142 replies to this topic

[Belial]

Jebreil, on 25 July 2012 - 07:37 PM, said:

If you think reason is illogical, then I will leave that to you too.

------------------

You do not infer that you had a shower from the fact that you are wet (it's a fallacy). You infer it from your observation.

I am wet -- therefore I had a shower

This would be terrible reasoning. You could be wet for other reasons. The second does not logically follow from the first.
Correct reasoning would be:

I witnessed myself having a shower -- therefore I had a shower.

Therefore, you cannot infer the past from the present. At the best you can infer it from knowledge stored in reliable memory.

Your formulation, "x is inferred from W, which has already been inferred" would be pure assumption at some point in the Past when memory is no longer capable of recalling events, say 1,000,000,000 years ago!!
From an assumption, it cannot prove anything. This was my argument several posts back, which I think you had difficulty accepting.

----------------------

I'm a little tired of the discussion, and I think it has been fruitful. I am not trying to impose these conclusions on the one hand and I don't like ignoring objections on the other. So, if we could wrap it up, it would be wonderful.

Ok, well lets say I inferred that I was wet from my observation that I had a shower.

And you said

"At the best you can infer it from knowledge stored in reliable memory."

Thats fine with me.  I think its perfectly fine to rely on memory for many things in life.  For example, I can rely on my memory to assist me with finding my socks in the morning that I put on before going to work.

Its fair.

And yes, It is true that memory, nor any sort of observation could serve us for events a bagillion years ago in some unknown place.  However, the fact that we can infer things here and now.  Do you believe that this can only be done in a non infinite regression?

Heres what I am thinking.  Logically, you can have an infinitely existing...everythingness or not.  If you can observe events, you can infer truth in them.  What happens a bagillion years in the future or the past, does not change what is here and now.

I really want to conclude this with something, but if we really must, I can let it go.  Its just, this topic always comes up.  Can there be an infinite universe?  And we always hear people say...oh, you cant have an event occur because an infinite number of events would need to occur before it.  Or you hear some sort of spinoff statement.

But, I dont think that matters.

And to tell you the truth, im really indifferent on the topic, I just want to know, why my idea (that we can infer things and even exist and take action within an infinite regress of events) cannot be.  Even if events did occur indefinitely, that shouldnt mean that no event could ever occur within that infinite span. Nor should it mean that I couldnt ever infer anything at any time.

If you completely disagree, thats fine, but if you could offer some insight, I would appreciate it.  Otherwise, we can drop it.

[Belial]

Jebreil, on 25 July 2012 - 08:35 PM, said:

An Infinite regress holds that, in reality, everything is dependent on something prior to it. So reality would look like this:

... then a, if a then b, if b then c, ... if w then x, if x then y, if y then z

Logically, one cannot derive "that" purely from "if this then that". Similarly, one cannot derive "z" from the infinite chain of "if (letter) then (another letter)."

Finite regress holds that there is a beginning to the series:

If G then H, if H then I, ... if X then Y, if Y then Z
G exists

Logically, one can derive "that" from "if this then that" and "this exists". Similarly, one can derive "Z" from the chain above.

And what if, we were in an infinite sequence of events.  And I showered and was wet.  And from my memory, observation, experience of wetness etc, I derived the fact that I had showered.  Thereby deriving events.

Logically, I wouldnt be deriving events that were un derivable. I wouldnt be deriving Letter Q or Letter A, I would be deriving letters in between. Also, would only be deriving letters that I was capable of accurately deriving.

Do you believe this is impossible?

Edited by Belial, 25 July 2012 - 08:49 PM.

[Belial]

Jebreil, on 26 July 2012 - 06:06 AM, said:

You could assume an infinite sequence and derive what you wish to derive and you could assume a finite sequence and derive what you wish to derive. So, I think you could, but this would prove what you wish to derive and it would not prove either of the two opinions.

Ah ok.  Thank you.  I feel better now that I am not alone with that understanding.

Jebreil, on 26 July 2012 - 06:06 AM, said:

What cannot be done is prove an infinite sequence from memory or science:

I wouldnt know.  However, If I had to guess, id believe it were more likely that we'd run into an uncaused cause.  But im not really in any position to scientifically support that claim.

Jebreil, on 26 July 2012 - 06:06 AM, said:

As a scientist, you would agree that to set a time for events in the past, you would need evidence that only such amount of time and not more or less is necessary for whatever it is you are studying. (For example, when dinosaurs went extinct, when such such rocks were formed, etc.)
So science - which applies logic to things we have witnessed (and which we remember) - does derive things in between, often based on strong estimates or even solid reason. (The variation is between less rigorous sciences and more rigorous sciences).
By setting a time for an event, one always set a finite time - however large - for any event.

Therefore witnessing or science would never discuss an infinite timeline.

If an infinite number of events could be recognized to exist, it would be.  But of course nobody really knows the origins of the universe so its hard to say.  However, some scientists do discuss infinite timelines, or infinitely existing universes.  But its never scientific, just people babbling and tossing around ideas.

Jebreil, on 26 July 2012 - 06:06 AM, said:

The question of "infinite" or "finite" can only be considered by looking at what the concepts themselves entail, which would reject the former and establish the latter, as presented in the previous post.

/me nom noms on some cake O_O

[Quisant]

Belial, on 26 July 2012 - 06:47 PM, said:

If an infinite number of events could be recognized to exist, it would be.  But of course nobody really knows the origins of the universe so its hard to say.  However, some scientists do discuss infinite timelines, or infinitely existing universes.  But its never scientific, just people babbling and tossing around ideas.

I agree with that.


Causality is a product of time because you need an arrow of time to have a progression of events that you can even connect together causally.

Time is an emergent property of reality. Before there was time, the question of cause and effect becomes irrelevant.

Everything else is groundless speculation.

All the best.
*

[Lanatin]

Matter is not conscious. It can't bring itself into existence eternally by an infinite chain of material causes. It did not spring out of nothing, nor did it eternally create itself.

Ramadan Kareem.

Wassalam.

Edited by La'nat Ma Man, 27 July 2012 - 08:47 AM.

[Quisant]

If we suppose that 'nothing comes from nothing' is true...
then for God, or 'the unmoved mover' to move something, there must actually be something to move.

Because 'nothing' cannot move or be moved.
That means either the 'something' that is moved is eternal, or the 'something' is created.

But since nothing comes from nothing, it is impossible to create something from nothing, so something has to be created from something.

Under classic theism (and also in Aquinas' view) the only 'something' that is uncreated is God Himself.

Which means that, in order to create some other 'something', He has to create this something out of Himself.

Which is it in your opinion?  Look forward to your thoughts.

Wslm.
*

[Quisant]

Jebreil, on 27 July 2012 - 11:31 AM, said:

Says who? Ah, yes, you.

Time is part of this Universe, the Universe is not part of Time.

As far as anybody knows, the flow of time might have reversed periodically without needing a beginning or end. All bets are off.

Quote

Tell me about it.

I just did.

Wslm.
*

[Quisant]

Jebreil, on 27 July 2012 - 11:49 AM, said:

I redirect you to what Belial said:

some scientists do discuss infinite timelines, or infinitely existing universes. But its never scientific, just people babbling and tossing around ideas.

I am not a scientist, Belial was talking to you.

I said 'as far as anybody knows' to mean that nobody knows...not you, not I not anybody else.

Time is part of this Universe, the Universe is not part of Time.

That is all we know, do you agree or disagree?
If not why not?

*

[Quisant]

Jebreil, on 27 July 2012 - 12:11 PM, said:

I don't think Time is an entity.

I didn't say time is an entity, I said 'Time is part of this Universe, the Universe is not part of Time.'
*

[Belial]

Quisant, on 27 July 2012 - 12:00 PM, said:

I am not a scientist, Belial was talking to you.

I said 'as far as anybody knows' to mean that nobody knows...not you, not I not anybody else.

Time is part of this Universe, the Universe is not part of Time.

That is all we know, do you agree or disagree?
If not why not?

*

Time itself does not exist.  So what is it that everyone is even talking about? I think we should hold this discussion without even using the word.

Edited by Belial, 27 July 2012 - 11:02 PM.