The idea of an infinite past

[untermensche]

You're now claiming some kind of qualia are infinite?

You still need to prove it, not just claim it.

You have to have something in between your claims and reality.

 

[DBT]

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.

You didn't address my questions regarding first cause; how or what started the ball rolling from absolute nothingness....nothingness that includes the absence of quantum fluctuations.

 

[bilby]

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.

You didn't address my questions regarding first cause; how or what started the ball rolling from absolute nothingness....nothingness that includes the absence of quantum fluctuations.

Never mind quantum fluctuations; that nothingness doesn't even include time.

How does that work?

 

[DBT]

Who knows how it works. However unlikely it seems, eternity/infinity appears to be no less improbable.

 

[Speakpigeon]

The U-Bot is stuck between a rock and a hard place.

More about that later.
EB

 

[untermensche]

You didn't address my questions regarding first cause; how or what started the ball rolling from absolute nothingness....nothingness that includes the absence of quantum fluctuations.

Why do you think it is necessary to explain a first cause to know one is necessary? Two completely different topics. Just like Evolutionary Theory and the origin of life are two different topics. We can know that the evidence points to evolution without knowing how life began.

Of course it could not arise from nothingness. Nobody is making that claim.

When you demonstrate how this fantasy called a real completed infinity is possible you will demonstrate that a first cause is not necessary.

 

[DBT]

You didn't address my questions regarding first cause; how or what started the ball rolling from absolute nothingness....nothingness that includes the absence of quantum fluctuations.

Why do you think it is necessary to explain a first cause to know one is necessary?

Why is it necessary? You have not explained the necessity. If something from absolute nothingness is possible, why not eternal something?

Two completely different topics

It's not unrelated. If as you claim, eternity/infinity is impossible, what then is the alternative? There must be an alternative because here we are, we exist.

Of course it could not arise from nothingness. Nobody is making that claim.

If not from nothingness....from what? If from something, how did this causal agent appear? Itself from nothing? A series of somethings? An eternal something?

How does this work?

Can you explain?

 

[untermensche]

Why is it necessary? You have not explained the necessity.

I have. You can't seem to see what is right in front of your nose.

Since a real completed infinity is logically considered impossible until someone can show how it is possible, and not just claim it is possible, then the time in the past logically is considered finite.

It's not unrelated.

Two completely separate topics.

If not from nothingness....from what?

From something unlike all we can observe in some way.

The choices are not between all we can observe in some way and nothingness.

 

[Speakpigeon]

I have. You can't seem to see what is right in front of your nose.

Since a real completed infinity is logically considered impossible until someone can show how it is possible, and not just claim it is possible, then the time in the past logically is considered finite.

<snip>

If not from nothingness....from what?

From something unlike all we can observe in some way.

The choices are not between all we can observe in some way and nothingness.

We're getting to where this U-Bot get stuck forever in between a rock and a hard place.

Thanks to DBT, I have to admit.

So, how exactly would "something unlike all we can observe in some way" be at all possible if we are to dismiss any possibility of an infinite past on the ground that it's "something unlike all we can observe in some way. Me, I think an infinite past is indeed "something unlike all we can observe in some way".
EB

 

[untermensche]

You call having a position that can't be challenged getting stuck.

I suppose that is one way to look at it.

I am stuck with my truths.

Something unlike all we can observe in some way is a logical necessity since all that can be observed in some way logically had a beginning since a real completed infinity is rationally considered impossible until someone demonstrates it is possible.

 

[fromderinside]

Is non-existence logically possible? If not why existence?

 

[untermensche]

Is non-existence logically possible? If not why existence?

To answer "why existence?" requires knowing that which is unlike all that can be observed in some way.

In other words it is a question that will never be answered.

 

[fast]

Is non-existence logically possible? If not why existence?

My eleven-legged cat is non-existent. I have no eleven-legged cat. Don't you find it possible that I have no cat with eleven legs? The answer is yes. Non-existence is logically possible.

 

[Speakpigeon]

Is non-existence logically possible? If not why existence?

My eleven-legged cat is non-existent. I have no eleven-legged cat. Don't you find it possible that I have no cat with eleven legs? The answer is yes. Non-existence is logically possible.

I suspect he meant nothingness.

Not anything too eleven legged, either. Just sort of ordinary nothingness.

Could you address that?
EB

 

[Speakpigeon]

If not from nothingness....from what?

From something unlike all we can observe in some way.

The choices are not between all we can observe in some way and nothingness.

So, untermensche says it's possible something somehow existed "unlike all we can observe in some way" but then says an infinite past is not possible on the ground that it would be something unlike all we can observe in some way.

That's just terrible logic there.
EB

 

[fast]

Is non-existence logically possible? If not why existence?

My eleven-legged cat is non-existent. I have no eleven-legged cat. Don't you find it possible that I have no cat with eleven legs? The answer is yes. Non-existence is logically possible.

I suspect he meant nothingness.

Not anything too eleven legged, either. Just sort of ordinary nothingness.

Could you address that?
EB

A state of affairs such that no thing exists cannot by itself alone render a contradiction, and with no contradiction, there is no logical impossibility. Non-existence is logically possible.

Better?

 

[untermensche]

If not from nothingness....from what?

From something unlike all we can observe in some way.

The choices are not between all we can observe in some way and nothingness.

So, untermensche says it's possible something somehow existed "unlike all we can observe in some way" but then says an infinite past is not possible on the ground that it would be something unlike all we can observe in some way.

That's just terrible logic there.
EB

Wrong.

I have rationally concluded that something unlike all we can observe in some way is necessary.

 

[fast]

If not from nothingness....from what?

From something unlike all we can observe in some way.

The choices are not between all we can observe in some way and nothingness.

So, untermensche says it's possible something somehow existed "unlike all we can observe in some way" but then says an infinite past is not possible on the ground that it would be something unlike all we can observe in some way.

That's just terrible logic there.
EB

Remember, he will not accept physical impossibilities as being possible no matter how logically possible they might be. To him, only the physically possible is logically possible. He holds all physical impossibilities as logically impossible. To him, there is nothing logical about declaring something that is impossible as being something that is possible. Not particularly logical, I'm sure he'd assert.

 

[Speakpigeon]

A state of affairs such that no thing exists cannot by itself alone render a contradiction, and with no contradiction, there is no logical impossibility. Non-existence is logically possible.

Better?

Very excellent.

I was hoping against hope you would find it logically impossible so we could get into the second part of FDI's question: Why existence?

Well, now, of course this second question only makes sense if nothingness is logically possible, i.e. why existence and not just nothingness? If nothingness was possible, why did reality bothered to be (or become) something at all?

So, let's say it's for you to decide whether to help FDI out of this conundrum and address this question.
EB

 

[untermensche]

Only something that could possibly have existence could possibly exist.

A real completed infinity is not a concept that could even possibly be real.