What came first?

[Speakpigeon]

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).

I see you're still having brain waves on occasions!

Still, I don't want to patronise you but I'm not clear whether you realise your idea here is really very, very similar to the idea of information...

Do you?
EB

 

[Speakpigeon]

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.

Indeed, and so it goes for your idea that the past could not possibly be infinite.
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.
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.

If you mean that your idea here would apply straightforwardly to any kind of existence, then you too are being illogical here.

In effect, you seem to be making exactly the same unsupported assumption as K., although you idea is an improvement on K.'s as you consider the possibility at least of different kinds of existences. Kudos for that.

Still, may be you don't mean to apply your idea to a different kind of existence that could have preceded that of our universe.

Could you clarify?

Could you also specify if in your conception, each kind of existence would have the same kind of time ours has?

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.

Beware that depending on your answers to my two questions, you may have a further logical problem here.
EB

 

[Speakpigeon]

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.

Could you remind me where exactly you addressed UM's claim on its substance?

For, if you haven't, you could be taken as being somewhat intolerant here.

Or is it just a case of too short a fuse?
EB

 

[fromderinside]

I see you're still having brain waves on occasions!

Still, I don't want to patronise you but I'm not clear whether you realise your idea here is really very, very similar to the idea of information...

Do you?
EB

Duh. No offense meant.

FDI

 

[Speakpigeon]

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.

Indeed, and so it goes for your idea that the past could not possibly be infinite.
EB

Oops, sorry. I just mistook your post as one of untermensche.
EB

 

[untermensche]

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.

It is beyond you.

You have never made a rational comment about it.

You are unable to understand it.

Step back and let those that can think rationally discuss things.

 

[untermensche]

That's faulty reasoning.
You're making an unsubstantiated assumption.
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.

If you mean that your idea here would apply straightforwardly to any kind of existence, then you too are being illogical here.

What exactly would prevent it?

It is a statement about not being able to know something.

All we can know is what exists. What we can observe in some way.

We can't possibly know what caused it to exist.

Because that would be something beyond what we can observe in some way. Something external to it.

What we can observe in some way could not have caused itself. Nothing cannot cause something. But beyond doubt a cause to what we can observe in some way must exist before what we can observe in some way can exist.

 

[Speakpigeon]

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.

If you mean that your idea here would apply straightforwardly to any kind of existence, then you too are being illogical here.

What exactly would prevent it?
It is a statement about not being able to know something.
All we can know is what exists. What we can observe in some way.
We can't possibly know what caused it to exist.
Because that would be something beyond what we can observe in some way. Something external to it.
What we can observe in some way could not have caused itself. Nothing cannot cause something. But beyond doubt a cause to what we can observe in some way must exist before what we can observe in some way can exist.

So, if I understand you here, everything that exits both cannot have caused itself to exist and has to have been caused. It has to have been caused, therefore, by something else previously in existence. And so it goes for the universe itself.

Me, I don't see how that's any different from the classical problem of the necessarily infinite regress of causes. If so, then reality itself has to have been in existence for an infinite amount of time, as a continuous succession of infinitely many universes, each causing the next one to exist, possibly each finite in time.

This seems to contradict your insistence that the past could not possibly have been infinite.

But most likely I misunderstood something in what you said.

Please explain.
EB

 

[untermensche]

If you mean that your idea here would apply straightforwardly to any kind of existence, then you too are being illogical here.

What exactly would prevent it?
It is a statement about not being able to know something.
All we can know is what exists. What we can observe in some way.
We can't possibly know what caused it to exist.
Because that would be something beyond what we can observe in some way. Something external to it.
What we can observe in some way could not have caused itself. Nothing cannot cause something. But beyond doubt a cause to what we can observe in some way must exist before what we can observe in some way can exist.

So, if I understand you here, everything that exits both cannot have caused itself to exist and has to have been caused.

It wouldn't be everything that exists. Just everything we can in some way observe.

And to say it caused itself is to say it existed before it existed.

And it is here. It had to have been caused. Unless an argument for how something can exist without a cause can be made.

To say it can exist without a cause is religion, not reason.

Me, I don't see how that's any different from the classical problem of the necessarily infinite regress of causes.

That's only a problem if you say that the cause of all we could possibly observe is just like what we can possibly observe.

Obviously it must be something unlike what we can possibly observe.

It is something we do not understand and cannot understand in any way.

It is not our friend and concerned about our souls. It is unknowable.

 

[Speakpigeon]

And to say it caused itself is to say it existed before it existed.

And it is here. It had to have been caused. Unless an argument for how something can exist without a cause can be made.

To say it can exist without a cause is religion, not reason.

Me, I certainly don't know either way.

Perhaps it's just us who can't conceive of something without a cause.

Me, I don't see how that's any different from the classical problem of the necessarily infinite regress of causes.

That's only a problem if you say that the cause of all we could possibly observe is just like what we can possibly observe.

Obviously it must be something unlike what we can possibly observe.

It is something we do not understand and cannot understand in any way.

It is not our friend and concerned about our souls. It is unknowable.

Unknown, yes, obviously. But not necessarily unknowable. You can't say unknowable a priori.
EB

 

[Kharakov]

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

Ehh... it's pretty easy. Divide the harmonic series by a modified Grandi series (1+1+1+1....) using diagonal series division (not sure of the proper term for it, it's used to divide 1 infinite series by another- it works, I developed it after watching a mathologer youtube with "valid" infinite series multiplication, but I don't know its name).

You get: 1 - 1/2 -1/6 - 1/12 - 1/20.... = 0 because 1+1+1+1+1...> harmonic series. The negative components are the sum of the reciprocals of the triangular numbers/2.

So that's one zero. To generate another zero, divide the harmonic series by the 1+ 2+ 3+ 4+ 5.... series (every natural).

You end up with 1-3/2 + 1/3 +1/12 +1/30 +1/60...= 0 which is 1-3/2 + 1/3 the sum of the tetrahedral number reciprocals.

Show

Tangential.... What do you get if you divide the harmonic series by the triangular number series:
1+3+6+10+15....?

It's another series that equals zero.... but what is the infinite series component after the first few terms? How many terms are there in the first "component" of the zero, before the "balance point"?

What do you get when you divide the harmonic by the tetrahedral series?

Then you divide the 2 series by one another (I haven't done this yet), and you've divided zero by zero. The question is, is the division valid, since you have 2 unique zeroes? Which zero is greater? Does it matter which zero you divide by first?

 

[untermensche]

Me, I certainly don't know either way.

Perhaps it's just us who can't conceive of something without a cause.

We know for certain all that we can observe had to begin.

It could not possibly have existed "forever".

The idea of things existing forever, the idea of eternity, is a religious, not rational idea. There is no rational argument to support "eternity". It is just an irrational idea humans invented in a primitive past.

Unknown, yes, obviously. But not necessarily unknowable. You can't say unknowable a priori.EB

It would have to be something completely unlike what we can observe in some way.

It would have to be something unknowable.

 

[Kharakov]

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.

Maybe because you're not aware of the true assumed premise that nothing ("actual" nothing, not the concept) cannot cause something to exist?

If something exists that causes other things to exist, it's not nothing (the absence of everything, even the property of existence or the ability to cause things to exist). Basically, if something exists that causes stuff to exist it is something, not nothing.

You're making an unsubstantiated assumption.

Where?

 

[Kharakov]

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).

I've been thinking of some organizing principle that groups various fundamental qualia in specific ways, such as confining qualia into quarks or something sub quantum- into realms that science assumes it cannot delve.

So the "what came first" question and its counterpart "Can you arrive at specific qualities that must have existed before any other qualities using logic?" are aimed at whether we can arrive at reasonable conclusions about what (not necessarily one thing!) existed first using deduction and inference. I would think that something that could block various qualia, and something that could unlock them, would obviously have to have existed first... at least from the perspective of a mind that experiences organized qualia.


I have this idea that below the quantum scale, there is organization of qualia, and the qualia are let loose into our consciousness only when certain overlapping fields cause them to be "let out" of their confinement (maybe at "weak" points in the EM field, where there is a bit more "positive", certain forms of qualia can "leak" past the quantum barrier, maybe qualia can only escape the quantum barrier when certain specifically shaped EM fields are created- as if certain mathematical patterns unlock the underlying qualia and let them be part of our consciousness).

Maybe the only reason we don't sense other's thoughts is that our thoughts burn so "bright" in the universe, compared to the qualia let out by other organizations of matter. In other words, the amount of qualia let loose within our brains shines out into the world, but we cannot sense other's qualia because we ourselves are so bright... for the most part. Maybe not me so much. But someone else. The inverse square law could apply to qualia radiance as well.... and perhaps skulls block a bit of it. What say you?

 

[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.

Maybe because you're not aware of the true assumed premise that nothing ("actual" nothing, not the concept) cannot cause something to exist?

If something exists that causes other things to exist, it's not nothing (the absence of everything, even the property of existence or the ability to cause things to exist). Basically, if something exists that causes stuff to exist it is something, not nothing.

You're making an unsubstantiated assumption.

Where?

How could we possibly know that what there is could not exist without having been caused to exist? There's nothing logical about this. It's just a belief that we have, based on our experience of the world that everything that happens has been caused. But there's nothing logical in the assumption that this must be true. It's an empirical reasoning.

So, personally, I wouldn't exclude the possibility of existence without cause, even if this goes against our intuitions. And, this in turn, opens the possibility that what there is exists only since a finite amount of time.

I'll grant you that this doesn't seem much plausible. But it's a logical possibility.
EB

 

[Kharakov]

Maybe because you're not aware of the true assumed premise that nothing ("actual" nothing, not the concept) cannot cause something to exist?

If something exists that causes other things to exist, it's not nothing (the absence of everything, even the property of existence or the ability to cause things to exist). Basically, if something exists that causes stuff to exist it is something, not nothing.

You're making an unsubstantiated assumption.

Where?

How could we possibly know that what there is could not exist without having been caused to exist?

There is the other assumed premise that I forgot to mention, that all of us should know, right?

So.. here goes nothing:

What exists either exists on its own or is caused to exist by something else. <-- I've seen that one in Kalam type wiggles for years, so sort of assume I don't have to include it on every single post on the topic. If I do, let me know. It's not like I wouldn't see the same hole in my statements that you did... I just was assuming the premise because I was thinking it.

There's nothing logical about this. It's just a belief that we have, based on our experience of the world that everything that happens has been caused. But there's nothing logical in the assumption that this must be true. It's an empirical reasoning.

Ok, I never assumed that everything that happens has been caused. In fact, it can be inferred that my arguments require uncaused things to exist- anything eternal is uncaused (it existed forever). So change, which has always been occurring (I'll repeat that syllogism for the 10000 time if you'd like), is eternal.

Of course human existence has various causes...

 

[Speakpigeon]

Yes, anything eternal would be uncaused, I guess, but this somehow seems to hide from you this other interesting idea that there could be things not eternal and yet uncaused.

Again, we tend to disbelieve such a possibility without even thinking about it but I would say that there's no logical reason that this couldn't be the case.

So, me, I'm comfortable with the idea that reality, as we can glimpse, maybe has been in existence for a limited time and yet was not caused.

Again, maybe that's arguably not likely. But, me, I don't pretend to know the score. I accept I'm ignorant.

And come to think of it, I'd be comfortable, too, with eternal things being possibly caused by something else.
EB

 

[Kharakov]

Yes, anything eternal would be uncaused, I guess, but this somehow seems to hide from you this other interesting idea that there could be things not eternal and yet uncaused.

The thought process can cause illogical reasoning to cause people to think that uncaused things can begin to exist. Do you really want to attempt to defend such an illogical idea? You're going to have to use sophistry, like saying "the uncaused things were prevented from existing until certain conditions were meet, but the conditions did not cause them, they just allowed the uncaused things to begin to exist- let them out of their cage, so to speak".

If there is an IPU waiting to spring into existence in full form, only needing the stroke of a noodley appendage to be released, it exists in some extradimensional pocket-verse. It certainly didn't "not exist", it just wasn't part of the spacetime continuum until conditions were meet that caused it to be.

So, me, I'm comfortable with the idea that reality, as we can glimpse, maybe has been in existence for a limited time and yet was not caused. Again, maybe that's arguably not likely. But, me, I don't pretend to know the score. I accept I'm ignorant.

Appeal to ignorance doesn't lead to "logical" reasons for something to spontaneously start existing without cause. Perhaps you're thinking of things that exist as potential until the right conditions are meet in which they can become actuated- but existing as only a potential to exist is still existing.

And come to think of it, I'd be comfortable, too, with eternal things being possibly caused by something else.

Things aren't eternal if they are caused by something else. They started to exist- this means they didn't always exist. Playing fast and loose with words (eternal things started) is the formula for... well, using words incorrectly, not arriving at valid conclusions/concepts about reality.

 

[untermensche]

What exists either exists on its own or is caused to exist by something else.

Nothing just exists on it's own.

Nothing existing within time is eternal. That is an invented religious concept. It is not a rational possibility.

So without doubt all that we can observe in some way was caused to exist.

And caused by something unknowable.

Something that does not need a cause to exist.