriers with an appreciable probability. QM also predicts that macroscopic objects have probabilities for tunneling through wall, but it also predicts that such probabilities are vanishingly small such that macroscopic tunneling does not occur.

kofh2u is simply mistating QM just as he mistates cosmology and every other branch of science that he attempts to mangle into agreeing with a literal reading of Genesis.

QM does not apply to large massive objects. I think QM does apply to large massive objects. QM predictions simply collapses to conventional physics as objects increase in size.

Well, yeah, you can use the equations on big stuff. It does "apply". That's some sloppy wording on my part.

I was trying to say that the funky behavior that we see from QM doesn't actually happen to big stuff.

Recall that he said that "nothing is real until it has been observed", and I was saying that bowling balls exist even when they're not observed.

This was an interesting topic that you started, PaulK. I was going to drop my speculation directed at Pastor ICANT here, but did not for two reasons.
1) My observation is philosophical more than it is scientific
2) ICANT never participated in your topic.

I do note that this was a good topic, however, and am bumping it to stimulate Forum conversation and to stir the pot a bit.

Note my response to you in this topic. You never replied.

Phat in 2011 writes: Im not sure exactly how to frame my argument, or if I even have one, since I am attempting to explain my thoughts...but here it goes: In your example, you say to imagine a universe which has existed for all time. If I had existed in any way, shape, form, or possibility at the moment of the singularity, I would be unable to imagine any sequence of events. Thus, the only way I can question, compare, or challenge any idea that may have existed before me is through the gift of life, awareness, and thinking...made possible by and through the reality of time. My point is irrelevant, I know...in that I in fact am able to question, form sane (or nonsensical) observations, comparisons, and references to spheres, cones, planes, and other objects of geometric imagination made possible, again, by this thing called time. Were there no human observers, philosophers, and thinkers even in existence..but simply a supercomputer recording every bit of data from the initial observation of time, what sort of data might we expect to find? Of course, the question of how this supercomputer was/is programmed is a moot point. perhaps a useful question to consider is this: Would philosophy have any meaning in the absence of a human presence?

Edited by Phat, : added my lone post in Pauls topic

Edited by Phat, : spelling

Dr.Adequate writes: I too am unclear as to what your argument is, but see the last paragraph of my previous post.

It took me 9 years to respond, but lets pick up where we left off.

The whole reason that I dredged this topic up from the archives was because of its title. Time and Beginning to Exist. I was looking for a place to drop a reply that I felt inspired to write just after waking up this morning. Message 2650

Its funny though. I was in this same weird frame of mind 9 years ago when I wrote what I did in this topic. Comments, Dr.A? PaulK? Anybody?

AbE: I realize of course that this is a science topic so I likely wont have much I can say.

Edited by Phat, : No reason given.

I’m really unable to find any point in your post that is on-topic and worth addressing. So I think leaving it unanswered is for the best.

Agreed. Lets reexamine this old topic.

PaulK in Topic Starter writes: The purpose of this topic is to discuss the notion "Everything that begins to exist has a cause" and it's relationship to our Universe and the implications of a finite past. "Everything that begins to exist has a cause" is an intuitive idea, notably lacking a rigorous definition of "beginning to exist". We must take it then, to refer to the beginnings of everyday experience. In everyday experience the thing does not exist, the cause operates and then the thing exists. And, intuitively the cause is responsible for the change from the state where the object in question does not exist to a state where it does. Now consider the case of the first moment of time. For everything that exists at that moment of time there is no prior state when it did not exist, and if a cause is needed it is not needed to bring the object into existence, for that simple reason that it already exists. Thus if we take these objects to have a beginning it is one different from the every day beginnings - and in a way that would seem to remove the need for a cause. To save the argument then, we need a rigorous definition of "beginning to exist", we need to show that it is in fact true that everything that meets this definition has a cause - taking care to deal with the extreme cases - and we need to accept this definition when building on the argument.

I read some of your posts and am intrigued with your discussion. Of course as a "believer" I would (as would William Lane Craig) refer to the concept of GOD as an uncaused first cause. At best we can skirt that issue philosophically and it does not seem to be the focus of your topic. You have stated before that you are an atheist, so lets put GOD on the back burner for now.

PaulK writes: Something that exists at the first moment of time cannot be said to come into existence because there is no prior point in which it did not exist. Since it did not come into existence it does not need a cause to make it come into existence.

This seems logical. You further explained your position:

PaulK writes: Nothing that exists at the first moment of time came into existence AT ALL because it was never the case that they did not exist.

And thus we can but discuss such ideas philosophically and hypothetically though science has offered some interesting hypothesis.

Creationists often invoke the catch-all phrase "God did it" which explains nothing. Critics could well claim that "Math explains it" or that QM explains it and would in fact be using these scientific disciplines to explain a beginning point in time. They could further argue that if the creationist claimed that God was eternally before that first point when time began, then so too could be immaterial concepts such as mathematics, calculus, and ideas in general.

The creationist might object and claim that humans began to exist and thus any thoughts generated by and through them also were compiled after the fact.

The counter argument would be that there is no reason that math, calculus, and chemical (or the elemental table) may fairly be said to have an uncaused first cause. In other words, truth is eternal.

PaulK writes: To the best of my knowledge many cosmologists are happy with alternative ideas (e.g Eternal Inflation). My understanding is that it is entirely possible that there are other regions of spacetime in addition to our universe, possibly with an infinite past.

So are you a materialist? A materialistic determinist? Do we have any reason to believe that it makes as much sense to speculate that matter is eternal as it would be to speculate that God is eternal?

I need to look up some definitions that we can refer to as this conversation continues.

Eternal Inflation

Definitions which can help objectify and define our course of discussion.

Materialism
Monism
Priority monism states that all existing things go back to a source that is distinct from them; e.g., in Neoplatonism everything is derived from The One.[1] In this view only one thing is ontologically basic or prior to everything else.
Existence monism posits that, strictly speaking, there exists only a single thing, the universe, which can only be artificially and arbitrarily divided into many things.[2]
Substance monism asserts that a variety of existing things can be explained in terms of a single reality or substance.[3] Substance monism posits that only one kind of stuff exists, although many things may be made up of this stuff, e.g., matter or mind.
Dual-aspect monism is the view that the mental and the physical are two aspects of, or perspectives on, the same substance.

Monad

The circled dot was used by the Pythagoreans and later Greeks to represent the first metaphysical being, the Monad or the Absolute.

Edited by Phat, : added Wiki link

Edited by Phat, : No reason given.