God can’t exist out side of time !
Warning I’m not a native English speaker.
Warning I’m not a native English speaker.
http://downloads.khinsider.com/?u=281515 DDR and game sound track download
I almost forgot to say that Donald Page, one of America's eminent cosmologists, calculated the odds of the universe even existing, is 1 out of 10 billion to the 120th power.
Robert Jastrow, who you are probably familiar with, called this the most powerful argument for the existance of God ever to come out of science.
My signature is stupid like you know who.
I don't know if you are intentionally lying or just plain ignorant, but the Big Bang theory, which is universally held by most cosmologists today, states that the the Big Bang is the actual staring point of ALL matter and energy.
I am neither lying nor ignorant. As luck would have it I took physics alongside biology. The Big Bang describes a transition from enormous density and pressure from an initial low entropy state to a later higher entropy state. It does not describe creation. In no way whatsoever. At all. That was a myth made by apologists. At this point I suspect you were not lying when you suggested it was ex nihilo. You are simply ignorant. That you would accuse me of this is astonishing.
The Big Bang does not contradict the laws of either conservation or thermodynamics. It aligns with them. Your assertion regarding the Big Bang is absurd. If the BB did describe such things, it would lead to an internal contradiction which would lead to a paradigm shift within physics, much the same way that the contradiction between Newtonian Kinematics and Electromagnetism lead to Relativity. It hasn’t, because there is no contradiction!
Since this thread has now degenerated into me teaching you about something regarding which you don’t know what you are talking about, allow me to educate you about the Big Bang:
The Big Bang is derived from three primary sources:
-The Hubble Metric
-The Einstein Field Equations
-The Cosmic Background Radiation
The first is quite simple. The universe is expanding. That is to say the space-time is expanding, and so the matter within. This tumbles neatly out of the Lorentz transforms and the Einstein field equations. Einstein originally inserted an ad hoc constant which took this form:
Where G is the gravitational constant
Pvac is the density function in the vacuum (empty space) where R is the function of topology of the space-time metric, as is g,The universe is expanding. This means that all cosmological bodies are moving away from each other. As a result of this recessional velocity, the wavelengths as observed from other bodies from which the ones being measured are receding from will shift, and become greater. Hubble’s Law states that the amount of redshift is directly proportional to distance
At small distances, the acceleration of the universe is cancelled out by gravity (Newton’s inverse square law), which means that they will be moving towards each other. As a result, observers of these bodies should see blueshift, which is the opposite of redshift. Since the body is moving closer to the observer, the wavelength will compress, not expand. However, for the purpose of this exercise, this is immaterial, since we will not be looking at short distance cosmology.
Omega: That the universe is expanding depends on the density of the universe, and the two constants associated, Omega (Ω) and Lambda (λ). This is not to be confused with Lambda in physics, which represents wavelength. In cosmology it has another meaning. At any rate, Newton’s equations, which work perfectly until they disintegrate at the quantum level, dictate that all material bodies have a force of attraction between them which is precisely inversely proportional to the square of the distance between them and the size of the body in question. This is Newton’s Inverse Square Law. Since Einsten’s General Relativity, we have understood that this works because gravity is caused by the distorting effect of material on spacetime, However, surely this means that all material bodies should quickly rush towards each other and crush into a fiery pinprick? No. The reason for this is because the universe, as in space-time itself, is expanding. As we have discovered, the universe is expanding due to Dark matter. Now, this is where Omega comes into play. The density of matter in the universe will determine Omega. Since all material bodies attract, and the expansion of space time forces them apart, there is a fight between Dark Energy and matter, and the density of matter over the universe will determine its ultimate fate.
Now, if Omega is precisely zero, then the acceleration of the universe and the gravity of matter will be in precise equilibrium and thus the universe will expand at a precise constant rate. If Omega is smaller than one then the expansion of the universe will wind down, and if it is precisely one, the universe will simply wind down and stop expanding, and if Omega is greater than one, then the density of matter will be overpowering and the universe will accelerate and then crush back into a fiery pinprick, as the universe rushes backwards into a fiery pinprick by parabolic expansion and then contraction.
We have discovered by means of measuring the redshift of supernovae, that none of these things are happening. The universe is not constantly expanding, decelerating, or contracting. In fact, it is accelerating in expansion, which is given by the dotted line on the graph marked accelerating.
The Metric Expansion of Space: this is the most accurate and current model of the universe to date. The expansion of space-time overpowers gravity and hence accelerates in expansion. We can determine the rate at which space-time accelerates using Hubble’s constant. Then, by extrapolating backwards, we can determine the precise time at which the universe began to expand, in other words, if we have the value of acceleration of the universe, we can work backwards and determine the moment of expansion on that graph, when the distance between all material beings was negligible, in other words, we can work out when the Big Bang occurred.
Cosmological Redshift: There are many different types of redshift. There is the Relativistic Doppler Effect, where redshift is caused by the relative velocity of two bodies from each other (this is the effect of Special Relativity), there is gravitational redshift, caused by the distortion of space time by material bodies, but these do not matter at cosmological distances. What we need to look at is cosmological redshift, that is, the redshift caused by the expansion of space-time, this is the only form of redshift which has measurable consequences at cosmological distances.
When we examine distant galaxies, we discover they are moving away from us at a calculable rate. Based on the distance they are from us, the wavelength of light from them which we are observing also changes by a calculable amount. The recessional velocity (the speed at which other galaxies are moving away from us), the distance which galaxies are from us, the redshift, or change in wavelength as a result of this recession and distance, and lastly, the acceleration or the rate at which the velocity is increasing, are all linked by several simple equations, and from this we can easily determine the age of the universe, or rather, how long ago the point was that there was no distance between the two receding bodies, the moment of the Big Bang. Firstly,
This is the simplest equation we must understand. The recessional velocity (the speed at which a body is moving from Earth) is directly proportional to the distance it is from us. What connects them is Hubble’s constant, which is exactly what we need to find out.
Now, what I am doing is unusual. It is perfectly accurate to determine the age of the universe using redshift and Hubble’s constant. But most cosmologists prefer the Friedman-Lemaitaire-Walker Metric, derived from Freidmann’s equations. However, these are mathematically vastly more complex than the simple equations which we are about to use (and they in turn are derived from Einstein’ solutions to general relativity, which are also very complex).
Anyway, v=HD can be rearranged to find Hubble’s constant based on the recessional velocity and distance of an observed galaxy, where we have: H=(v/D).
Also, the recessional velocity with respect to time (ie the time between the intervals measured) can be given by differentiation: dD/dT.
Hubble’s constant, the acceleration of the universe, is given in km/s/Mpc, as is v.
The next principle we must understand is z, z is the change in wavelength as observed due to the recession of galaxies. It is defined as( λemitted x λobserved/λemitted). There are simple equations which link v, z, and H, but they only work for close galaxies. When the galaxies measured are too distant, any model which uses z for estimation of Hubble’s parameter must detail the precise change in z, D, and H due to the fact that the light has taken so long to get to Earth. But for close galaxies, these paramaters will not have changed much, so we can estimate v using v=zc, where c is the speed of light. We will not be doing this. For one, close galaxies blueshift due to gravity, which also, obviously, totally distorts any result we may glean by cosmological redshift.
This means that I have to use the scale factor of the LRMW metric in order to derive an accurate result. We can calculate the distance to galaxies using Cepheid variables. We can calculate their recessional velocity using the amount by which the light has shifted. The problem is that the measurements the Cepheids give us will not account for the present position of the galaxy since the light from the Cepheids set out to Earth many millions of years ago for distant galaxies. However, if Hubble’s Law holds, this does not matter, because the acceleration of the universe is expressed as a constant, and we should still be able to use this data to extrapolate back into the Big Bang.
Now, for cosmological redshift, the formula given is:
a is the universe scale factor. The physical distance between commoving objects is given by L=λa(t), which is rearranged to give a(t)= L/λ
This can be expressed via Hubble’s Law (distance proportional to redshift) using this formula:
H=a2(t)/a1(t), where t is the time derivative of the equation
We are beginning to see how the expansion of the universe, redshift, wavelength, the distance and recessional velocities of galaxies and the time taken for this to occur all tie together and all converge to give us the age of the universe. a or the scale factor is a simple ratio of wavelength emitted: wavelength received, which allows us to account for the change over large times. If the wavelength of light which we receive from a star is twice its original wavelength, that means that the universe in terms of space-time has doubled in size since that photon left the body which emitted it. This is because cosmological redshift is caused by the expansion of space-time itself, which stretches the wavelength of light being emitted over long distances.
We will be examining standard candles later, ie Cepheid variables, but the best way to determine the absolute magnitude of an object, the very best standard candles are Type Ia supernovae. It was using observations from these from the Chiandri telescope that we first realized the universe is accelerating. The output of light from a Type 1a is always the same, and so we can use it to determine absolute magnitude and distance, and by taking pictures over several days and weeks of massive type 1a supernovae, we realized first that the universe is accelerating.
Recall that redshift is just received λ /emitted λ. This ratio is called z. Multiplying z by light speed gives us distance, however this is not as accurate as the directly proportional relationship of distance given by Hubble’s constant.
Really, I ought to be calculating the age of the universe using the Friedmann equations, and the integration of H with the three Omega constants. I can do this, but it is ridiculously complex, and there is no need to put it in this paper. Once we have H, we can determine age as a function of acceleration of the universe, but we do not need to do that either, we can just extrapolate backwards once we have distance and acceleration, it is H that we are looking for
Hubble’s constant is hotly debated, but based on the present data, the COBE estimates place it around 71km/s/Mpc. Note that we determined this by observing Type 1a supernovae using exactly the simple formula I outlined after calculating the redshift:
v=HD, 1+z=(anow/athen), zc=Ho, and a(t)= L/λ, and H=a2(t)/a1(t). There are multiple ways, as we have seen, to express Hubble’s constant: As functions of velocity, distance, the FLRW metric, and z. As of 2007, all expressive functions of H are in concurrence. It is definitely between 50-90, and precisely where was hotly debated for some time. Now our equipment is very accurate and we have narrowed it down significantly and the best data indicates it is 71.
We need to find q, that is the parameter of acceleration, and in terms of Hubble’s constant, it is:
Now, we have known since 1998 that q is a negative value, and this value must be integrated (not figuratively, as in literally integrated mathematically by means of the ∫ operator), and extrapolate from when the commoving horizon was zero, the moment of the Big Bang.
It is useful to know the 71km/s/Mpc value because it allows us our extrapolation. It allows us to calculate useful values like the Hubble length and the Hubble time. The Hubble lengths is a good value to work with, and is simply the c/Hubble Time, where the Hubble Time is 1/H0. These are crude ways to measure the age of the universe, but are helpful if you want to demonstrate the age of the universe using a calculator and a pen and a data table as opposed to a satellite. If Hubble length is c/H(t), where H(t)=1/H, then H(l)=Htc, which is 300,000/71=approximately 4220 Mpc, since we are working in km/s/Mpc. 4220Mpc is converted into light years by the fact that 1 Megaparsec is 3,262,000 light years, from which we derive: 1.37x10^10 light years or 13.7 billion ly.
Hubble Time is also useful as a rough estimate of the universe's age. The Hubble Time is a useful function of the recessional velocity, where if v=HD, then 1/H=d/v. Since it is a reciprocal, we have to reverse all of the units, and so (converting 71km/s/Mpc to 20km/s/Mly makes it easier), we have to reverse everything, so we end up with 10^6 light years per megalight year, and 9.5x10^12 km per light year, which can be demonstrated like this:
1 Light Second= 300,000km, one light year=3x10^5 x 60 x 60x 24 x 365=9.5x10^12km
The reason we need to add the 10^6 is because the second reciprocal has been changed to km/ly as opposed to km/Mly. This just makes it a lot easier. And since the H constant is in seconds, we need to express the function in seconds. One year contains 3.15x10^7 seconds Now:
1/20x10^6x9.5x10^12x 1/3.15x10^7, which becomes roughly 1.45x10^10 years, or 14.5 billion years. As you can see, this is a crude method, but is good for quick calculation.
However, this function is only a rough estimate of the age of the universe, since H is not actually constant. However, this is not really any sort of concern regarding the scale of the length of time. A significantly lower H constant yields a higher value of 16 billion, while a much higher H constant of 90 (50-90 are generally considered as the lower and upper bounds on the constant), then we derive 9 billion.
The final thing to consider is that The Big Bang theory dictates that the universe expanded outwards from an immensely and uniformly hot and extremely dense point which expanded outwards in accordance with thermodynamics, this means that as the spatiotemporal fabric expanded, the universe and its matter cooled greatly, very quickly in fact. The average temperature in the universe is 2.7K, which is -270 C. Since the universe is homogenous, what we should see is an afterglow, a faint radiative microwave background that dates back to the Big Bang (recall what I said about light showing us the past), the fluctuations of which became everything we see around us.
The cosmic background radiation is the most distant and old thing that humans have ever observed. The universe was initially opaque but as it cooled and spread out, it became black roughly 380,000 years After The Big Bang. The microwave background, in other words, is a picture of what the entire universe looked like just moments after the original expansion, and a COBE photograph of it was taken by spectroscopes and microwave radiation probes by a device called the Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe.
None of these support the idea, in any way, shape, or form, that BB describes anything other than a phase transition. None whatsoever. Your ideas and understanding are completely flawed. All the Big Bang theory states is that the universe expanded outwards 13.7 billion years ago from a very dense, extremely low entropy prior state. Many theists miscontrue the Big Bang as ex nihilo, "out of nothing". It is not the case. There are certain models postulating pre-Big Bang occurances, the boundary condition in Hartele-Hawking, brane cosmology, etc. But the BB itself says nothing about the creation of the universe. It simply describes an expansion occurance 13.7 billion years ago from a prior state, and the model describes occurances from the Planck time onwards from this prior state, that we can describe events from the Planck Time until the end of BB nucleosynthesis.
The laws of General Relativity break down as you approach the prior entropy state, until Planck Time. According to BB theory, nothing can be known about the pre-Planck Time existence, all we know is that the universe expanded outwards from some prior very low entropy state when presumably the symmetry in the four disngaged forces were unified. There was no matter, it would have been too excited and broken down, due to Planck's Constant. This system was extremely unstable and collapsed into our present system. Remember, when one intuitively speak of "time" you are speaking of time as a progression. I am referring to the Lorentz Manifold, the causal structure. This applies to Minkowski and Non-Minkowski space. So, it is unhelpful to say that time "did not exist" before BB.
In this regard, it is necessary to consider time, being that we are describing, after all the expansion of space-time, not as a "river" that flows in one direction, but as invariant, as demonstrated in Physics.
According to the Lorentz Matrices, time, strictly speaking, is invariant, it has no direction and there is no reason it should. This is demonstrated by the light-cone experiments, which can be causal-chronological or chronological-causal. Time is not a thing unto itself, being relative to the observer, but absolute space-time is. The concept of time as we understand it is quite simple to begin with. In a 2D Euclidean manifold, with two vectors, the square of the displacement of a body will be equal to the squares of the sum of the vectors. This is Pythagoras' theorom: x^2+y^2=h^2. This can be extended to incorporate a Z axis: x^2+y^2+z^2=h^2.
Minkowski realized that if a 3D body displaced a 3D Euclidean manifold, than (and this fit perfectly into the contradiction Einstein found between Maxwell's equations and the Galilean Transformations), time could be included as being displaced as well, along a 4D manifold called Minkowski space. In this scenario, time simply becomes another unit of measurment, the same of length, width and breadth, which can be displaced. THe equation derived for this simply follows the same rule of transformation: x^2+y^2+z^2+(ict)^2=h^2. This works tidily since c is constant in all frames of reference, although it needs some righting since it is unhelpful to vector something to an imaginary number, i which is formally r(-1), and since squared, becomes: x&2+y^2+z^2-(ct)^2=h^2. In this scenario, time has no direction, although it still has causality (since it is a part of a topological structure instead of an abstraction), that causality, described by the causal manifold, an extensive topic in Relativity, can go, as the experiment demonstrated, both ways. Nonetheless, it is gibberish to speak of causality without the manifold (no values can be inserted into the equations).
The gist is that all the BB says is that the universe expanded from a symmetrical low entropy state which may have been a false vacuum which inflated, via which the force disengagement could have been created and matter could form since it is no longer too excited below Planck temperature. According to this formula: Tp=mpc^2/k=r(hr)c^5/Gk^2, matter breaks down at the Planck Temperature, 10^32K. It is nonsense to speak of matter being "hotter" since temperature is a measure of particle kinetics. In the low-entropy state, there wasn't any matter, it becomes interchangeable with energy. This is described by the mass-energy equivalence, or E=mc^2. As for the energy in question which formed matter by this equation, that was most certainly not generated in the process. It was a necessary antecedant for the phase transition called the Big Bang. The phase transition itself, or BB, is the result of the decay that is dictated by that the original state was of lower entropy than at present. Although we are unsure precisely how the original state collapsed, there are at least 100 competing proposals, and time will tell which is correct.
A symmetry in physics equations is generated by the ability to interchange expressions in an equation. Thanks to Weinberg and Salam, we can interchange all three leptons in an electric field, which gives it SU(3) symmetry. The ruling of the universe is dictated by SU(3) x SU(2) x U(1) symmetry, regarding the simplest particles that make up the universe. In the singularity during the Planck era of the universe (10^-43 seconds), the collapse of the false vacuum led to the breaking of the symmetry from SU(5) to what we see today. Symmetry breaking is not properly understood, and very difficult to solve. Gravity was the first force to disengage, giving a SU(4) x U(1) symmetry. The breaking off of the other three, including electromagnetism, generated the asymmetry we see today, which explains why the electron has a negative charge (the electromagnetic force). There was no charge in the symmetry. None at all. Being that the universe iwas orignally in a state of symmetry, there is no charge in the entire universe. The electromagnetic force works both ways, it attracts and it repels (unlike gravity, which is purely attractive). It's attraction/repulsion is very, very precisely balanced, to the tune of 10^-32 electron volts difference, which is probably experimental error. This is good because the electromagnetic force is tremendously powerful, almost 1000000000000000000000000000000000000000 times more powerful than gravity (this explains why you can cancel the entire gravity of the Earth by picking up bits of paper with the static electricty of your comb). And that means that if the electromagnetic force was any less balanced, you would be ripped to shreds instantly.
Did you get all that? You better have because I am not to repeat it. Your ideas of BB are wrong. You are simply ignorant and decided to engage in a debate despite your ignorance. Your entire argument is therefore ignorant since your premise is false. You are wrong. Plain and simple. You have applied a common misconception about Cosmology. You should debate that which you have not studied beyond popular science. It will simply make you look embarassing.
So, you see? I do know about Big Bang. I know not merely about it, but also how it was derived. I do not think you are in a position to call anyone else ignorant given that your own education in these matters could not possibly extend beyond high school. If it did, you wouldn't be making these arguments!
For further review of common Cosmological Misconceptions:
Given your misunderstanding, you've all but certainly erred by referencing Christian apologetics websites, which generally speaking, are not versed in Big Bang cosmology, and therefore should not be taken seriously. The misunderstanding that BB describes ex nihilo creation which violates the most fundamental laws of physics is surely the greatest error ever propogated in popular science, perhaps superseded only by the idiotic claim that DNA is a language.
. Conservation only applies within, not without, the universe. And it is more absurd to postulate an hypothesis which tells us absolutely everything came from absolutely nothing.
And the BB does not describe ex nihilo for the fifth time in a row that I have mentioned this. You are attacking a strawman argument. Nothing, absolutely nothing whatsoever in modern physics supports ex nihilo, be that ex nihilo creation by God or anything else. Your entire argument is constructed around a false premise. You are simply ignorant of BB theory.
And absolutely everything you said in your next set of responses to my response indicated that ignorance.
The BB is by definition the starting point of all things.
This is false.
The BB itself supports ex nihilo
This is completely false. Nothing whatsoever in physics supports ex nihilo. The very idea of ex nihilo is complete gibberish! In fact, the concept of "created" from a standpoint in physics is meaningless. You obviously have highly misguided views about the Big Bang. The Big Bang does not describe the creation of the universe from nothing! Please repeat this until it sticks. It is a common misconception that simply shows ignorance of highest order.
The only problem with that is that there is no physical evidence of multi-universes,
I did not say there was. I was suggesting your understanding of Multiverse was false. I was not discussing whether the theory was true, I was saying the way you understood it was incorrect.
No, only a finite cause would require time.
(a) An assertion
(b) Does not address the argument. It has absolutely nothing to do with the issue. Cause requires time a priori ergo a causal agent requires time. To say otherwise undermines your own premise.
(c) Ad hoc
That is the unsupported hypothesis I spoke of earlier.
Actually, it follows directly from the premise:
A requires B
Therefore if ~B, then ~A
I didn't say anything about Decartes.
No, but I brought him up to emphasize my point. A point it would be nice if you would address.
The fact that only mind and abstract concepts can exist outside time-space, is the universal consensus of metaphysicians.
That is an utterly absurd assertion and does not address my arguments. Please stop making ad vericandum and address the argument.
nd your claim that mental events depend on a causal structure ,is not proven.
It is true by virtue of its meaning. Our thinking minds entail temporal sequentiality, as demonstrated by the fact that you are indeed thinking under such sequential process! Furthermore, it has been irrevocably demonstrated that mental events have physical antecedant and consequence, which would undercut your proposition, because it entails they have causal efficiacy, which means they cannot exist outside temporal structure.
It's always funny to me when evolutionary atheists who suffer from undeveloped brains which are allegedly still evolving, make objective and universal value judgements. How can a still-evolving brain, with still evolving logic, know anything with certainty?
This claim is utterly absurd
(A) Evolution has no eschatology. Your wording, such as "still evolving" would imply it does. It does not work towards goal nor does it mean anything to speak of "underevolved" or "still evolving".
(B) In this regard, the concept of "undeveloped" and "underevolved" are meaningless and incoherent nonsense. You obviously know nothing about evolution and for prudence, you should resign from the other thread immediately because of your irrevocable demonstration that you have absolutely no knowledge of evolution. You are trying to suggest Orthanogenesis in order to propogate a meaningless proposition.
Given this, that you have made a confusin regarding evolutionary biology that is virtually unforgivable ignorance, and an equally massive error on Cosmology, I suggest you cease and desist from both threads immediately, lest you continue to expose beliefs that you hold because you have never consulted a biology textbook or a physics journal.
It hasn't gone anywhere. You are not a philosopher so I wouldn't expect you to be abreast in these areas.
No, but I earned my Masters in it after doing physics. Isn't it fun to be trained in so many fields? Listen very carefully. I will not touch arguments about which I am ill-informed, such as ancient history or the Bible. But trust me, if you think you can get away with an appeal to credentials, or authority, or whether or not I have them, then this debate would already be over. If our discussion was decided by who of us two was more qualified in these areas of discourse, you would be completely sunk. Even more so than you already are.
The concept of third realm was originally propogated but has largely been superseded by the abstraction proposition:
Abstract propositions are formed by functional expression of physical quality, such that they are distinctive from them only in the sense that, for example if f(x)=f(y) then x R y where R is equivalence.
For an abstract like numbers, this can be represented such:
If n X= n Y there are as many X as Y
Which means for any abstract expression, for any quality f of x, or f(x), a corresponding quality Kf of y is expressed as:
x= Kf only if some y have f(x)
This is particularly important for the existence of abstracts, since it has a corollary:
X(set)=Y(set) iff all x, x has X iff x has Y
So, for example, for the abstract concept of a "number" of carriages in a train, considering x and y to be carriages
The train of x=The train of y iff x and y are connected
In all these cases, abstracts simply denote the sets, in which case, abstract things do not "exist". This is a substantial thesis, of course, but it is more popular than Third Realm used to be, considering that it is not incoherent. Under this, the distinction between abstracta and concreta would be defined differently. Without the existence of concreta, nor could there exist abstracta, which I find more useful, since it can be described in a logical fashion, unlike the propogation of third realm, which is ad hoc and confusing at best.
I'm not suggesting the problem is solved, but it is a better solution. The principle problem with third realm is that it does not appear to address the issue at hand.
For further review:
The BB does not have to descibe anything for us to know it had a cause.
Indeed. The Big Bang involved a transfer from low to high entropy. This is a very simple derivation.
Could you please address my arguments?
Something cannot come from nothing.
Indeed. The BB does not suggest it does. Au contraire, theism makes ex nihilo claims, it is no more meaningful to speak of God "creating" matter and energy ex nihilo than it is to speak of spontaneous generation of maggots from meat!
Intelligence cannot come from non-intelligence.
This is simply an assertion.
Mind cannot come from non-mind
Actually, that is not what I was saying. I was saying that thoughts, mental events, and such, depended on causal structure, temporal sequentiality, and so the idea of the god-mind existing external to this is nonsense. However, your affirmation stands in contradiction to your prior response:
The fact that only mind and abstract concepts can exist outside time-space, is the universal consensus of metaphysicians.
Because the concept of entity entails ontological discretion, like that it would be meaningless to speak of an infinitely large orange. The concept of an actual infinity has never been established as meaningless, and is certainly meaningless when mix-matched with the concept of a discrete agent.
What is your proof an entity cannot be infinite?
because then by virtue of the meaning of the word infinite, it would not be a single, coherently defined being or entity! Infinity is infinity. To speak of a being such that it is distinct, ontologically from other existing things, such as the physical universe, implies that it is not infinite, that is to say that it has discrete existence. To speak of God being infinite could only produce one logical corollary: Pantheism of the Spinozan variety.
ou are not being scientific here
Considering this is a philosophical dicussion...I do not see how this is a particularly harmful charge.
od is the causal structure.
Nonsense. You just told me that God created the space-time manifold. Now you tell me he is of it. Make up your mind. How can a being create that which constitutes it?
Yes, mental events are causal. and God is the antecendent pre-causal agent of all mental events. He is the very precondition of all minds.
This is self-refuting. If mental events are causal, then an agent with a mind must have some sort of causal structure. This would contradict your earlier point that God was immutable and unchanging.
Only finite causes require time.
Why? What is the link between finitude and temporality? Furthermore, in what sense is the concept of actual infinity coherent?
You need to take a good course in introductory logic and philosphy.
I've done both. I'd wager that I've invested in both more than you have.
Mind and/or thoughts do not require temporality
Really? But three times in this thread you've affirmed that mental events have cause and consequence?
Second, this would sink your proposition in a second, because it would entail that mental events are causally ineffacious, which means that God could not cause anything, being that it is described as willing the universe into being.
The concept of multi-universes is more meaningless.
I beg to differ. The concept of Multiverse is not proven, but it is meaningful. All it suggests is that many discrete space-time structures, universes, are connected by white holes. This may or may not be true, but it is possible to grasp. The concept of actual infinity, on the other hand, is not.
You have no proof am entity cannot be infinite.
As I told you before, this is a priori true
(A) The concept of entity denotes ontological discretion.
(B) Given this, we can say that this entity has a defined existence. So, for example, my computer is a seperate existence from my body.
(C) If an entity were infinite, it could not be a discrete entity, for such considerations would imply limitations on its being, and then, if that were the case, it would be meaningless to speak of it being outside certain other things. The only logical consequence of the concept of "infinite God" is Pantheism. The concept of an infinite GOd being a creator God is not tenable.
You continue to attack Multiverse theory. I never said I believed n it. I was attacking your faulty understanding of it.
I would only have no meaning if it were't true. If it is true, then it means everything.
This does not address the argument. Actually, it is so phenomenally weak it may suggest you can't address the argument. Since you missed it, here it is again:
A Catch-22 is easily derived from the argument at hand:
This is basic logic notation. Preconditions A and B are both necessary for outcome C, but if A, then B cannot occur, and conversely, if B, then A cannot occur, hence, C can never occur.A: Cause requires time (which there cannot be an infinite regress of)
B: The universe (of which time is a physical component) was caused
C: The Universe was caused by an entity outside of time
The a posteriori observation for the argument comes from the necessity of time for cause, such that infinite regress is impossible, the other postulation is that the universe was caused under the proposition that all things need a cause. This is a Catch-22.
If causality requires time, then it is impossible that time was caused. If time was caused, then it we cannot speak of causality requiring time, therefore the Universe being caused by something outside of time cannot occur, because A cannot occur if B and nor can B occur if A. C (the outcome) cannot occur since it necessarily postulates that there cannot be an infinite regress of cause because cause requires time, without that proposition we could not speak of the necessity of the God being, because these are the grounds on which the Cosmological Argument is being propagated! We cannot reference regress without referencing time, ergo, we cannot reference regress of cause without referencing regress of time. Yet postulation B specifically states that it is necessary to postulate the Prime Mover on grounds that the universe of which time is a component was…caused. If this proposition were not true, the Primum Movens would not be a sensible proposition. But it cannot occur if A occurs, since A postulates the opposite and A cannot occur if it occurs, but both of these postulations are necessary for C (the outcome), being the universe being caused by an entity outside of time.
The paradox here is “cause of cause”. Cause, per se, requires time as a substrate (the idea of the “cause of time” is insurmountable, like “north of the north pole”. When we speak of cause we are speaking of a correlation between two events A and B where there is temporal sequence between such events that A may “cause” B. Hence, what precisely does it mean to say that an entity outside of time could be the cause of such an event as what is essentially the beginning of cause itself? Surely, we have set up a greatly insurmountable paradox. We cannot reference causality without referring to time, and hence the notion of an atemporal being as the cause of cause is inherently absurd. An atemporal being, by definition, cannot cause anything or indeed execute any action since both notions necessarily refer to the substrate of time in which they may occur. Furthermore, the notion is essentially appealing to “cause of cause” which is inherently absurd. How do we intend to reference causality by the invocation of an atemporal entity?’
Why do you assume it has to require meaning to be true?
So, you are admitting the concept is meaningless? But if it were meaningless, how would it be coherent to speak of it as true?
Regarding your assertion of the “outside time” nature of the mind, this is simply nonsense. After all, two entire disciplines of human thought have established that mental events are causally effacious. If they are causally effacious, they cannot be atemporal by virtue of the meaning of causally effacious, nor can an atemporal entity act as a causal agent.Another way to consider the causal structure is to consider how we normally experience the causal structures. Presuming the existence of other first-person ontologies, then a normal pattern of causal interaction in, say, a conversation can entail in S1 (subject 1) and S2 (subject 2), the following pattern of interaction;
Stimulus => S1 (physical
Brain (S1) => (physical causality) neuronal network response and processing of stimulus
Mental causality (S1) => Thought process
Mental causality (S1) => Thought process entails referencing to neuronal networks
Physical causality (S1)=> Entails the activation of other neuronal networks via this causal relationship
Physical causality (outward exuding) (S1) => Communication
Stimulus => S2 (physical)
Now, obviously, applying this particular model to the entire mental causal process is called analytical functionalism. And I do not think that analytical functionalism is MSF is a sufficient account of the mind, for one, it is not only true that exterior stimulus can induce mental causality (or that physical states being induced by such), because mental causality can in turn cause other mental processes, or rather, physical processes underlying those mental process such that there is an action-reaction between neuronal networks and thoughts, emotions (and the associated neurotransmitter), sense data (physical stimuli causality). But the problem is that in the ridiculous model being discussed, there is no relationship between experience and physical causality and hence the physical processing of the world, and the conscious awareness does not entail any active causality between the neuronal networks and the conscious experience, because “consciousness” does not proceed from the local object upon which the experience is acting (the brain). That being the case, being that there is no computational relationship between experience and physical causality, but this is gibberish because the being the case, we wouldn’t be experiencing anything. Regardless of whether or not analytical functionalism is a sufficient account of the mind, to some degree, mental states are defined by their functional states relative to physical states and other mental states (it is also possible to argue that the idea of a single "mental state" is not coherent). However, I have never accepted functionalism always remaining a staunch type physicalists ((mental events are defined by their physical correlates). For reasons of the fact that mental states can be realized in non-human brains and also non-human experiences, I rejected strong type physicalism in favor of token identity physicalism, which accounts for what I described above, called Multiple realizibility. At any rate, the thing to take away is that the "mental events without causal effeciacy" nonsense (a) has no model of interaction and (b) does not account for qualia, the subjective nature of consciousness localized to the physical occupance of the thing expereincing the first person ontology, ie the feel of the pain when one burns their finger. It is not coherently established how such a proposition, entailing a seperate metaphysical postulation, would accout for this given that this would entail that consciousness is a "thing" which exists indepedently of the experiencing first person ontology and its extended body.
To consider my own position further, I am a specific subset of identity type theorists called an anomolous monoist.
So, to me, although there is no bridge of reductionist subsets, mental states still have their necessary antecedants in neuronal networks, and constellations of such give rise to neuronal networks. I settled on this particular model several years ago, after realizing that (a) Epiphenominalism was nonsense because it has causal dead ends on mental events and (b) Machine state functionalism could not account for the person understanding the Chinese language as opposed to Searle's Chinese Room machine, and I did not want to bite the bullet of functionalism by admitting that Ned Block's Chinese Nation-Mind state entity could be a functioning mind. Emergentism appealed to me because Token types entail multiple realizability, as shown:
What all this entails is what is called supervenience, which I have defended before, which is propositionally simple: Systems, be they emergent or reductionist, cannot entail changes in higher level properties without constituent changes. It is a constitutional relationship which entails that certain properties have necessary antecedants, and supervenience was what I used in principle to Attack the existence of God. In simple terms, the existence of God entails certain properties which have supervenience to lower properties, and these lower properties have been amputated from the theistic description of God. The nature of the mental, both a priori and discovered a posteriori , such as by neuroscience, entails, something which virtually every philosopher (or indeed, everyone else) would accept, that mental events supervene the physical, ie mental events have properties which entail physical antecedance, which I have already mentioned. This is very problematic for the existence of God, which entails a disembodied mind, something which I have firmly established before is not possible. Note that while certain propositions entail synthetic knowledge, gained by neuroscience about how mental and physical events interact, necessary a priori truths can also entail that this is problematic, ie that consciousness is entailed by expereince of something, or that physical events antecede mental. In property terms, certain properties do antecede each other. It is possible for an object with extended body to be a color other than blue, but is not possible for a blue object to exist without extended body. In this regard, mental events by virtue of the meaning of the term, require temporality because they are causally effacious. This proposition is overwhelmingly accepted in the community of Philosophy of Mind and neuroscience, in fact both entire disciplines rely on such an idea. To say anything else is simply untenable.
"Physical reality” isn’t some arbitrary demarcation. It is defined in terms of what we can systematically investigate, directly or not, by means of our senses. It is preposterous to assert that the process of systematic scientific reasoning arbitrarily excludes “non-physical explanations” because the very notion of “non-physical explanation” is contradictory.