What came first?

[Speakpigeon]

Clearly, you're at a loss to explain what would be illogical exactly in the idea of uncaused existence.

Murkily, I never argued against uncaused existence. I said that it is illogical (include abductive reasoning) to think that something uncaused began to exist.

Yes, anything eternal would be uncaused, I guess, but this somehow seems to hide from you this other interesting idea that there could be things not eternal and yet uncaused.

I interpreted what you said as if you intended not eternal to mean "with a beginning" as opposed to being "with an end" because of the context. That should be an assumed premise (you mean 'with a beginning' by 'not eternal'), given the conversation, right?

Alright, my bad... I read your piece too quick! Sorry.

Still, I indeed find acceptable the idea that something uncaused can start to exist and can't see what would be illogical with that.
EB

 

[Speakpigeon]

It becomes obvious that quale are physically derived from information processing and communication requirements.

Excellent! You have a clear starting point.

Tell me whenever you publish.
EB

 

[Kharakov]

Murkily, I never argued against uncaused existence. I said that it is illogical (include abductive reasoning) to think that something uncaused began to exist.



I interpreted what you said as if you intended not eternal to mean "with a beginning" as opposed to being "with an end" because of the context. That should be an assumed premise (you mean 'with a beginning' by 'not eternal'), given the conversation, right?

Alright, my bad... I read your piece too quick! Sorry.

Still, I indeed find acceptable the idea that something uncaused can start to exist and can't see what would be illogical with that.
EB

Maybe it's a logical possibility (if you disregard what we know about nothing, but then you are negating an assumed premise, so maybe it isn't), but I don't think that an idea being a valid logical possibility because we neglect certain premises is the same as the idea being logical (abductive reasoning included).

Uncaused means nothing caused it- it exists without being caused. If you're postulating something that has the innate characteristic of appearing only at some point in the timeline, under certain circumstances, it's something that always existed as potential up til that point. It was going to begin existing at that point no matter what- it's something that exists there in the block universe you just postulated exists.

In fact, if it has that characteristic, you're assuming that certain triggers exist that cause it to be brought forth into the timeline, from wherever it existed as potential (because if it had no potential to exist, it would never exist). So the potential would perhaps not have any beginning, but the object would, and its cause would be potential combined with a trigger.

 

[Speakpigeon]

Maybe it's your default interpretation, or even our default interpretation all of us. Maybe this interpretation seems necessary to you and I understand the feeling. I accept that it's probably our default mode of reasoning.

Yet, I can also disregard my own leanings and postulate the possibility of uncaused emergence. Not that I think of it as likely or even plausible. But I certainly can't see any contradiction in this idea and that has to be good enough for me.
EB

 

[untermensche]

Uncaused means nothing caused it- it exists without being caused.

And there is nothing reasonable about that situation.

It is not reasonable to assume that something could exist without a cause to it's existence.

There is no logic that could ever lead one to that possibility.

 

[Kharakov]

Ok, one scenario. Say that existence itself has a recursive time loop built in, so that everything emanated from the time loops various points.

The time loop goes ...a,b,c......x,y,z, a,b,c...... with no particular starting point. We discover that physics itself leads back to this recursive time loop, and it is absolutely foundational to reality.

This would mean that our uncaused cause is caused while it isn't. Of course, this time loop might be created by some other entity or set of entities, even if it is an entirely sufficient cause for itself and everything in the universe. It might even create a whole bunch of time loops everywhere that are interconnected and lead back into themselves in a vast network of multidimensional fishnet.

I need dinner, speaking of time loops.

 

[untermensche]

Ok, one scenario. Say that existence itself has a recursive time loop built in, so that everything emanated from the time loops various points.

A recursive time loop?

How does that change anything?

Spinning in a loop is no different from moving in a linear motion.

The same logic applies.

Something cannot just exist.

There is no logic to show that something can just exist without a cause to it's existence.

 

[Kharakov]

I really want to look at your programming. Notify your programmer that I am interested in AIs.

 

[bilby]

I really want to look at your programming. Notify your programmer that I am interested in AIs.

I am not convinced that there is much value in Artificial Imbeciles. The programming seems to be pretty simplistic and straightforward, with various stock responses caused by a list of trigger words and phrases.

 

[untermensche]

I really want to look at your programming. Notify your programmer that I am interested in AIs.

In other words you have nothing to support your faith.

 

[bilby]

I really want to look at your programming. Notify your programmer that I am interested in AIs.

In other words you have nothing to support your faith.

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

 

[untermensche]

I really want to look at your programming. Notify your programmer that I am interested in AIs.

In other words you have nothing to support your faith.

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

This is what you have been reduced to.

Go away if this is all you can do. You are a pest.

It is pure faith that anything we can observe in some way could "just exist".

It is a stupid unsupported unsupportable claim.

And since you are unable to comment on much I expect more comments about me.

 

[Juma]

Clearly, you're at a loss to explain what would be illogical exactly in the idea of uncaused existence.

I don't need to defend the logicality of this idea. All I have to do is ask you to point at any logical contradiction there might be between the ideas of being uncaused and of being in existence. It's up to you now.



No. I just admitted I don't know of any logical contradiction in the idea of uncaused existence. So, if you think you know better, we're all listening what contradiction you think there is.

Just to give you an idea of the difficulty of the task, the idea of God is also the idea of something that would exist without having been caused to exist.

Things aren't eternal if they are caused by something else. They started to exist- this means they didn't always exist. Playing fast and loose with words (eternal things started) is the formula for... well, using words incorrectly, not arriving at valid conclusions/concepts about reality.

It's you who is using words wrongly. I talked of "eternal things being possibly caused by something else", I didn't talk of these things as "started". And indeed, in my view, something eternal couldn't be said to have started.

Rather, the idea is that the cause would exist in a different time dimension and it would be the whole dimension that would be caused to exist. So, whatever eternal would exist in it wouldn't have to start and could have always existed within that dimension.

Frankly, I would have thought that people familiar with mathematical reasoning would understand that kind of ideas straight away.
EB

Thereisnothing illogical with you you having a invisible living elephant in you pocket. And yet it is very uninteresting. We observe that the universe can be modelled. Inventing unobserved behaviour is illogical. Any invented unobseved behavior can be logical, but it is the act of inventing unobserved behavior that is illogical. That has nothing to do with the purpose of the model (which is to model observed behavior).
I could postulate that gluons turns into electrons. But what is the point?

 

[bilby]

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

This is what you have been reduced to.

Go away if this is all you can do. You are a pest.

It is pure faith that anything we can observe in some way could "just exist".

It is a stupid unsupported unsupportable claim.

And since you are unable to comment on much I expect more comments about me.

 

[Speakpigeon]

Thereisnothing illogical with you you having a invisible living elephant in you pocket. And yet it is very uninteresting. We observe that the universe can be modelled. Inventing unobserved behaviour is illogical. Any invented unobseved behavior can be logical, but it is the act of inventing unobserved behavior that is illogical. That has nothing to do with the purpose of the model (which is to model observed behavior).
I could postulate that gluons turns into electrons. But what is the point?

I was considering a logical possibility and I am satisfied that it is just that. Models are obviously something else entirely.

I was also definitely not "inventing unobserved behaviour" since I never tried to argue that it was actual. I always made it clear I was considering it as logical possibility.

It was also more a statement about the human mind than anything about the universe. But you can sure ignore this safely.

And I was merely replying to the OP:

Did something come first?
Can you arrive at specific qualities that must have existed before any other qualities using logic?
For example, before calculus, one must have a bit of a mathematical background.

So my answer is that logic on its own isn't going to constrain the characteristics of whatever came first.

You'd have to put your faith into the power of science to perhaps achieve that.

And doing so, maybe you'll be right.
EB

 

[Underseer]

You can arrive at the eternal existence of something (until there is nothing) by logic. There must always have been something, or else there would never be something.

That's faulty reasoning.

You're making an unsubstantiated assumption.

So, in effect, you arrive at the eternal existence of something not at all by using logic but by illicitly assuming something else, without any justification whatsoever.

And, clearly, there's nothing logical in doing this.

Which goes on to show logic is not really essential to life.

Well, I guess I'm also making an assumption here. That it's true you're alive. But, what do I know?
EB

All we can say about beginnings is that if there was a beginning to this kind of existence we can't know anything about it because it would have to have been caused from or by a different kind of existence.

We can certainly say that it is impossible for there to have been the infinite passage of time before any moment in time. Before any moment in time a finite amount of time must have passed. That is the only way to get to a moment in time.

Why on Earth can we say that? How is infinite time impossible?

Are you about to cite William Lane Craig's attempt to disprove relativity with a syllogism? Because that shit never stops being funny.

 

[untermensche]

All we can say about beginnings is that if there was a beginning to this kind of existence we can't know anything about it because it would have to have been caused from or by a different kind of existence.

We can certainly say that it is impossible for there to have been the infinite passage of time before any moment in time. Before any moment in time a finite amount of time must have passed. That is the only way to get to a moment in time.

Why on Earth can we say that? How is infinite time impossible?

I've spoken about this for hundreds of pages several times. And I assure you I have never invoked Jesus as an answer to anything.

How is it possible?

How is it possible infinite time somehow passed before any moment in time?

Please be specific.

How could it happen? Show me, don't merely claim it. And don't talk about imaginary things like numbers. Time is not imaginary.

Show me how a real infinity could ever be completed.

And most of all don't talk about this imaginary absurd state called "no beginning", unless you can prove such a thing is possible and demonstrate you are not just talking about your Jesus.

 

[Kharakov]

In another thread. We can start a thread called "The Mormons of time" by Silent M.

 

[untermensche]

There is no difference between some Christian invoking an infinite god or some modern religious devotee invoking an infinite universe.

Both are equally absurd and without evidence or argument to support them.

You either accept them on faith or you don't. There is no more to it.

There is no logic that can lead you to it.

 

[Kharakov]

Well, except valid logic combined with abductive reasoning. It's not some big mystery that nothing never existed, which means something always has. If we have to go back there to restart the conversational flow...

That something could not spontaneously begin changing- if it was static, it would remain so forever. It's not even a logical possibility that a completely static entity without anything influencing it can become non-static.