The idea of an infinite past

[DBT]

You are still avoiding the question.

You can't read.

Nothing you have said has addressed my question. The question was about the possibility of a first cause as an alternative to eternity/infinity....if the latter is impossible as you claim

Here it is again;

If infinity/eternity is not possible, how did time/space/universe begin? A first cause? A causeless first cause?

Can you address the question or not?

 

[Elixir]

You are still avoiding the question.

You can't read.

Nothing you have said has addressed my question. The question was about the possibility of a first cause as an alternative to eternity/infinity....if the latter is impossible as you claim

Here it is again;

If infinity/eternity is not possible, how did time/space/universe begin? A first cause? A causeless first cause?

Can you address the question or not?

I'm getting that Unter can't imagine a 'first cause", and while his impulse (like most of us) is to deny anything he can't imagine, you have unfairly allowed him to paint himself into a logical corner.
No wonder you can't read!

Maybe another approach would get through - like... ask him to identify any state of existence that wasn't preceded by a prior, causative state. In the absence of such a finding, a finite past - by his own reckoning - is impossible.

 

[untermensche]

I am not stuck in a corner because I refuse to pretend imaginary totally made up concepts could be real.

All that can be said about a first cause is it is a logical necessity.

Nothing else can be said about it.

Except it is something us on this side of the cause could never understand.

 

[fast]

I'm doubtful in the majority, but I happen to regard numbers as abstract (as opposed to concrete). Concepts or abstractions (something entirely different) may be a property of the mind, but not only do I find a distinction between concepts and what concepts are concepts of, I distinguish between abstract objects and mental abstractions.

Although I agree that numbers are real (genuine), my intended meaning by regarding numbers as real is to deny that they are imaginary. If people never came to be, numerals, like words, would not be, but the referents to which they refer are not held by the same constraints. The referent to the numeral three is the number three, and since I regard it as an abstract object, I regard it as an existent that is neither concrete nor mental.

Of course thay are imaginary. They doesnt exist anywhere except in our imagination.
They are useful, but why shouldnt imaginary objects be useful?
I would say that our brain hardcodes ”gruoping” (the unconcious mental festure of grouping features into objects and creating sets). Numbers 1-3 has some hardwired brain representation. Then the brain has some other more complex hardwiring (pattern recognition etc) but rest of math is not just abstract but also imaginary.

Numbers exist but they are not a product of mind. They are not in the imagination. They do not exist anywhere, but again, they exist. They are not concrete. They are abstract. But, they are not an abstraction. The latter is a product of the mind, but the former is not.

Not to make an analogy but on a completely different topic (that is a stretch at most to tie together), what in physics other than particles physically exist? For instance, consider a rock vs a rock rolling (oh say, down a hill). We can examine the number of atoms in the rock. Now, how many atoms are before us should the rock begin to roll? I'd suggest they are the same.

Now, if we have a rolling ball (or rock, whatever) with x number of atoms and we remove the rolling from the equation, we are left with the same physical substance, a ball not rolling with the same number of atoms before us. Notice that it doesn't work the other way around. If we start out with a rolling ball and remove not the rolling but just the ball, we are not left with anything.

Back to the question, what in physics is in fact physical? We have particles, and we have particles in motion, but count the particles whether moving or not. The count stays the same. Speed, momentum, time, anything not composed of physical substance is what, apart of physics as we know it, but the atom count or particle count or subatomic particle count is zero. Yet, we don't deny these things exist.

To say of something that it exists need not be constrained merely to objects composed of matter. Such a perspective need not invoke fears of including truly nonexistent things.

Numbers are (again) abstract, not an abstraction. However, the complexity involves levels of abstractness. For instance, the number three is the class of all triples. We can't find any actual three's composed of physical substance, but like the ball that can roll, there are objects in nature that have a correlation of triples. A group of three trees, for instance, or a planet with three moons orbiting it.

It requires a mind capable of abstraction to KNOW (or believe) what is true of the world, but we ought not lose sight of the fact that what abstractly exists independent of us does not require abstraction. There are three big holes in a chunk rock whether we know it or not.

 

[bilby]

I'm doubtful in the majority, but I happen to regard numbers as abstract (as opposed to concrete). Concepts or abstractions (something entirely different) may be a property of the mind, but not only do I find a distinction between concepts and what concepts are concepts of, I distinguish between abstract objects and mental abstractions.

Although I agree that numbers are real (genuine), my intended meaning by regarding numbers as real is to deny that they are imaginary. If people never came to be, numerals, like words, would not be, but the referents to which they refer are not held by the same constraints. The referent to the numeral three is the number three, and since I regard it as an abstract object, I regard it as an existent that is neither concrete nor mental.

Of course thay are imaginary. They doesnt exist anywhere except in our imagination.
They are useful, but why shouldnt imaginary objects be useful?
I would say that our brain hardcodes ”gruoping” (the unconcious mental festure of grouping features into objects and creating sets). Numbers 1-3 has some hardwired brain representation. Then the brain has some other more complex hardwiring (pattern recognition etc) but rest of math is not just abstract but also imaginary.

Numbers exist but they are not a product of mind. They are not in the imagination. They do not exist anywhere, but again, they exist. They are not concrete. They are abstract. But, they are not an abstraction. The latter is a product of the mind, but the former is not.

Not to make an analogy but on a completely different topic (that is a stretch at most to tie together), what in physics other than particles physically exist? For instance, consider a rock vs a rock rolling (oh say, down a hill). We can examine the number of atoms in the rock. Now, how many atoms are before us should the rock begin to roll? I'd suggest they are the same.

Now, if we have a rolling ball (or rock, whatever) with x number of atoms and we remove the rolling from the equation, we are left with the same physical substance, a ball not rolling with the same number of atoms before us. Notice that it doesn't work the other way around. If we start out with a rolling ball and remove not the rolling but just the ball, we are not left with anything.

Back to the question, what in physics is in fact physical? We have particles, and we have particles in motion, but count the particles whether moving or not. The count stays the same. Speed, momentum, time, anything not composed of physical substance is what, apart of physics as we know it, but the atom count or particle count or subatomic particle count is zero. Yet, we don't deny these things exist.

To say of something that it exists need not be constrained merely to objects composed of matter. Such a perspective need not invoke fears of including truly nonexistent things.

Numbers are (again) abstract, not an abstraction. However, the complexity involves levels of abstractness. For instance, the number three is the class of all triples. We can't find any actual three's composed of physical substance, but like the ball that can roll, there are objects in nature that have a correlation of triples. A group of three trees, for instance, or a planet with three moons orbiting it.

It requires a mind capable of abstraction to KNOW (or believe) what is true of the world, but we ought not lose sight of the fact that what abstractly exists independent of us does not require abstraction. There are three big holes in a chunk rock whether we know it or not.

Even fundamental particles may not be fundamental. They may quite reasonably be described as merely approximations of the local maxima of various fields. That doesn't seem to me to really fit the description 'physical'. And of course the apparently physical objects we encounter at human scales are electromagnetic fields generated by a tiny number of such field maxima in what is otherwise (on average) empty space - and even empty space is boiling with virtual particles that cancel each other out, but which despite their name are as real as the persistent particles that we might choose to think of as 'real'.

Reality is bloody weird. Numbers don't seem to me to be any more (or less) weird, nor any more (or less) real, than fermions or bosons.

 

[untermensche]

Numbers exist but they are not a product of mind. They are not in the imagination. They do not exist anywhere, but again, they exist. They are not concrete. They are abstract. But, they are not an abstraction. The latter is a product of the mind, but the former is not.

To use a number to designate a quantity is an abstraction.

Three rocks might be similar but three "ones" are all exactly the same thing.

Not two things, at least at the level where a meaningful observation is possible, are exactly the same thing.

Back to the question, what in physics is in fact physical? We have particles, and we have particles in motion, but count the particles whether moving or not. The count stays the same. Speed, momentum, time, anything not composed of physical substance is what, apart of physics as we know it, but the atom count or particle count or subatomic particle count is zero. Yet, we don't deny these things exist.

Physics not only has particles and fields but it has rocks too.

And the way rocks appear to us on our scale is the way they are. Their appearance on our scale is not some lie or trick. It is a direct result of their underlying properties. It is what they are. Something physical.

 

[Speakpigeon]

To use a number to designate a quantity is an abstraction.

It's good to see you know you agree with what fast said.

Still, your talking about "quantity" seems a good point to me. Numbers are indeed abstractions. Quantities are not. The real things that will be out there are really what we call "quantities". And to claim that quantities are abstractions would seem pretty idiotic to me. Quantities are "the measurable or countable property or aspect of things". Denying the reality of quantities would be denying the reality of anything science says, never mind that it would also deny any reality to anything except our own, private, subjective experience.

I wouldn't call quantities "abstract' as fast does numbers because "abstract" does mean " existing only in the mind". I guess the basic term I can see has to be "quantity" itself.

There are other terms like "quantity" which I think we need to recognise as referring to existing things: structure, shape, form, arrangement, make-up, conformation, configuration, etc. The crucial point in this, I think, is that all these things can be shown to be causally effective. As long as we don't confuse them with the abstractions we use to represent them.

Not two things, at least at the level where a meaningful observation is possible, are exactly the same thing.

I fail to see how a quantity of three cities wouldn't be exactly the same as a quantity of three shining stars, "at least at the level where a meaningful observation is possible".

And the way rocks appear to us on our scale is the way they are. Their appearance on our scale is not some lie or trick. It is a direct result of their underlying properties. It is what they are. Something physical.

I don't see the usefulness of confusing how things appear to us and the way they are.

It seems less misleading and accurate enough to say that their appearance is, not "the direct result of", but a function of the way they are. This is because the appearance of things is also, crucially, a function of the way our brain and our sense organs are.
EB

 

[untermensche]

I fail to see how a quantity of three cities wouldn't be exactly the same as a quantity of three shining stars, "at least at the level where a meaningful observation is possible".

What is a city? Is it something real or total abstraction?

This is where we move into the language capacity.

The concept "city" is where the abstraction occurs. So you can achieve an abstract quantity with an abstract entity by pretending all cities are the same thing. Or at least they all have enough similarity to call them the same thing. When the truth is every city is as different from another city as it is similar. Or three shining cities.

Chomsky thinks the abstraction of "three" is the result of the language capacity that can abstract things like "city".

I don't see the usefulness of confusing how things appear to us and the way they are.

The hardness of the diamond is not an illusion. I assure you.

 

[Speakpigeon]

I fail to see how a quantity of three cities wouldn't be exactly the same as a quantity of three shining stars, "at least at the level where a meaningful observation is possible".

What is a city? Is it something real or total abstraction?

This is where we move into the language capacity.

The concept "city" is where the abstraction occurs. So you can achieve an abstract quantity with an abstract entity by pretending all cities are the same thing. Or at least they all have enough similarity to call them the same thing. When the truth is every city is as different from another city as it is similar. Or three shining cities.

Chomsky thinks the abstraction of "three" is the result of the language capacity that can abstract things like "city".

I said the "quantity of three", not the abstraction or the number three.

Never mind.

I don't see the usefulness of confusing how things appear to us and the way they are.

The hardness of the diamond is not an illusion. I assure you.

Yes, and the quantity of blood clots you have in your brain won't be an illusion either. Zero or one will make all the difference, never mind if it's ten or eleven.

You sometimes moan about not being understood but you sure don't try very hard to explain yourself. I feel like I'm trying to pull a big tooth out of you.

I'm not sadistic, so I'll let you go.
EB

 

[untermensche]

I said the "quantity of three", not the abstraction or the number three.

Never mind.

Why post anything if you are so unsure?

The quantity of three what?

To achieve a quantity in the real world requires abstraction. All things in the real world are unique, as far as our observations can extend.

I don't see the usefulness of confusing how things appear to us and the way they are.

The hardness of the diamond is not an illusion. I assure you.

Yes, and the quantity of blood clots you have in your brain won't be an illusion either.

You are so sweet. You really know how to get along with others.

You have not dealt with my comments.

Not by a mile.

 

[Speakpigeon]

I think a quantity of 231 posts with this one is good enough for dealing with the idea of an infinite past.

It's certainly already too much for me.

You guys do as you please but I'm done here.
EB

 

[DBT]

I am not stuck in a corner because I refuse to pretend imaginary totally made up concepts could be real.

All that can be said about a first cause is it is a logical necessity.

Nothing else can be said about it.

Except it is something us on this side of the cause could never understand.

Why is first cause a logical necessity? First there was nothing, not even quantum fluctuations/virtual particles, etc, then there was something?

If caused, what is the nature of this causal agent?

 

[untermensche]

I am not stuck in a corner because I refuse to pretend imaginary totally made up concepts could be real.

All that can be said about a first cause is it is a logical necessity.

Nothing else can be said about it.

Except it is something us on this side of the cause could never understand.

Why is first cause a logical necessity? First there was nothing, not even quantum fluctuations/virtual particles, etc, then there was something?

If caused, what is the nature of this causal agent?

Obviously first there was "unlike what we can observe in some way", "that which we can know in no way" then there was "what we can observe in some way".

 

[DBT]

I am not stuck in a corner because I refuse to pretend imaginary totally made up concepts could be real.

All that can be said about a first cause is it is a logical necessity.

Nothing else can be said about it.

Except it is something us on this side of the cause could never understand.

Why is first cause a logical necessity? First there was nothing, not even quantum fluctuations/virtual particles, etc, then there was something?

If caused, what is the nature of this causal agent?

Obviously first there was "unlike what we can observe in some way", "that which we can know in no way" then there was "what we can observe in some way".

That explains it? How exactly is first cause more likely than eternity? What is the nature of 'first cause' that makes it a more plausible option?

 

[untermensche]

Obviously first there was "unlike what we can observe in some way", "that which we can know in no way" then there was "what we can observe in some way".

That explains it? How exactly is first cause more likely than eternity? What is the nature of 'first cause' that makes it a more plausible option?

It is impossible that a real completed infinity occurred in the past. that is the default rational skeptical position.

Things are considered possible after that have been shown to be possible.

There is no way to demonstrate that time that did not begin yet exists is a rational idea. All people can do is make the worthless claim that it is somehow possible.

If you don't agree demonstrate how a real completed infinity is possible.

 

[Kharakov]

You are so sweet. You really know how to get along with others.

You have not dealt with my comments.

Not by a mile.

You have magically solved all problems on the internet.

 

[Kharakov]

If you don't agree demonstrate how a real completed infinity is possible.

You could exist for a millisecond. Basically, the nature of reality is such that you will traverse an infinite amount of unique configurations, many of which are so similar that there is no measurable difference between them (which is the nature of the infinite). .00000000000000000001% more blue isn't that noticeable....

 

[Speakpigeon]

Basically, the nature of reality is such that you will traverse an infinite amount of unique configurations, many of which are so similar that there is no measurable difference between them (which is the nature of the infinite). .00000000000000000001% more blue isn't that noticeable....

And me who thought it was the Internet being slow.
EB

 

[untermensche]

If you don't agree demonstrate how a real completed infinity is possible.

You could exist for a millisecond. Basically, the nature of reality is such that you will traverse an infinite amount of unique configurations, many of which are so similar that there is no measurable difference between them (which is the nature of the infinite). .00000000000000000001% more blue isn't that noticeable....

Anybody can claim an infinity if they claim that the same thing is really infinite things.

You make some claim about traversing infinite configurations in the real world.

It is totally unsupported by any real evidence. Show me these infinite configurations that only exist in your imagination.

Nobody should take your wild empty claims seriously. That you do is your whole problem.

You simply first imagine something then next claim it is real. With absolutely nothing in between.

 

[Kharakov]

You simply first imagine something then next claim it is real. With absolutely nothing in between.

Except all the smoothly connected, real existing tissue of imagination, qualia, etc.

You can take words, and the rules for their interplay, and create bullshit, but you can't go from words to continuous reality if you don't understand words.