The religion of "no beginning".

[Speakpigeon]

An abstraction takes place when you totally ignore the differences and call two things "similar". Things may have similarities but they have differences too. Are they similar or different? Only a mind can decide.

Most of what happens in the world, at least at macroscopic level, does on the basis of sufficient similarity. Physical effects like gravity, chemical reactions, biology, life. Most of those effects don't have the benefit of a mind to decide whether similarity is good enough. So, just about everything you can see around you with your myopic eyes exists because mindless interactions can process similarity and do it very effectively. If similarity didn't exist out there, there would be nothing for you to look at. You yourself wouldn't exist to begin with. But, hey, you have an original idea, just stick to it!

I'm not competent to judge for quantum-level effects, but if macroscopic happenings are all essentially quantum effects, the answer is straightforward.

Without a mind there are no objects, no similarities, no numbers.
Numbers cannot be found out in the world. They have been invented.

Those numbers you have in your mind that represent things that don't exist in the real world are called "hallucinations".

You may need to seek medical advice.
EB

 

[untermensche]

An abstraction takes place when you totally ignore the differences and call two things "similar". Things may have similarities but they have differences too. Are they similar or different? Only a mind can decide.

Most of what happens in the world, at least at macroscopic level, does on the basis of sufficient similarity.

Similar invisible properties do guide the behavior of things, that is true. But this has no connection to any point I have made. Things acting because of inherent properties are not decisions.

Those numbers you have in your mind that represent things that don't exist in the real world are called "hallucinations".

That is not the only way something can be totally imaginary.

Think about a pink elephant.

Totally imaginary but not an hallucination.

 

[fromderinside]

Things untermensche cannot comprehend do not exist, thereby neatly excusing him from ever admitting less than perfect comprehension of anything.

You have no arguments.

You are a waste of space.

Thank you for this succinct example.

Gad. You're playing him like he was your own skin flute.

 

[Speakpigeon]

Most of what happens in the world, at least at macroscopic level, does on the basis of sufficient similarity.

Similar invisible properties do guide the behavior of things, that is true.

If similarity does "guide the behavior of things", then it's real and numbers are real.

But this has no connection to any point I have made. Things acting because of inherent properties are not decisions.

How so? Please explain.

Those numbers you have in your mind that represent things that don't exist in the real world are called "hallucinations".

That is not the only way something can be totally imaginary.

Think about a pink elephant.

Totally imaginary but not an hallucination.

No, we're not merely "imagining" numbers, because imagining is a deliberate act. We are seeing numbers. There's nothing we can do about it. So we see the similarity between different apples, the similarity between different heads of states, and what is identical between three apples and three heads of states, which is the number three. And you do too.

And seeing something that doesn't exist is hallucination. So, you're hallucinating.
EB

 

[untermensche]

If similarity does "guide the behavior of things", then it's real and numbers are real.

While behaviors may have similarities that guide the behavior they have differences too.

It takes a mind to completely discount all the differences and say they are only similar.

But this has no connection to any point I have made. Things acting because of inherent properties are not decisions.

How so? Please explain.

You are claiming a similarity is noticed somehow apart from a mind because a behavior is followed.

The only way any similarity can be appreciated is with a mind.

Those numbers you have in your mind that represent things that don't exist in the real world are called "hallucinations".

That is not the only way something can be totally imaginary.

Think about a pink elephant.

Totally imaginary but not an hallucination.

No, we're not merely "imagining" numbers, because imagining is a deliberate act.

Says who?

We are seeing numbers.

No we are not. Many civilizations existed without numbers.

If we are taught about numbers at a young enough age the associations will be instantaneous like the association to any word, but the word and concept is learned, not innate.

 

[Elixir]

Individual distinct objects do exist.

So they appear to us. But if you look real close, all boundaries between "thing x" and "not thing x" are very fuzzy indeed.

 

[Elixir]

"Three" is a concept in the mind.

HEY! Three is just like BEGINNINGS!

 

[untermensche]

Individual distinct objects do exist.

So they appear to us. But if you look real close, all boundaries between "thing x" and "not thing x" are very fuzzy indeed.

You are making my case.

My position is that numbers are not something discovered.

They require a special kind of mind to invent them.

A mind capable of abstracting and seeing things as similar and then abstracting again and seeing the similar as the same.

- - - Updated - - -

"Three" is a concept in the mind.

HEY! Three is just like BEGINNINGS!

The imaginary concept is "no beginnings".

That is something that has never been observed.

 

[bilby]

HEY! Three is just like BEGINNINGS!

Ah, yes; But don't forget:

Things untermensche cannot comprehend do not exist, thereby neatly excusing him from ever admitting less than perfect comprehension of anything.

The imaginary concept is "no beginnings".

That is something that has never been observed.

See?

 

[untermensche]

Feel free to actually post an idea.

Tell me about all the "no-beginnings" you have observed.

And prove anything can exist without a beginning to prove it is not pure fantasy.

To not begin is to not exist.

Just about anybody can understand that.

 

[Kharakov]

Things untermensche cannot comprehend do not exist, thereby neatly excusing him from ever admitting less than perfect comprehension of anything.

You have no arguments.

You are a waste of space.

Do you know how many directions that one can face in a finite amount of space? Hint, the symbol for the amount of directions is an 8 rotated by \(\sum_{n=2}^\infty \,\,\,\, \frac {\pi}{2^n}\) radians.

 

[Elixir]

The imaginary concept is "no beginnings".

That is something that has never been observed.

... just like "no unicorns".

 

[bilby]

Feel free to actually post an idea.

Feel free to actually notice any of the ideas others have posted.

Tell me about all the "no-beginnings" you have observed.

Tell me about all the 'no unicorns' you have observed. You can't, so therefore (according to your illogic) there must be unicorns.

And prove anything can exist without a beginning to prove it is not pure fantasy.

The First Law of Thermodynamics tells us that nothing can have a beginning (or an end). This applies to the entire observable universe; It might not apply at a singularity (we have no way of knowing), but it would be foolish to declare that it certainly doesn't.

You cannot give a single example of anything beginning, without appealing to arbitrary definitions, or equivocating on the meaning of 'beginning' - which in the case of the Universe, does not include 'assembly from pre-existing components'.

A person (for example) has no beginning in this sense of the word; People are assembled over time by their mother's bodies, using components she collects from her environment.

To not begin is to not exist.

Just about anybody can understand that.

It sounds nice and truthy. Like 'nature abhors a vacuum', or 'what goes up, must come down'. It's a shame that it is utter bollocks, really.

 

[untermensche]

Things untermensche cannot comprehend do not exist, thereby neatly excusing him from ever admitting less than perfect comprehension of anything.

You have no arguments.

You are a waste of space.

Do you know how many directions that one can face in a finite amount of space? Hint, the symbol for the amount of directions is an 8 rotated by \(\sum_{n=2}^\infty \,\,\,\, \frac {\pi}{2^n}\) radians.

How many directions that what can face?

Some imaginary entity?

How many degrees is included in an infinite direction?

Is it possible to face all directions?

 

[untermensche]

The imaginary concept is "no beginnings".

That is something that has never been observed.

... just like "no unicorns".

Exactly.

As easy to observe as no unicorns.

As likely to exist as well.

Why not just believe in Jesus if you are going to believe in the miraculous "no beginning".

 

[untermensche]

Feel free to actually notice any of the ideas others have posted.Tell me about all the 'no unicorns' you have observed. You can't, so therefore (according to your illogic) there must be unicorns.

You get lost quickly.

To follow my logic you have to observe "no unicorns" to say "no unicorns" is something that exists.

To say "no beginnings" is more than an imaginary fantasy requires observing "no beginnings".

The First Law of Thermodynamics tells us that nothing can have a beginning (or an end).

Pure nonsense.

You will have an end. I assure you.

 

[bilby]

Feel free to actually notice any of the ideas others have posted.Tell me about all the 'no unicorns' you have observed. You can't, so therefore (according to your illogic) there must be unicorns.

You get lost quickly.

To follow my logic you have to observe "no unicorns" to say "no unicorns" is something that exists.

To say "no beginnings" is more than an imaginary fantasy requires observing "no beginnings".

The First Law of Thermodynamics tells us that nothing can have a beginning (or an end).

Pure nonsense.

You will have an end. I assure you.

And there you go with the EXACT equivocation I warned against in my post (and which you snipped from your quote of it).

While you refuse to debate honestly, and you refuse to desist from logical fallacies, it will remain impossible for you to ever learn anything, or to ever move forward from the sad intellectual rut in which you have embedded yourself.

Here's my whole post. I have bolded the bits you really shouldn't have ignored:

Feel free to actually post an idea.

Feel free to actually notice any of the ideas others have posted.

Tell me about all the "no-beginnings" you have observed.

Tell me about all the 'no unicorns' you have observed. You can't, so therefore (according to your illogic) there must be unicorns.

And prove anything can exist without a beginning to prove it is not pure fantasy.

The First Law of Thermodynamics tells us that nothing can have a beginning (or an end). This applies to the entire observable universe; It might not apply at a singularity (we have no way of knowing), but it would be foolish to declare that it certainly doesn't.

You cannot give a single example of anything beginning, without appealing to arbitrary definitions, or equivocating on the meaning of 'beginning' - which in the case of the Universe, does not include 'assembly from pre-existing components'.

A person (for example) has no beginning in this sense of the word; People are assembled over time by their mother's bodies, using components she collects from her environment.

To not begin is to not exist.

Just about anybody can understand that.

It sounds nice and truthy. Like 'nature abhors a vacuum', or 'what goes up, must come down'. It's a shame that it is utter bollocks, really.

Selective deafness is just another form of intellectual dishonesty. You appear to be highly skilled at ignoring anything that disagrees in any way with your preconceptions.

 

[Kharakov]

Do you know how many directions that one can face in a finite amount of space? Hint, the symbol for the amount of directions is an 8 rotated by \(\sum_{n=2}^\infty \,\,\,\, \frac {\pi}{2^n}\) radians.

How many directions that what can face?

So while I meant the one pun, you should be programmed well enough to know that one also refers to an entity, such as a human.

Is it possible to face all directions?

Probably not, but it's not possible to face less than an infinite amount of directions if you are human and live in continuous spacetime.

 

[untermensche]

So while I meant the one pun, you should be programmed well enough to know that one also refers to an entity, such as a human.

So we are talking about some limit of human observation?

Is it possible to face all directions?

Probably not...

Definitely not. The idea is purely a theoretical imaginary concept.

 

[untermensche]

Selective deafness is just another form of intellectual dishonesty. You appear to be highly skilled at ignoring anything that disagrees in any way with your preconceptions.

...without appealing to arbitrary definitions, or equivocating on the meaning of 'beginning' - which in the case of the Universe, does not include 'assembly from pre-existing components...

It is not a "pure beginning", but when matter appears when before it did not exist that is a beginning to matter. It is not a "pure beginning" but a kind of a beginning. A clear example of a beginning.

A person (for example) has no beginning in this sense of the word; People are assembled over time by their mother's bodies, using components she collects from her environment.

Not true.

When a sperm cell fertilizes an egg cell the person begins.

When two cells become one that is a beginning.

You have at one time two cells that will not produce anything on their own.

At a later time you have one cell that will develop into a human.

A clear beginning to the human. Reduced to the smallest functional unit of human life, a cell.