What came first?

[untermensche]

There is no evidence that extrapolation from 1-2 dimensions to 3-4, 4-5 or beyond are not valid. Mathematically ("logically), you can add dimensions as needed.

The first distinction that needs to be made is the difference between the imaginary and abstract world of mathematics and the real world we can observe and measure.

They are not the same thing.

Their exceedingly close correlation is verified by such things as ... SCIENCE, dude. If math didn't accurately reflect the portion of reality that we inhabit, how do you think Mars landings etc. could be accomplished? Maybe scientists are just really really REALLY lucky, or are favored by gods who can override our reality.

All it shows is that the imaginary and abstract world of mathematics has been nurtured and cultivated and made incredibly flexible. It is so flexible it can approximate many extremely complicated behaviors. The fact is some mathematics was invented just to model complicated behaviors observed in nature.

But is always an approximation.

To not understand this is a flaw in reasoning.

 

[Elixir]

Their exceedingly close correlation is verified by such things as ... SCIENCE, dude. If math didn't accurately reflect the portion of reality that we inhabit, how do you think Mars landings etc. could be accomplished? Maybe scientists are just really really REALLY lucky, or are favored by gods who can override our reality.

All it shows is that the imaginary and abstract world of mathematics has been nurtured and cultivated and made incredibly flexible.

Its flexibility is restricted to that which can be predicted or forensically determined within the reality we inhabit. Your wish is that its extremely close correlation to what is observed were something other than it is. A mars landing has been likened to hitting a jump-shot from LA to a hoop in NYC. Not a lot of "flexibility" allowed. Nothing but net!

 

[untermensche]

Their exceedingly close correlation is verified by such things as ... SCIENCE, dude. If math didn't accurately reflect the portion of reality that we inhabit, how do you think Mars landings etc. could be accomplished? Maybe scientists are just really really REALLY lucky, or are favored by gods who can override our reality.

All it shows is that the imaginary and abstract world of mathematics has been nurtured and cultivated and made incredibly flexible.

Its flexibility is restricted to that which can be predicted or forensically determined within the reality we inhabit. Your wish is that its extremely close correlation to what is observed were something other than it is. A mars landing has been likened to hitting a jump-shot from LA to a hoop in NYC. Not a lot of "flexibility" allowed. Nothing but net!

That means the approximations are close enough to land something on Mars.

They are still only approximations, abstractions of reality, not reality itself.

You can't say that reality can do something just because it can be done with mathematics. You need evidence to say something is possible in the real world.

That is absurd and irrational.

Although a common problem with many modern scientists. A few do not understand the difference between their models and the real thing.

 

[Elixir]

Its flexibility is restricted to that which can be predicted or forensically determined within the reality we inhabit. Your wish is that its extremely close correlation to what is observed were something other than it is. A mars landing has been likened to hitting a jump-shot from LA to a hoop in NYC. Not a lot of "flexibility" allowed. Nothing but net!

That means the approximations are close enough to land something on Mars.

They are still only approximations, abstractions of reality, not reality itself.

You can't say that reality can do something just because it can be done with mathematics. You need evidence to say something is possible in the real world.

That is absurd and irrational.

Although a common problem with many modern scientists. A few do not understand the difference between their models and the real thing.

It's true that all models are wrong (but some are useful). And you can call mathematics models (with only a slight semantic stretch) so it's not like I don't know what you are saying. But I feel like you are stubbornly refusing to see what I'm saying (it's not that you're too dumb or have never considered dimensions as tensors). I see no future in trying to force you to do so, so I'll leave you alone about it...

 

[Juma]

There is no evidence that extrapolation from 1-2 dimensions to 3-4, 4-5 or beyond are not valid. Mathematically ("logically), you can add dimensions as needed.

The first distinction that needs to be made is the difference between the imaginary and abstract world of mathematics and the real world we can observe and measure.

They are not the same thing.

Their exceedingly close correlation is verified by such things as ... SCIENCE, dude. If math didn't accurately reflect the portion of reality that we inhabit, how do you think Mars landings etc. could be accomplished? Maybe scientists are just really really REALLY lucky, or are favored by gods who can override our reality.

Math doesnt say anything by itself. It will adjust to any reality.

 

[untermensche]

Its flexibility is restricted to that which can be predicted or forensically determined within the reality we inhabit. Your wish is that its extremely close correlation to what is observed were something other than it is. A mars landing has been likened to hitting a jump-shot from LA to a hoop in NYC. Not a lot of "flexibility" allowed. Nothing but net!

That means the approximations are close enough to land something on Mars.

They are still only approximations, abstractions of reality, not reality itself.

You can't say that reality can do something just because it can be done with mathematics. You need evidence to say something is possible in the real world.

That is absurd and irrational.

Although a common problem with many modern scientists. A few do not understand the difference between their models and the real thing.

It's true that all models are wrong (but some are useful). And you can call mathematics models (with only a slight semantic stretch) so it's not like I don't know what you are saying. But I feel like you are stubbornly refusing to see what I'm saying (it's not that you're too dumb or have never considered dimensions as tensors). I see no future in trying to force you to do so, so I'll leave you alone about it...

No.

I fully reject this notion of additional dimensions. I think it is empty speculation based only on mathematics and not any observation or reason.

And I am very skeptical about claims made about things that only have a mathematical basis to them with no basis in observation.

Can any mathematics show that additional dimensions are actually possible in the real world?

 

[Elixir]

It's true that all models are wrong (but some are useful). And you can call mathematics models (with only a slight semantic stretch) so it's not like I don't know what you are saying. But I feel like you are stubbornly refusing to see what I'm saying (it's not that you're too dumb or have never considered dimensions as tensors). I see no future in trying to force you to do so, so I'll leave you alone about it...

No.

I fully reject this notion of additional dimensions.

Spoken like a true blue flatlander - DILLY DILLY!!

 

[untermensche]

It's true that all models are wrong (but some are useful). And you can call mathematics models (with only a slight semantic stretch) so it's not like I don't know what you are saying. But I feel like you are stubbornly refusing to see what I'm saying (it's not that you're too dumb or have never considered dimensions as tensors). I see no future in trying to force you to do so, so I'll leave you alone about it...

No.

I fully reject this notion of additional dimensions.

Spoken like a true blue flatlander - DILLY DILLY!!

To me you are speaking like a religious zealot.

Asking me to believe in things that have no evidence to support them.

And there is no need of them.

Science needs to stick to the evidence.

 

[4321lynx]

Thereisnothing illogical with you you having a invisible living elephant in you pocket. And yet it is very uninteresting. We observe that the universe can be modelled. Inventing unobserved behaviour is illogical. Any invented unobseved behavior can be logical, but it is the act of inventing unobserved behavior that is illogical. That has nothing to do with the purpose of the model (which is to model observed behavior).
I could postulate that gluons turns into electrons. But what is the point?

I was considering a logical possibility and I am satisfied that it is just that. Models are obviously something else entirely.

I was also definitely not "inventing unobserved behaviour" since I never tried to argue that it was actual. I always made it clear I was considering it as logical possibility.

It was also more a statement about the human mind than anything about the universe. But you can sure ignore this safely.

And I was merely replying to the OP:

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.

So my answer is that logic on its own isn't going to constrain the characteristics of whatever came first.

You'd have to put your faith into the power of science to perhaps achieve that.

And doing so, maybe you'll be right.
EB

These last three sentences ought to have put the argument to rest, but of course they did not. Not surprising given the love of debate, of argument civil or not, of lack of clear word definitions, and, most of all, in view of the personalities involved and their interaction in times past.
I agree that logic will get you no futher, and that science might, -- perhaps.

 

[Kharakov]

Can't you say something like "change and potential had to exist before anything that they produced". Potential must exist as a sort of restrained, or non magnified portion of what is, that is "allowed" out when certain conditions are meet, like whatever conditions are meet that cause us to perceive qualia.

 

[Speakpigeon]

Well, except valid logic combined with abductive reasoning. It's not some big mystery that nothing never existed, which means something always has. If we have to go back there to restart the conversational flow...

That something has "always existed" doesn't mean this thing already existed for an infinite amount of time. It just means that there wasn't a time when this thing didn't exist.

That there wasn't a time when some thing didn't exist could be achieved for example if the thing exists since the beginning of time. Now, if for example the past wasn't infinite then the thing itself wasn't infinite either. And yet, it would have to be said to have "always existed".

This certainly shows that logic requires you to be extra careful with the wording of the issue.

That something could not spontaneously begin changing- if it was static, it would remain so forever. It's not even a logical possibility that a completely static entity without anything influencing it can become non-static.

Here again you have a problem. The phrase "this thing is static" is ambiguous.

First, the phrase "this thing is static" may mean that being static is in the nature of this thing and I guess this would indeed imply that it could not start to change all by itself.

However, the phrase "this thing is static" may just as well mean that the thing is just not changing at the moment (and possibly that it never changed in the past either). If so, being static would not preclude this thing starting to change at some point in the future, on its own, i.e. without any outside intervention.

Again, this shows that logic requires you to be extra careful how you phrase the problem.
EB

 

[Speakpigeon]

So, logically, what came first could well have been just about anything.

Let's see some examples.

First example

What came first was something exactly like a big carrot. It existed for an infinite amount of time without anything else happening. Nothing happened until at some point in time the carrot-like thing just disappeared.

Entirely unrelated to that, there was, immediately after the disappearance of the big carrot, a Big Bang.

That was the beginning of our universe as we know it.

Second example

What came first was something very much like Donald Trump, although not Trump himself. It existed for four years without anything else happening. Nothing happened until at some point in time the Trump-like thing just disappeared.

Entirely unrelated to that, there was, immediately after the disappearance of the Trump-like thing, a Big Bang. That was the beginning of our universe as we know it.


Ok, these are only two examples, but I'm sure you get the idea.
EB

 

[LordKiran]

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.

Also why does there HAVE to be a beginning to everything? Just because there's a beginning to us doesn't necessarily mean that's true of everything else in the universe.

 

[Juma]

Sure. It is impossible for nothing to exist before something.

But it is entirely possible that something completely different than what can be observed in some way existed before what can be observed in some way and caused what can be observed in some way to exist.

And it is impossible for the time in the past to be infinite.

Only one logical conclusion.

All that can be observed in some way had a beginning.

Then present that logical conclusion or fuck off.

I just did.

Can you not read English?

Do ideas have to be wrapped in a certain way before you can comprehend them?

That is not a LOGICAL conclusion.

 

[untermensche]

I just did.

Can you not read English?

Do ideas have to be wrapped in a certain way before you can comprehend them?

That is not a LOGICAL conclusion.

That is an opinion.

But it addresses nothing and refutes nothing.

There is nothing that can be done with a mere opinion of disagreement.

An argument why you see something as not a logical conclusion can be addressed.

 

[Jon Osterman]

Surely this entire thread is a non-sequitur. There can never be any logical deduction that one event preceded another. It is only a matter of deduction within a prescribed framework. It could be true that the first ever event was the moment you read this post (though I am not saying it is).