Laws of Nature... emergent property of matter or immaterial rules imposed upon matter?

[Speakpigeon]

Where I can only disagree is with you arguing on the basis of the literal reading of informal expressions such as "the past moments are gone". This is typical of religious fundamentalism. You are in good company.

You could convince me if you had a good argument.
EB

You just don't want to admit I'm right.

I can only admit to what is true and in this case it's that you are wrong.

And remember my position is that this is just part of a paradox.

It's your attitude which is absurd. Who is going to care about your conclusions?

Now you can't understand what the passage of time means.

I don't need you to draw my own conclusions thank you very much.

There is the ever changing present moment. That is all we can experience.

If that's the heart of the matter I'm sure all reasonable people would agree with you on that piece of wisdom.

However, we all understand we don't know the past and that we don't know of any practical way we could go back and have a look. So, we're not talking at all about what we know of the past, we are talking about our conception of the past. And you want to insist our conception of an infinite past is paradoxical just because the past by definition ends now. This is a seriously idiotic argument but apparently you can't see that.

All we can do about the rest is talk about it.

Sure. What do you think you are doing here?!

And talking about the past is talking about moments that are gone. They no longer have existence.

That's where it gets seriously pathetic. You accept you don't know the past and yet here you are you claiming you know that the past doesn't exist! You have a contradiction right there and you can't see it.

Still, even it the past no longer existed, that would be completely irrelevant because we are talking about our conception of time, not about what we actually know of it.





Remember I offered a better definition of an infinite past. Have a look and tell me what you think is wrong with it:

An infinite past is the period of time that ends at the present moment and does not have any beginning

Do you still think that a period of time that ends at the present moment and does not have any beginning could not possibly be infinite?
EB

 

[Speakpigeon]

It's not proven that either is untrue; The entire universe might be a spontaneous quantum fluctuation, or the past could be infinite.

You're knot Kraussing the idea of nothing, are you?

Krauss "there are existing natural laws that cause nothing to become something"
debate mediator "the laws are something"
Krauss "they are just laws, nothing exists, and then the laws cause the universe to exist"
mediator "the laws are something that existed that caused the universe to exist"
Krauss "no, nothing existed, then the laws cause the universe to exist".


Krauss wins the I took a stand on a bullshit position and sold books to naive people award.

I'm pleased I'm not the only one to be so Kraussed about it.
EB

 

[Speakpigeon]

A line with ONLY ONE limit is infinite. To be finite, it would need a beginning, as well as an end.

A time with both a beginning and an end could also, conceivably, be infinite.

But we don't need to go there because we don't have that infinite amount of time that would be necessary to explain this to untermensche.
EB

 

[untermensche]

An infinite past is the period of time that ends at the present moment and does not have any beginning

A thing with no beginning is a pretend entity. Like a fairy or an elf.

No such thing could ever be shown to have existence.

It is not only irrational it is ridiculous.

 

[Speakpigeon]

An infinite past is the period of time that ends at the present moment and does not have any beginning

A thing with no beginning is a pretend entity. Like a fairy or an elf.

No, either there is or there isn't such a thing.

If you think it's not logically possible for such a thing to exist then you have to articulate a proper argument.

You should try it sometimes.

No such thing could ever be shown to have existence.

That's a particularly idiotic argument. It would require us to observe until the end of time to verify it, something which we're not going to do. So you are invoking the gods here. It's wishful thinking.

And your point is also irrelevant. I offered a definition. If you think it's somehow faulty you have to explain why. It could be because it's self-contradictory, because it is circular, or because it's contrary to something we already know. But there's nothing in what you say even arguing any of this.

It is not only irrational it is ridiculous.

But you haven't shown that it's irrational. I don't mind if you think it's ridiculous but first you have to show it's irrational.


So you can't articulate a proper argument, which is not news to me but it's fair to try it once in a while, just to confirm you haven't updated your wits.

Where did you get this idea that existence logically implied a beginning?

Or is it just something you think you can infer from your rich experience of life?
EB

 

[Speakpigeon]

It's not proven that either is untrue; The entire universe might be a spontaneous quantum fluctuation, or the past could be infinite.

You're knot Kraussing the idea of nothing, are you?

There's a clear distinction between Krauss' gross claim that nothingness could somehow cause something to appear, which is logically idiotic, and the idea that it is logically possible for something to appear on its own, spontaneously, which means "without external cause".

In the latter case, there was nothing before the spontaneous appearance of something. There's no idiotic claim of causality and there's no logical impossibility either, our metaphysical preferences notwithstanding.
EB

 

[untermensche]

A thing with no beginning is a pretend entity. Like a fairy or an elf.

No, either there is or there isn't such a thing.

Not if we use reason.

We cannot reasonably claim something with existence had no beginning.

It is not a reasonable claim and a claim that cannot be supported in any way.

Like I said, why don't you just invent a magic old man with a white beard and be done with it?

This is YOUR claim.

YOU have to somehow support it. I don't have to do anything but try to keep the discussion tied to reality.

 

[Kharakov]

You're knot Kraussing the idea of nothing, are you?

There's a clear distinction between Krauss' gross claim that nothingness could somehow cause something to appear, which is logically idiotic, and the idea that it is logically possible for something to appear on its own, spontaneously, which means "without external cause".

Are you being sly with the word external? Because some sort of framework of existence that causes things to appear spontaneously must exist before something exists spontaneously.... and I'm using spontaneous like "the guy laughed spontaneously at the comic's joke, because he was drunk, and the comedian was quite good". In other words- not spontaneous as in uncaused, but spontaneous as in not coerced.... or something like that.

 

[Speakpigeon]

No, either there is or there isn't such a thing.

Not if we use reason.

We cannot reasonably claim something with existence had no beginning.

It is not a reasonable claim and a claim that cannot be supported in any way.

Like I said, why don't you just invent a magic old man with a white beard and be done with it?

This is YOUR claim.

YOU have to somehow support it. I don't have to do anything but try to keep the discussion tied to reality.

If you were a reasonable person you would have noticed that I didn't claim what you say I did. I never, ever claimed the past was infinite. So start to clean up your act.


We're talking about the logical possibility of the past being infinite. One way to think of the past as being infinite is to assume it didn't have any beginning. Nobody cares if it's not possible to get evidence that the past really had no beginning. We're only considering the logic of the idea. The idea itself exists, whether you like it or not, so the question is whether it is logical possible or not. So far, you haven't shown that you understood how logical problems are dealt with. You should try to learn that and stop being a nuisance with your irrelevant posts.
EB

 

[untermensche]

Not if we use reason.

We cannot reasonably claim something with existence had no beginning.

It is not a reasonable claim and a claim that cannot be supported in any way.

Like I said, why don't you just invent a magic old man with a white beard and be done with it?

This is YOUR claim.

YOU have to somehow support it. I don't have to do anything but try to keep the discussion tied to reality.

If you were a reasonable person you would have noticed that I didn't claim what you say I did. I never, ever claimed the past was infinite. So start to clean up your act.


We're talking about the logical possibility of the past being infinite. One way to think of the past as being infinite is to assume it didn't have any beginning. Nobody cares if it's not possible to get evidence that the past really had no beginning. We're only considering the logic of the idea. The idea itself exists, whether you like it or not, so the question is whether it is logical possible or not. So far, you haven't shown that you understood how logical problems are dealt with. You should try to learn that and stop being a nuisance with your irrelevant posts.
EB

This is the cheap way out of the religious fanatic.

They invent a god that had no beginning to solve the paradox.

Inventing anything that has existence but no beginning is just as worthless and absurd.

The paradox of existence cannot be surmounted by simply inventing imaginary things.

 

[Speakpigeon]

There's a clear distinction between Krauss' gross claim that nothingness could somehow cause something to appear, which is logically idiotic, and the idea that it is logically possible for something to appear on its own, spontaneously, which means "without external cause".

Are you being sly with the word external? Because some sort of framework of existence that causes things to appear spontaneously must exist before something exists spontaneously....

Spontaneously means without external cause so it's a logical contradiction to insist that something causes something else to appear spontaneously. If it is spontaneous, there's no external cause.

And why would the appearance of something require that some prior 'framework of existence' caused it to appear?

It's one thing to infer that perhaps every event occurring in our universe is caused by a prior event. Maybe that's something we can infer from observation. We can perhaps infer that it's the way our universe is. We can conclude from experience that our universe is causal. But that couldn't apply to the appearance of our universe. From your experience of our universe, you cannot infer anything about anything prior to the appearance of our universe. Whatever knowledge we may have acquired from our experience of our universe can only apply to our universe and therefore once our universe exists. So, it doesn't apply to its appearance.

and I'm using spontaneous like "the guy laughed spontaneously at the comic's joke, because he was drunk, and the comedian was quite good". In other words- not spontaneous as in uncaused, but spontaneous as in not coerced.... or something like that.

What can I do if you insist on using words improperly?

The word 'spontaneously' means essentially 'without external cause'. I didn't invent this. It's in my dictionary (Oxford).

In effect, you cannot properly be said to laugh spontaneously at a joke if it is the joke that causes you to laugh. I don't know if it is possible to laugh at a joke without that you laughing is caused by the joke. Strictly speaking, jokes are not causal entities. They are convenient fictions. Yet, I'm sure people saying this will mean that the joke is the cause of you laughing.

Then again, you can't hold me responsible for all the many stupid things people say, including me.

After all, I'm not a causal agent anyway. I'm just a convenient fiction.
EB

 

[beero1000]

Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.

I'll just leave this here... https://talkfreethought.org/showthread.php?2155-Infinte-Regress-Timeline

 

[Speakpigeon]

If you were a reasonable person you would have noticed that I didn't claim what you say I did. I never, ever claimed the past was infinite. So start to clean up your act.


We're talking about the logical possibility of the past being infinite. One way to think of the past as being infinite is to assume it didn't have any beginning. Nobody cares if it's not possible to get evidence that the past really had no beginning. We're only considering the logic of the idea. The idea itself exists, whether you like it or not, so the question is whether it is logical possible or not. So far, you haven't shown that you understood how logical problems are dealt with. You should try to learn that and stop being a nuisance with your irrelevant posts.
EB

This is the cheap way out of the religious fanatic.

They invent a god that had no beginning to solve the paradox.

Inventing anything that has existence but no beginning is just as worthless and absurd.

The paradox of existence cannot be surmounted by simply inventing imaginary things.

I'm not interested in opinions.

You should try logic and rationality.
EB

 

[untermensche]

Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.

I'll just leave this here... https://talkfreethought.org/showthread.php?2155-Infinte-Regress-Timeline

The fact that it can go on and on without resolution is evidence it is an irreducible paradox.

Something humans cannot understand.

- - - Updated - - -

This is the cheap way out of the religious fanatic.

They invent a god that had no beginning to solve the paradox.

Inventing anything that has existence but no beginning is just as worthless and absurd.

The paradox of existence cannot be surmounted by simply inventing imaginary things.

I'm not interested in opinions.

You should try logic and rationality.
EB

Inventing magical things from thin air is not rationality.

 

[beero1000]

The fact that it can go on and on without resolution is evidence it is an irreducible paradox.

Something humans cannot understand.

The sheer ego it takes to conclude that an irreducible paradox in reality that humans cannot understand is more likely than a lack of understanding is mind blowing. Introspection dude. Try it.

 

[untermensche]

The fact that it can go on and on without resolution is evidence it is an irreducible paradox.

Something humans cannot understand.

The sheer ego it takes to conclude that an irreducible paradox in reality that humans cannot understand is more likely than a lack of understanding is mind blowing. Introspection dude. Try it.

Are you talking about your ego?

If you had some answer to put the thing to rest you would merely give it instead of childish insults.

 

[Kharakov]

It's like arguing with a penguin. They like making no cents, and they don't want you too either.

 

[beero1000]

The sheer ego it takes to conclude that an irreducible paradox in reality that humans cannot understand is more likely than a lack of understanding is mind blowing. Introspection dude. Try it.

Are you talking about your ego?

If you had some answer to put the thing to rest you would merely give it instead of childish insults.

Yup, my ego. I'm the one who thinks that everyone else is wrong and that I've solved major open cosmological problems.

What's the point of pointing out the problems with your arguments again and again? You're never going to admit that you're wrong. I prefer open mockery and contempt.

 

[Kharakov]

Are you being sly with the word external? Because some sort of framework of existence that causes things to appear spontaneously must exist before something exists spontaneously....

Spontaneously means without external cause so it's a logical contradiction to insist that something causes something else to appear spontaneously. If it is spontaneous, there's no external cause.

Yeah, which is impossible. If nothing exists, nothing existing is an external cause for nothing to occur. The whole spontaneous appearance of something from nothing thing is... silly at best.

What can I do if you insist on using words improperly?

I sort of have to for your statements to describe reality accurately. Square peg, round hole of large enough size to let the peg through.

 

[untermensche]

Are you talking about your ego?

If you had some answer to put the thing to rest you would merely give it instead of childish insults.

Yup, my ego. I'm the one who thinks that everyone else is wrong and that I've solved major open cosmological problems.

What's the point of pointing out the problems with your arguments again and again? You're never going to admit that you're wrong. I prefer open mockery and contempt.

Saying something is insolvable is not solving it.

Pretending to solve something by inventing imaginary things like something with existence that had no beginning is worthless.