The religion of "no beginning".

[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.

So we are talking about some limit of human observation?

Apparently the conversation has gone that way...

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.

Definitely not.

Ok, I take that as a resounding yes, it is possible. I was thinking of facing as something like focusing in one direction at a time, but I didn't consider non-human entities, which I don't have direct knowledge of.

 

[bilby]

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.

That never happens. The 1LoT tells us so. The closest you can get is a conversion of energy to matter, which is just a change in configuration, not the beginning of anything.

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.

Of course it fucking is. Not one part of that is in anyway untrue.

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

That's pure Special Pleading. Why not 'at birth the person begins'? Or 'at the first sign of mental activity the person begins'? Or 'at ejaculation the person begins'? All are just as (un)reasonable.

When two cells become one that is a beginning.

No, it's just two things merging together. There's no new stuff afterwards - just the same stuff that was present before, but in a slightly different configuration.

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

Nothing produces anything.

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

Before which, you had two cells that would merge and then develop into a human. There is NO point where you can say 'there is nothing before this point, and something after it'.

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

You are mistaking your completely arbitrary choices for something fundamental. They are NOT. Conception is no more (and no less) necessary for the development of a person than any one of thousands of other events.

You seriously need to stop believing your own bullshit, and start honestly criticizing your own ideas - preferably before making a public fool of yourself with their absurdities.

 

[DBT]

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.

Not fuzzy enough that distinctions between objects can't be made, stars, planets, moons, asteroids, etc, as we classify them, yet concentrations of matter/energy in their own right.

 

[Kharakov]

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.

Not fuzzy enough that distinctions between objects can't be made, stars, planets, moons, asteroids, etc, as we classify them, yet concentrations of matter/energy in their own right.

Location is a multidimensional wave function.

 

[DBT]

Not fuzzy enough that distinctions between objects can't be made, stars, planets, moons, asteroids, etc, as we classify them, yet concentrations of matter/energy in their own right.

Location is a multidimensional wave function.

That explains it.

 

[Speakpigeon]

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

Says who?

Learn your English if you want to put your arguments in English.

Imagine
v.tr.
1. To form a mental picture or image of: imagined a better life abroad.
2. To think or suppose; conjecture: I imagine you're right.
3. To have a notion of or about without adequate foundation; fancy or believe: She imagines herself to be a true artist.
v.intr.
1. To employ the imagination.
2. To have a belief or make a guess.

Hallucination is not a form of imagination.

Learn your English if you want to express your views in English.

We are seeing numbers.

No we are not. Many civilizations existed without numbers.

Are you going to claim that many civilisations didn't know about the stars in the sky?

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.

So, because you are taught how to talk about people and mountains it means people and mountains don't really exist?!

You have zero argument.

You have nothing interesting to say.
EB

 

[Speakpigeon]

The imaginary concept is "no beginnings".
That is something that has never been observed.

Did you personally observe the beginning of our universe?

Personally, I didn't.
EB

 

[Speakpigeon]

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.

Who ever observed non-existence?

So, according to your logic, non-existence can only be imaginary. So, nothing could possibly not exist, according to your logic.

Well done, you Oh-So-Bright Angel.
EB


Postscript

Ah, I guess Elixir already made the same point... Sorry!

The imaginary concept is "no beginnings".

That is something that has never been observed.

... just like "no unicorns".

 

[Speakpigeon]

Hint, the symbol for the amount of directions is an 8 rotated by \(\sum_{n=2}^\infty \,\,\,\, \frac {\pi}{2^n}\) radians.

Your hint isn't helpful.

To understand it, someone would need to understand the very symbol that's hinted at.

This can only be much too hard for some someones.

Still, me, I did work out your formula!
EB

 

[untermensche]

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.

So we are talking about some limit of human observation?

Apparently the conversation has gone that way...

Like every conversation with you.

They go nowhere. You make no serious points and put together no serious arguments.

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.

Definitely not.

Ok, I take that as a resounding yes, it is possible. I was thinking of facing as something like focusing in one direction at a time, but I didn't consider non-human entities, which I don't have direct knowledge of.

It is not possible to face a direction that does not exist.

Infinitely small lines of direction are something that only exist in the imagination.

 

[untermensche]

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.

That never happens. The 1LoT tells us so. The closest you can get is a conversion of energy to matter, which is just a change in configuration, not the beginning of anything.

It happened.

First there was undifferentiated "stuff" and later there was matter. A lot of the matter didn't arrive until much later than the Big Bang.

It already happened.

The Laws of Thermodynamics did not prevent it. You clearly do not understand a thing about them.

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

That's pure Special Pleading. Why not 'at birth the person begins'? Or 'at the first sign of mental activity the person begins'? Or 'at ejaculation the person begins'? All are just as (un)reasonable.

That is special pleading.

The human begins at conception. No life began at birth. Life out of the womb begins at birth, another kind of beginning, but not life.

This is called science.

When two cells become one that is a beginning.

No, it's just two things merging together.

Same thing. You merely call a beginning a merging. When two cells that will not develop into anything on their own merge and become one cell that will develop and become a human a beginning has occurred.

Your handwaving and jumping up and down won't make it not so.

Your argument is basically that a beginning is not a beginning unless it is a miracle. Your position is nonsense.

 

[untermensche]

Learn your English if you want to put your arguments in English.

English is my native tongue I do not struggle with it like you.

Hallucination is not a form of imagination.

Learn your English if you want to express your views in English.

Show me where I ever said imagining something is an hallucination. I have specifically said the opposite.

No we are not. Many civilizations existed without numbers.

Are you going to claim that many civilisations didn't know about the stars in the sky?

One of us is seriously struggling with English.

Entire human civilizations existed for centuries without numbers.

They are not out in the world to be discovered.

You have nothing interesting to say.

It is only interesting to those who understand it.

A number arrives after two abstractions take place. First distinct objects are abstracted and called "similar", then the similar is abstracted again and called the same and an amount is arrived at.

So when these two abstractions have taken place instead of three distinct objects on the table that are different in many ways you have three apples. Three identical objects.

You do not have amounts without these abstractions. You do not have numbers without a mind, and almost universally that mind needs to be taught about numbers, and that is the only place they have meaning.

 

[Elixir]

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.

So you admit that "beginnings" are just like unicorns - a figment of human perception. Thanks.

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

Why not believe in Jesus if you're going to believe in unicorns and "beginnings"?

 

[Kharakov]

Hint, the symbol for the amount of directions is an 8 rotated by \(\sum_{n=2}^\infty \,\,\,\, \frac {\pi}{2^n}\) radians.

Your hint isn't helpful.

To understand it, someone would need to understand the very symbol that's hinted at.

This can only be much too hard for some someones.

Still, me, I did work out your formula!
EB

That's not possible. How did you add up an infinite amount of terms in a finite amount of time?

 

[Kharakov]

Why not believe in Jesus if you're going to believe in unicorns and "beginnings"?

That's dangerous. Even if you pretend, you'll end up in a corrupt social group that controls the majority of the world's material wealth. Ok, it's not dangerous at all, unless you have principles you're going to break.

 

[Speakpigeon]

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

So now you would know that the fertilised egg is the beginning of a person even though nobody has ever been able to see anything even remotely like a person when looking at a fertilised egg?!

Logic is not your forte.
EB

 

[Speakpigeon]

Location is a multidimensional wave function.

Thanks for the info, this should explain why I feel wobbly about where exactly I am.

That's definitely reassuring. I was thinking of seeing a doctor.

Assuming I could locate one.
EB

 

[Speakpigeon]

Still, me, I did work out your formula!
EB

That's not possible. How did you add up an infinite amount of terms in a finite amount of time?

You're not paying attention to UM's very sensible line of arguments! Imagination, man! The power of imagination! Imagination gives you true power over infinity.

That said, it took me quite a lot of time, actually.
EB

 

[4321lynx]

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

So now you would know that the fertilised egg is the beginning of a person even though nobody has ever been able to see anything even remotely like a person when looking at a fertilised egg?!

Logic is not your forte.
EB

Oh but they (fertilised eggs) are very much like a person in that they possess a diploidnumber of chromosomes whereas gametes (sperm and ova) possess a haploid number. Two full sets of chromosomes vs one full set. A good place for a "beginning".

https://www.diffen.com/difference/Diploid_vs_Haploid

 

[bilby]

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

So now you would know that the fertilised egg is the beginning of a person even though nobody has ever been able to see anything even remotely like a person when looking at a fertilised egg?!

Logic is not your forte.
EB

Oh but they (fertilised eggs) are very much like a person in that they possess a diploidnumber of chromosomes whereas gametes (sperm and ova) possess a haploid number. Two full sets of chromosomes vs one full set. A good place for a "beginning".

https://www.diffen.com/difference/Diploid_vs_Haploid

A good place for us to arbitrarily select as a 'beginning', for some, but not all, purposes.

But not a beginning in any objective sense.

Chromosome number is not one of my go-to tests when encountering an object, in order to decide whether it is a fellow human. There's nothing non-human about human gametes, and they are clearly distinguishable from the gametes of other species. Nobody mistakes a human spermatozoan for a grain of sycamore pollen - which should be a commonplace error if haploid cells were not demonstrably specific to a particular species.

Sorry, but a haploid human cell is still clearly a human cell.