What came first?

[untermensche]

When did no beginning start?

There is no such thing. The concept makes absolutely no sense.

Logically, if there beginning is possible then no beginning is logically possible. He said mixing threads. Perhaps to confuse. Perhaps to make a point of logic.

"No beginning" is not a logical category.

It is merely the negation of a logical category, to begin.

There is nothing, no idea, no evidence, no argument that could ever lead one to the conclusion of "no beginning".

To postulate it as an answer to something is absurdity and worthless.

 

[4321lynx]

When did no beginning start?

There is no such thing. The concept makes absolutely no sense.

Logically, if there beginning is possible then no beginning is logically possible. He said mixing threads. Perhaps to confuse. Perhaps to make a point of logic.

Perhaps to show the limits of logic.

 

[Elixir]

Since all that can be observed in some way had a beginning...

Because you SAY SO? Sorry... that's called assuming your conclusion. Not good enough. Your "beginnings" examples are arbitrary cutoffs from prior states, not actually divorced from them.

Logic says so.

To reach any moment in time requires that a finite amount of time passes first.

Your name isn't Logic.
Maybe the state within which time "passes" is only a subjective one that exists between the ears of organisms with a bent to imagining it.Take yourself outside that box, unter. Look at it from a vantage where everything in our four dimensions happens at once. No "beginning" that you can imagine occurs outside that bubble of simultaneity, and the conditions that gave rise to the bubble exist nonetheless.
There is no example of any event* that isn't "preceded" by a causative "prior" state, even if our horizons obscure it from our view (ie not within the vectored timeline of our perceptions).

* Unless you can provide such example.

 

[Kharakov]

Dude, whatever. We are caused. The things that cause us to be what we are are either caused or uncaused. That which is uncaused has been around forever, although it reacts to that which it has caused, so is 2ndarily caused.

Wow... 2ndarily doesn't spell check.

Everything you can point to was caused.

The idea of existing without a cause is childish nonsense.

Not an answer to anything.

OK Che, keep fighting against logic, your cause is just... what?

 

[Kharakov]

Logically, if there beginning is possible then no beginning is logically possible. He said mixing threads. Perhaps to confuse. Perhaps to make a point of logic.

Perhaps to show the limits of logic.

Or to show that the illogical has know limits.

 

[untermensche]

OK Che, keep fighting against logic, your cause is just... what the fuck is it?

When arguments become as worthless as this I know people have none.

There is no logic or evidence or argument that can show this imaginary invention "no beginning" is more than a negation of something real.

 

[untermensche]

Logic says so.

To reach any moment in time requires that a finite amount of time passes first.

Your name isn't Logic.

How do you know?

Maybe the state within which time "passes" is only a subjective one that exists between the ears of organisms with a bent to imagining it.

Absurd.

All is in constant change. We can objectively determine this through measurement. We do not have to rely on subjective experience alone.

Without time there can be no change. Time is the dimension, the freedom, that allows 3-D objects to change.

 

[Kharakov]

OK Che, keep fighting against logic, your cause is just... what the fuck is it?

When arguments become as worthless as this I know people have none.

There is no logic or evidence or argument that can show this imaginary invention "no beginning" is more than a negation of something real.

When did you not begin to be logical?

 

[Elixir]

How do you know?

Maybe the state within which time "passes" is only a subjective one that exists between the ears of organisms with a bent to imagining it.

Absurd.

All is in constant change. We can objectively determine this through measurement. We do not have to rely on subjective experience alone.

Without time there can be no change. Time is the dimension, the freedom, that allows 3-D objects to change.

That's why I referred to our 4-dimensional "reality". But you are free to keep taking it as a flatlander is supposed to do...

 

[untermensche]

How do you know?

Maybe the state within which time "passes" is only a subjective one that exists between the ears of organisms with a bent to imagining it.

Absurd.

All is in constant change. We can objectively determine this through measurement. We do not have to rely on subjective experience alone.

Without time there can be no change. Time is the dimension, the freedom, that allows 3-D objects to change.

That's why I referred to our 4-dimensional "reality". But you are free to keep taking it as a flatlander is supposed to do...

In this 4-dimensional reality can things happen without a cause?

Can it be proven that anything has happened without a cause?

 

[untermensche]

OK Che, keep fighting against logic, your cause is just... what the fuck is it?

When arguments become as worthless as this I know people have none.

There is no logic or evidence or argument that can show this imaginary invention "no beginning" is more than a negation of something real.

When did you not begin to be logical?

I began to be logical when I understood the difference between logical categories and things that have no evidence or argument to support them.

All things that can be observed in some way have a beginning.

To say something like what can be observed in some way can exist without a beginning lacks any evidence to support it. It defies all known evidence.

And there is no logic to make it a possibility.

It is nothing but an empty empty religious claim.

 

[Elixir]

That's why I referred to our 4-dimensional "reality". But you are free to keep taking it as a flatlander is supposed to do...

In this 4-dimensional reality can things happen without a cause?

Can it be proven that anything has happened without a cause?

No and no. Unless you have some groundbreaking discovery to share with us...

 

[untermensche]

That's why I referred to our 4-dimensional "reality". But you are free to keep taking it as a flatlander is supposed to do...

In this 4-dimensional reality can things happen without a cause?

Can it be proven that anything has happened without a cause?

No and no. Unless you have some groundbreaking discovery to share with us...

Then to say it all can exist without a cause is an absurdity.

 

[Elixir]

No and no. Unless you have some groundbreaking discovery to share with us...

Then to say it all can exist without a cause is an absurdity.

Only if you remain in flatland.
A two-dimensional being like yourself, confined to the surface of an infinitely thin sheet of paper, cannot conceive of the causality of the stroke of a pen that exists in three dimensions, and so you describe the resulting line as having an un-caused "beginning" - which it does, from your flawed perspective.

 

[untermensche]

No and no. Unless you have some groundbreaking discovery to share with us...

Then to say it all can exist without a cause is an absurdity.

Only if you remain in flatland.
A two-dimensional being like yourself, confined to the surface of an infinitely thin sheet of paper, cannot conceive of the causality of the stroke of a pen that exists in three dimensions, and so you describe the resulting line as having an un-caused "beginning" - which it does, from your flawed perspective.

You can't invoke something that has no evidence to support it, some dimension beyond the dimensions we experience, as evidence of another thing with no evidence to support it, something that has no beginning.

How do you know what it would be like if you could enter some other dimension?

How do you know that all things there would not need a beginning too?

3-Dimensions allows an object to have shape and size. These do not disappear when the dimension of time is added.

Why would the dimension of time disappear if some other dimension is added?

 

[Elixir]

Only if you remain in flatland.
A two-dimensional being like yourself, confined to the surface of an infinitely thin sheet of paper, cannot conceive of the causality of the stroke of a pen that exists in three dimensions, and so you describe the resulting line as having an un-caused "beginning" - which it does, from your flawed perspective.

You can't invoke something that has no evidence to support it, some dimension beyond the dimensions we experience, as evidence of another thing with no evidence to support it, something that has no beginning.

How do you know what it would be like if you could enter some other dimension?

How do you know that all things there would not need a beginning too?

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.

 

[bilby]

There's no particular reason why there cannot be discontinuities in four dimensional structures, analogous to those found in three dimensional structures; Such things could manifest as a complete suspension of causality; but it seems unlikely that a single continuous intelligent agent could exist on both sides of such a discontinuity, much less be aware of it.

So it wouldn't be anybody's fault.

 

[4321lynx]

Logically, if there beginning is possible then no beginning is logically possible. He said mixing threads. Perhaps to confuse. Perhaps to make a point of logic.

Perhaps to show the limits of logic.

Or to show that the illogical has know limits.

Known limits? No limits?

Logic becomes semantics as here? {Not without a cause } The cause is the human brain and its product: the human mind. Both have limits.

 

[untermensche]

Only if you remain in flatland.
A two-dimensional being like yourself, confined to the surface of an infinitely thin sheet of paper, cannot conceive of the causality of the stroke of a pen that exists in three dimensions, and so you describe the resulting line as having an un-caused "beginning" - which it does, from your flawed perspective.

You can't invoke something that has no evidence to support it, some dimension beyond the dimensions we experience, as evidence of another thing with no evidence to support it, something that has no beginning.

How do you know what it would be like if you could enter some other dimension?

How do you know that all things there would not need a beginning too?

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.

Mathematics is used to approximate behavior within models. It is used to abstract reality. If the approximations are close enough on the human scale useful things can be done with them.

But the universe is not run by following mathematical formulas.

Mathematics is used to approximate reality. It is not real however. Mathematics is something humans invented and it has no real existence beyond the human mind.

So saying something can be done within mathematics has no bearing on the real world.

 

[Elixir]

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.