What came first?

[Kharakov]

Did something come first?

Can you arrive at specific qualities that must have existed before any other qualities using logic?


For example, before calculus, one must have a bit of a mathematical background.

 

[fromderinside]

Like is there a plan? Is that what you're getting to? Otherwise it's just observation, justification, process. For instance, anything that is differently selective can be described as a filter, but, does that get us to true function? I'm curious what part logic plays in observation.

 

[untermensche]

All we know is "what is".

We have no idea what is necessary for "what is" to exist.

We can see to an extent how "what is" has changed and changes and how we may manipulate it.

But we cannot understand why there is "what is".

 

[Kharakov]

Like is there a plan? Is that what you're getting to? Otherwise it's just observation, justification, process. For instance, anything that is differently selective can be described as a filter, but, does that get us to true function? I'm curious what part logic plays in observation.

You can arrive at the eternal existence of something (until there is nothing) by logic. There must always have been something, or else there would never be something.

I'm wondering whether you can nail down some specific qualities of that something with logic. I don't think you can, but... it might be fun to try.


Say we wanted to say that there must be an organizing principle for qualia. We observe its existence (our thoughts and experiences are organized). Can we come to any conclusion (even simply arrive at an idea by inductive reasoning) about natural roots of qualia organization based on what we observe?

 

[fromderinside]

 Information theory fills the bill.

 

[untermensche]

You can arrive at the eternal existence of something (until there is nothing) by logic. There must always have been something, or else there would never be something.

All we can say is something like this "what is" could not have come from something like this "what is".

As far as the nature of beyond "what is" we can say nothing.

 

[Kharakov]

Show

Fuck unter. I want to be able to agree with you, because I feel bad about you always saying stuff that isn't right, but seriously. You make it impossible. You always say stuff that doesn't make the cut.

And while I know by inductive reasoning that it has to be on purpose (someone cannot be consistently wrong about everything without knowing the truth that they have to be wrong about), it's just hard for me to accept that someone is always wrong (except that one time I caught you making a mistake and saying something true, although at this point, I'm sure it could be interpreted as something incorrect, because you said it).

It's like a superpower or something.

So the qualia blue cannot have come from the qualia blue? It's one of the many properties of what exists, separated from other qualities as an individual quality. Blue is the absence of all qualia that are not part of the qualia blue, that exist as part of what is, which separates itself over time and space and divides itself into realms of qualia and thought.

 

[untermensche]

Oh well.

Horses cannot be forced to drink.

 

[Bronzeage]

Did something come first?

Can you arrive at specific qualities that must have existed before any other qualities using logic?


For example, before calculus, one must have a bit of a mathematical background.

It turns out, you can divide by zero. It's just so tedious, many years ago, mathematicians decided to never do it, and to discourage students, made up a story about it being impossible.

If one accepts the common definition of matter, something which has mass and occupies space, and also accepts that matter will lose mass as it accelerates close to the speed of light and transforms into energy, it's possible to infer that energy could be inverted to create matter.

If you ask what created the energy, you're trying to divide by zero, again. After that, it's turtles all the way down.

 

[steve_bank]

Not a bad question.

The basic principles of calculus existed well before it was formalized.

How did an ancient person figure out how to make a bow and arrow, and later how to use feathers to spin stabilize the arrow?

It is observation, trial and error, and part how our brain is wired for imagination. It is also monkey see monkey do.

There are chimps who select particular rocks from a pace, transport them to a work area, and worm into a tool to crack nuts. The knowledge is passed on by observation and mimic.

Einstein, Maxwell, and Newton were giants but they built on a long history of developments,

 

[steve_bank]

Did something come first?

Can you arrive at specific qualities that must have existed before any other qualities using logic?


For example, before calculus, one must have a bit of a mathematical background.

It turns out, you can divide by zero. It's just so tedious, many years ago, mathematicians decided to never do it, and to discourage students, made up a story about it being impossible.

If one accepts the common definition of matter, something which has mass and occupies space, and also accepts that matter will lose mass as it accelerates close to the speed of light and transforms into energy, it's possible to infer that energy could be inverted to create matter.

If you ask what created the energy, you're trying to divide by zero, again. After that, it's turtles all the way down.

You can not divide by zero. No algorithm or electronic circuit analog or digital can be devised to divide by zero.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

Did something come first?

Can you arrive at specific qualities that must have existed before any other qualities using logic?


For example, before calculus, one must have a bit of a mathematical background.

It turns out, you can divide by zero. It's just so tedious, many years ago, mathematicians decided to never do it, and to discourage students, made up a story about it being impossible.

If one accepts the common definition of matter, something which has mass and occupies space, and also accepts that matter will lose mass as it accelerates close to the speed of light and transforms into energy, it's possible to infer that energy could be inverted to create matter.

If you ask what created the energy, you're trying to divide by zero, again. After that, it's turtles all the way down.

I thought that accelerating something to the speed of light is impossible because the mass increases, not decreases.

 

[aupmanyav]

All we can say is something like this "what is" could not have come from something like this "what is".
As far as the nature of beyond "what is" we can say nothing.

'What is' is physical energy. Beyond that is 'absolute nothing'.

 

[Underseer]

You need two things:

1. People using arguments to support conclusions and
2. Someone to notice that some arguments are better at supporting conclusions than others.

 

[untermensche]

All we can say is something like this "what is" could not have come from something like this "what is".
As far as the nature of beyond "what is" we can say nothing.

'What is' is physical energy. Beyond that is 'absolute nothing'.

You've seen it?

 

[Speakpigeon]

Did something come first?

Asking the question is to answer it: "Did" comes first.

Easy one.

Can you arrive at specific qualities that must have existed before any other qualities using logic?

Yes, definitely.

Logic.

A bit less trivial, but still, not really that difficult.

For example, before calculus, one must have a bit of a mathematical background.

Ah. Gosh. I'm stuck!
EB

 

[Speakpigeon]

You can arrive at the eternal existence of something (until there is nothing) by logic. There must always have been something, or else there would never be something.

That's faulty reasoning.

You're making an unsubstantiated assumption.

So, in effect, you arrive at the eternal existence of something not at all by using logic but by illicitly assuming something else, without any justification whatsoever.

And, clearly, there's nothing logical in doing this.

Which goes on to show logic is not really essential to life.

Well, I guess I'm also making an assumption here. That it's true you're alive. But, what do I know?
EB

 

[fromderinside]

Most of that which we appreciate as things are actually patterns of something and nothing. Breaking something down to it's constituent parts reveals emptiness's which occupy time and space just as space and time is occupied by masses(no mas?). Just as measurable curves arise out adding up a string of lines in a row.

So kharakov the problem is not a matter of what came first it's as physicists and biologists tell us, science is just a matter of understanding what one observes under magnification, heating and cooling, and stretching (which is the same a magnification).

 

[untermensche]

You can arrive at the eternal existence of something (until there is nothing) by logic. There must always have been something, or else there would never be something.

That's faulty reasoning.

You're making an unsubstantiated assumption.

So, in effect, you arrive at the eternal existence of something not at all by using logic but by illicitly assuming something else, without any justification whatsoever.

And, clearly, there's nothing logical in doing this.

Which goes on to show logic is not really essential to life.

Well, I guess I'm also making an assumption here. That it's true you're alive. But, what do I know?
EB

All we can say about beginnings is that if there was a beginning to this kind of existence we can't know anything about it because it would have to have been caused from or by a different kind of existence.

We can certainly say that it is impossible for there to have been the infinite passage of time before any moment in time. Before any moment in time a finite amount of time must have passed. That is the only way to get to a moment in time.

 

[bilby]

You can arrive at the eternal existence of something (until there is nothing) by logic. There must always have been something, or else there would never be something.

That's faulty reasoning.

You're making an unsubstantiated assumption.

So, in effect, you arrive at the eternal existence of something not at all by using logic but by illicitly assuming something else, without any justification whatsoever.

And, clearly, there's nothing logical in doing this.

Which goes on to show logic is not really essential to life.

Well, I guess I'm also making an assumption here. That it's true you're alive. But, what do I know?
EB

All we can say about beginnings is that if there was a beginning to this kind of existence we can't know anything about it because it would have to have been caused from or by a different kind of existence.

We can certainly say that it is impossible for there to have been the infinite passage of time before any moment in time. Before any moment in time a finite amount of time must have passed. That is the only way to get to a moment in time.

Oh fuck, not this shit again.

Take it ~ Elsewhere ~, the adults are trying to talk.