Consciousness

[DBT]

It may already be complete in the form Eternalism;

''Eternalism is a philosophical approach to the ontological nature of time, which takes the view that all points in time are equally real, as opposed to the presentist idea that only the present is real, and the growing block universe theory of time in which past and present are real while the future is not.''


(Phys.org) —''The universe may have existed forever, according to a new model that applies quantum correction terms to complement Einstein's theory of general relativity. The model may also account for dark matter and dark energy, resolving multiple problems at once.

The widely accepted age of the universe, as estimated by general relativity, is 13.8 billion years. In the beginning, everything in existence is thought to have occupied a single infinitely dense point, or singularity. Only after this point began to expand in a "Big Bang" did the universe officially begin.

Although the Big Bang singularity arises directly and unavoidably from the mathematics of general relativity, some scientists see it as problematic because the math can explain only what happened immediately after—not at or before—the singularity.

"The Big Bang singularity is the most serious problem of general relativity because the laws of physics appear to break down there," Ahmed Farag Ali at Benha University and the Zewail City of Science and Technology, both in Egypt, told Phys.org.''

You have not answered the question.

Can a real infinity be completed?

Can you walk infinite miles?

Can you move infinitely fast?

Can you have an infinite amount of some item?

Can you write out all the fractions between zero and one?

Infinite by definition is complete, without beginning or end, no limit, an open system. Of course, Cantor used different categories of 'infinites' - larger, smaller - but that is a matter of definition.

 

[untermensche]

You have not answered the question.

Can a real infinity be completed?

Can you walk infinite miles?

Can you move infinitely fast?

Can you have an infinite amount of some item?

Can you write out all the fractions between zero and one?

Infinite by definition is complete, without beginning or end, no limit, an open system.

This is about applying the definition to something real. A real infinity.

And asking if a real infinity could ever be completed.

Is it possible to write out all the fractions between zero and one?

Is that something that could ever be completed?

Is there any real infinity that could ever be completed?

Always remembering that all the time in the past has completed at every present moment.

 

[Juma]

Is it possible in theory for somebody to have written out all the fractions between zero and one, before yesterday?

I understand the limitations of human existence and do not need to be reminded of that. This is stipulating that a human could live as long as necessary.

definition: let An be the n:th fraction between zero and 0.
think of a man M1 that wrote down A0 two days ago.
now think of a man M2 that wrote down A0 two days ago and A1 three days ago.
now think of a man M3 that wrote down A0 two days ago, A1 three days ago and A2 four days ago.

if, as you did, I can stipulate a man that could live as long as necessary then there is no limit on this.

if M is possible then M(n+1) also possible and thus there are no upper limit on n.

I didn't ask if it could be modeled.

I know infinities can be modeled. That is the only way they exist.

None can exist in reality.

I asked if a person could write out all the fractions between zero and one.

The correct answer is no. It could never happen. It is impossible.

There is no end to the number of fractions and writing them out could never end.

Just like it is impossible that infinite time completed at any present moment.

The idea of a real completed infinity is an absurdity.

Sigh...So my hunch was right, you didnt really ask a question, you just wanted to waste my time.
You still have the obligation to prove your point.

 

[Hermit]

If something has no start to it's existence the logical conclusion is that it does not exist.

Only after you sneak in the assumption that everything that exists must have had a start somewhere as if it were a fact. That makes it a textbook example of circular reasoning.

I am not arguing that something can exist without having had a starting date of its existence, nor am I arguing the contrary. Just pointing out that you have not made a case in support of your stance. It does not surprise me in the least. You seem to regard your stance as axiomatic, and axioms are not amenable to proof or disproof. They exist by virtue of people believing them to be true. I've heard that Bertrand Russell and Alfred Whitehead spent over 350 pages of their Principia Mathematica trying to prove that 1+1=2.

 

[DBT]

You have not answered the question.

Can a real infinity be completed?

Can you walk infinite miles?

Can you move infinitely fast?

Can you have an infinite amount of some item?

Can you write out all the fractions between zero and one?

Infinite by definition is complete, without beginning or end, no limit, an open system.

This is about applying the definition to something real. A real infinity.

And asking if a real infinity could ever be completed.

Is it possible to write out all the fractions between zero and one?

Is that something that could ever be completed?

Is there any real infinity that could ever be completed?

Always remembering that all the time in the past has completed at every present moment.

How do you know what the word infinity represents or means without a definition?

And asking if a real infinity could ever be completed.

I've already pointed out that if Infinity exists and encompasses the Universe and possibly an infinite Multiverse it is complete. You can't increase the size of Infinite. It is not measurable.... or Cantors Aleph Prime;

''The aleph numbers differ from the infinity (∞) commonly found in algebra and calculus. Alephs measure the sizes of sets; infinity, on the other hand, is commonly defined as an extreme limit of the real number line (applied to a function or sequence that "diverges to infinity" or "increases without bound")''

There are many definitions of Infinity, that's the point, so you need to have a working definition of what you are talking about,

 

[Subsymbolic]

And it needs not to be circular, begging the question or simply asserted by fiat.

 

[untermensche]

I didn't ask if it could be modeled.

I know infinities can be modeled. That is the only way they exist.

None can exist in reality.

I asked if a person could write out all the fractions between zero and one.

The correct answer is no. It could never happen. It is impossible.

There is no end to the number of fractions and writing them out could never end.

Just like it is impossible that infinite time completed at any present moment.

The idea of a real completed infinity is an absurdity.

Sigh...So my hunch was right, you didnt really ask a question, you just wanted to waste my time.
You still have the obligation to prove your point.

You didn't show a real infinity completed.

A real infinity completed is writing out every fraction between zero and one and having them all in your possession. Like all the time in the past has passed at every present moment.

But that is impossible since there is no end to them and you can never under no circumstances write them all down. It can't be done.

You thinking it can be done is absurd.

 

[untermensche]

If something has no start to it's existence the logical conclusion is that it does not exist.

Only after you sneak in the assumption that everything that exists must have had a start somewhere as if it were a fact. That makes it a textbook example of circular reasoning.

That is not my assumption. It is what we observe. It is our acquired understanding of things.

We cannot observe anything that did not have a beginning.

So the idea of "no beginning" is not an empirical observation.

It is an absurdity invented whole. No better than inventing a god and claiming you have answered something.

Absolute nonsense.

 

[untermensche]

This is about applying the definition to something real. A real infinity.

And asking if a real infinity could ever be completed.

Is it possible to write out all the fractions between zero and one?

Is that something that could ever be completed?

Is there any real infinity that could ever be completed?

Always remembering that all the time in the past has completed at every present moment.

How do you know what the word infinity represents or means without a definition?

The word in terms of something real like time would mean an unending series. Some try to address this with the nonsensical "no beginning" an absurd state that could not possibly exist.

And asking if a real infinity could ever be completed.

I've already pointed out that if Infinity exists and encompasses the Universe and possibly an infinite Multiverse it is complete.

I am asking if a real infinity could possibly exist.

Is it possible to write out all the fractions between zero and one?

That is a simple question.

You are trying to cloud this. Try answering a simple question.

 

[Hermit]

We cannot observe anything that did not have a beginning.

Why not? No, don't tell me. I've worked it out all on my own. We cannot observe anything that did not have a beginning because anything that has no beginning does not exist.

Another circular argument. Fun, fun, fun.

 

[untermensche]

We cannot observe anything that did not have a beginning.

Why not? No, don't tell me. I've worked it out all on my own. We cannot observe anything that did not have a beginning because anything that has no beginning does not exist.

Another circular argument. Fun, fun, fun.

The way to prove it is possible for something to exist without a beginning is to provide evidence of something that exists and prove it had no beginning.

That is all it takes.

Nothing circular involved.

 

[Subsymbolic]

The way to prove it is possible for a universe to exist without always having existed is to provide evidence of a universe that exists and prove it had a beginning.

That is all it takes.

Nothing circular involved.

FIFY

 

[untermensche]

The way to prove it is possible for a universe to exist without always having existed is to provide evidence of a universe that exists and prove it had a beginning.

That is all it takes.

Nothing circular involved.

FIFY

Having a beginning is a rational idea. Everything that can be examined had a beginning. All matter had a beginning. Saying something that exists had a beginning makes sense.

Existing but not having a beginning is not a rational idea. Saying something had no beginning rationally means it never existed.

It is irrational to claim something could exist without a beginning.

That people have been using it as an "argument" for years just shows the blind irrationality I've had to deal with.

 

[bilby]

The way to prove it is possible for a universe to exist without always having existed is to provide evidence of a universe that exists and prove it had a beginning.

That is all it takes.

Nothing circular involved.

FIFY

... Everything that can be examined had a beginning. All matter had a beginning. Saying something that exists had a beginning makes sense. ...

NOTHING that has ever been examined has a beginning. All matter came from something else - it didn't begin, it just changed form. Saying something that exists had a beginning makes no sense at all, unless by 'beginning' you mean 'was transformed from some other preexisting thing'.

The First Law of Thermodynamics says you are a moron.

The total energy of an isolated system is constant; energy can be transformed from one form to another, but can be neither created nor destroyed. Matter is just a form of energy.

 

[Elixir]

The way to prove it is possible for a universe to exist without always having existed is to provide evidence of a universe that exists and prove it had a beginning.

That is all it takes.

Nothing circular involved.

FIFY

Having a beginning is a rational idea. Everything that can be examined had a beginning. All matter had a beginning. Saying something that exists had a beginning makes sense.

Existing but not having a beginning is not a rational idea. Saying something had no beginning rationally means it never existed.

It is irrational to claim something could exist without a beginning.

That people have been using it as an "argument" for years just shows the blind irrationality I've had to deal with.

Conflating arbitrary human assignments with actual attributes of reality always produces bullshit.
What's your definition of a "beginning"? Don't all your examples of "beginnings" depend on definitions of that which supposedly "began" as well as your definition of a beginning?
I'm 'beginning' to see this thread as an exercise in mental masturbation, where an orgasm will never be attained.

 

[untermensche]

... Everything that can be examined had a beginning. All matter had a beginning. Saying something that exists had a beginning makes sense. ...

NOTHING that has ever been examined has a beginning. All matter came from something else - it didn't begin, it just changed form.

Assuming a functional form that does not change is a beginning.

If there is a time when there is no matter and then matter forms that matter had a beginning.

If you can prove the universe did not have a beginning, prove anything did not have a beginning, you would have a point.

The First Law of Thermodynamics says you are a moron.

?Total energy in an isolated system is constant?

This is talking about what exists. After it exists.

It says nothing about how it got here.

That you think it does shows you to be lost.

- - - Updated - - -

Having a beginning is a rational idea. Everything that can be examined had a beginning. All matter had a beginning. Saying something that exists had a beginning makes sense.

Existing but not having a beginning is not a rational idea. Saying something had no beginning rationally means it never existed.

It is irrational to claim something could exist without a beginning.

That people have been using it as an "argument" for years just shows the blind irrationality I've had to deal with.

Conflating arbitrary human assignments with actual attributes of reality always produces bullshit.
What's your definition of a "beginning"? Don't all your examples of "beginnings" depend on definitions of that which supposedly "began" as well as your definition of a beginning?
I'm 'beginning' to see this thread as an exercise in mental masturbation, where an orgasm will never be attained.

A beginning is where at one time something does not exist and then at a later time it does.

Did you have a beginning?

 

[bilby]

Assuming a functional form that does not change is a beginning.

If there is a time when there is no matter and then matter forms that matter had a beginning.

If you can prove the universe did not have a beginning prove anything did not have a beginning you would have a point.

The First Law of Thermodynamics says you are a moron.

?Total energy in an isolated system is constant?

This is talking about what exists. After it exists.

It says nothing about how it got here.

That you think it does shows you to be lost.

- - - Updated - - -

Having a beginning is a rational idea. Everything that can be examined had a beginning. All matter had a beginning. Saying something that exists had a beginning makes sense.

Existing but not having a beginning is not a rational idea. Saying something had no beginning rationally means it never existed.

It is irrational to claim something could exist without a beginning.

That people have been using it as an "argument" for years just shows the blind irrationality I've had to deal with.

Conflating arbitrary human assignments with actual attributes of reality always produces bullshit.
What's your definition of a "beginning"? Don't all your examples of "beginnings" depend on definitions of that which supposedly "began" as well as your definition of a beginning?
I'm 'beginning' to see this thread as an exercise in mental masturbation, where an orgasm will never be attained.

A beginning is where at one time something does not exist and then at a later time it does.

Did you have a beginning?

The 1LoT tells us that nothing has a beginning. We don't know whether it applies to the universe as a whole or not, but it applies to EVERYTHING else, so your claim "Everything that can be examined had a beginning. All matter had a beginning. Saying something that exists had a beginning makes sense" is moronic.

Once again, you state your assumptions as though they were evidence for your conclusions. Please give me an example of something - ANYTHING - other than the universe, that has a beginning. 1LoT says you can't do it. So the conclusion that everything has a beginning is only possible if you start with the assumption that the universe is a special case, and that the physical Law that applies to everything else, does not apply to the universe.

The universe has a beginning because everything has a beginning because the universe is everything and the universe has a beginning.

It's a perfect circle.

 

[untermensche]

The 1LoT tells us that nothing has a beginning.

It is a characteristic of closed systems.

AFTER they exist.

It says nothing about beginnings.

You are off in outer space.

 

[fromderinside]

I saw no rinse si Here I am doing a repeat.

Of course one has to believe one's deception. To do otherwise would defeat the purpose of having carried out a masquerade of convincing others what one believes of oneself. But the whole play is likely to be messed up. There are them damn squirts and twitches yano. They aet going actions of all kinds at bad times like when one is confronting danger or when one is in a low percentage situation from which she might not survive, etc.

The point is all sorts of objective data shows that the beast is going before the beast thinks he is going. Besides there's that logical impossibility that one has current worldview and answers answers before one has information is just, well, not objectively possible. One can't be logical or rational if things aren't physically possible. Conscious thoughts are after the fact. You believe you willed your arm to rise, but, geez, there it is above your head before you realize it is there.

Consider: you notice Randy is (apparently) acting out across the room. You develop a plan of action and begin to more toward him when nurse Joan arrives on the scene and gives him a cup of cold water. Well you had a plan, a good plan, so you go over to Joan and suggest she should do this and so - carry out your plan - when she interrupts you to tell you that Randy wanted to get his hand out of the small jar in which he had inadvertently trapped it. You wander away saying to yourself your plan was appropriate anyway which is exactly the way you report it in Randy's activity log possibly omitting the fact that his hand had been trapped in a small jar..

Never happens does it?

Of course it does.

Conclusion: Conscious is not continuous, probably never the same, and usually leaping from other coexisting awarnesses. Put that in your little mantra of has to be because it is beliefs. That of which untermensche speaks is an obvious fabrication based on some having been driven to delusion.

 

[untermensche]

Is this the you can't step into the same river twice theory of neuroscience?

This fiction you speak of formed your ideas, accepted some and rejected others, and caused your hands to type them out.