aqeelfair4u

A quick question

Rate this topic

34 posts in this topic

Is the universe contingent or necessary ..if it is contingent therefore it is in need of cause..Am i right?

Edited by aqeelfair4u

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, aqeelfair4u said:

Is the universe contingent or necessary ..if it is contingent therefore it is in need of cause..Am i right?

Necessary and Contingent are philosophical/metaphysical assertions: Reality doesn't care what humans think and in reality logical contingent does not equal empirical contingent.

We haven't established any basis for the claim that the universe requires a cause external to itself. Big Bang cosmology theorises (with good reason) the existence of a singularity. Approximately 14 billion years ago the singularity began expanding. We don't precisely know why this happened but theories abound. We don't have enough data to ascertain the nature of the singularity. Making 'logical' conclusions about it is patently absurd given the scarcity of proper evidence.

What we do know is this: The universe is composed of matter and energy that is constantly  rearranging in different ways. Nothing actually "begins to exist." Everything results from rearrangement of matter and energy already in existence.

I know, not the answer you wanted... :)

wslm
*

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Quisant said:

We haven't established any basis for the claim that the universe requires a cause external to itself. Big Bang cosmology theorises (with good reason) the existence of a singularity.

The seniors of this ideology are disappointed with the discovery of massless particles specially the higgs boson.

 

4 hours ago, Quisant said:

Nothing actually "begins to exist." Everything results from rearrangement of matter and energy already in existence.

:) wow, I will try to find any single evidence for this assertion.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, Engineer73 said:

The seniors of this ideology are disappointed with the discovery of massless particles specially the higgs boson.

I do not understand what you are referring to, please explain what is the relevance of your post.

 

20 hours ago, Engineer73 said:

wow, I will try to find any single evidence for this assertion.

Go on then, be a devil... :)

 

15 hours ago, notme said:

What is meant by "the universe"?

The standard definition for the universe is: 'everything that exists', the collection of all physical things, the Cosmos.

wslm

Edited by Quisant

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Quisant said:

The standard definition for the universe is: 'everything that exists', the collection of all physical things, the Cosmos.

But these aren't the same.

1. Everything that exists.

2. The collection of all physical things, the cosmos.

The answer depends on which definition you use. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/21/2017 at 10:05 AM, aqeelfair4u said:

Is the universe contingent or necessary ..if it is contingent therefore it is in need of cause..Am i right?

yes

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 21/01/2017 at 3:49 PM, Quisant said:

Necessary and Contingent are philosophical/metaphysical assertions: Reality doesn't care what humans think and in reality logical contingent does not equal empirical contingent.

So reality can oppose logic?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, notme said:

But these aren't the same.

1. Everything that exists.

2. The collection of all physical things, the cosmos.

The answer depends on which definition you use. 

You may well be right, if one is really interested in what the consensus regarding the definition of Universe is google is very handy, there are hundreds of dictionary entries.

 

10 hours ago, Muhammed Ali said:

So reality can oppose logic?

Reality just is, it does not oppose or care about logic.

Logic is a method, a tool for evaluating ideas (sometime useful sometime manipulative). It certainly doesn't force reality to conform.
It deals only with the validity of arguments, not with the truth value of the premises of those arguments." 

You might enjoy reading this:

http://hubpages.com/religion-philosophy/What-is-LOGIC-Logic-does-NOT-Provide-PROOFS-and-TRUTHS

wslm.

*
 

Son of Placid likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/21/2017 at 8:49 PM, Quisant said:

Necessary and Contingent are philosophical/metaphysical assertions: Reality doesn't care what humans think and in reality logical contingent does not equal empirical contingent.

We haven't established any basis for the claim that the universe requires a cause external to itself. Big Bang cosmology theorises (with good reason) the existence of a singularity. Approximately 14 billion years ago the singularity began expanding. We don't precisely know why this happened but theories abound. We don't have enough data to ascertain the nature of the singularity. Making 'logical' conclusions about it is patently absurd given the scarcity of proper evidence.

What we do know is this: The universe is composed of matter and energy that is constantly  rearranging in different ways. Nothing actually "begins to exist." Everything results from rearrangement of matter and energy already in existence.

I know, not the answer you wanted... :)

wslm
*

this is not just a logical necessity but an ontological one as well. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, aqeelfair4u said:

this is not just a logical necessity but an ontological one as well. :)

 

More philosophy?

A quick story...
I am half Lebanese half Italian and because of my parents hectic business life I was never instructed into a religion; I had to 'grow' myself up with every aspect of life.

Many of my friends are of religious leaning, some more devout that others and I often felt inadequate being so ignorant about beliefs.

I am also cursed with a mystic streak... so about three years ago when the family came to the UK I decided to devote some time and enthusiasm to inform myself a little better.

I have since visited every argument supposed to prove the existence of God and I have come to the conclusion that Faith not Logic  is the only path to finding God.

But how do you find faith when you haven't got it and how do you remain loyal to it?

I love the idea of God but I don't want to 'cheat' myself. I hope you understand, the journey goes on...albeit a little less enthusiastically. :)

wslm.

*

 

aflyer likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Quisant said:

 

More philosophy?

A quick story...
I am half Lebanese half Italian and because of my parents hectic business life I was never instructed into a religion; I had to 'grow' myself up with every aspect of life.

Many of my friends are of religious leaning, some more devout that others and I often felt inadequate being so ignorant about beliefs.

I am also cursed with a mystic streak... so about three years ago when the family came to the UK I decided to devote some time and enthusiasm to inform myself a little better.

I have since visited every argument supposed to prove the existence of God and I have come to the conclusion that Faith not Logic  is the only path to finding God.

But how do you find faith when you haven't got it and how do you remain loyal to it?

I love the idea of God but I don't want to 'cheat' myself. I hope you understand, the journey goes on...albeit a little less enthusiastically. :)

wslm.

*

 

You should try reading Islamic history and the battles Imam Ali took place in, that would give you a whole new understanding and perception of faith. 

Oh and great to see another Lebanese here :) do you speak Arabic?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Hassan Y said:

You should try reading Islamic history and the battles Imam Ali took place in, that would give you a whole new understanding and perception of faith. 

Oh and great to see another Lebanese here :) do you speak Arabic?

We moved out of Sidon when I was seven, some words I remember; can a seven year old speak Arabic? I lack all the subtleties of continuous culture.

I read Homer instead (Iliad-Odyssey- Aeneid) so I am very fond and familiar of Heroic battles; but thanks for the advice, I might give it a try. 

See you tomorrow.

wslm.

*

 

 

Hassan- likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Quisant said:

Reality just is, it does not oppose or care about logic.

I didn't use the word 'oppose' as a verb.

There is much to say, but can you tell me how it would be known if reality contradicted logic? You may specify an actual occurrence or describe a hypothetical scenario.

E.g. I say that the part is always lesser than the whole. That to me is logical. Now tell me how could it ever be known that in reality something exists where the part is greater than the whole?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, Muhammed Ali said:

I didn't use the word 'oppose' as a verb.

I also said:
Logic is a method, a tool for evaluating ideas (sometime useful sometime manipulative). It certainly doesn't force reality to conform.
It deals only with the validity of arguments, not with the truth value of the premises of those arguments. 
 

13 hours ago, Muhammed Ali said:

There is much to say, but can you tell me how it would be known if reality contradicted logic?

You have to be alert, smart. Have you ever been conned?

[17:36] You shall not accept any information, unless you verify it for yourself. I have given you the hearing, the eyesight, and the brain, and you are responsible for using them.  

13 hours ago, Muhammed Ali said:

You may specify an actual occurrence or describe a hypothetical scenario.

A couple of famous examples of wrong logic.

The Ptolemaic logic has the Earth at the centre. Under the geocentric model, the Sun, Moon, stars, and planets all circled Earth.We now know that is wrong.

Aristotle, great champion of logic believed heavy objects fall faster than light ones. His logic was wrong: Every object on this planet, independent of size, experiences the same (Constant acceleration) gravitational acceleration so all falling objects have the same acceleration. 

A logic conclusion can be valid but untrue. And therefore it can be manipulated, it can make you believe untruths. 

Reality is not ONLY a concept as you seem to think, it exists out there..

Is a ship stable in our minds only, but not stable in the real world? 
Or is it stable in the real world as well?
If the ship is stable in the real world, then does this stability exist in the real world?

wslm.

*
 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Quisant said:

A couple of famous examples of wrong logic.

The Ptolemaic logic has the Earth at the centre. Under the geocentric model, the Sun, Moon, stars, and planets all circled Earth.We now know that is wrong.

Aristotle, great champion of logic believed heavy objects fall faster than light ones. His logic was wrong: Every object on this planet, independent of size, experiences the same (Constant acceleration) gravitational acceleration so all falling objects have the same acceleration. 

A logic conclusion can be valid but untrue. And therefore it can be manipulated, it can make you believe untruths. 

These are not at all examples of logic. These examples fall under the domain of science and not plain logic. Logic does not deal with heliocentrism, science does. I was expecting better from you. Even I could think of better examples, e.g. from quantum mechanics.

Now please tell me how can science ever demonstrate that the part is greater than the whole? 

Or how about Aristotle's (since you mention him as a logician) Laws of Thought: http://oregonstate.edu/instruct/phl201/modules/Philosophers/Aristotle/aristotle_laws_of_thought.html

Please explain how you would ever demonstrate that any of those three laws were broken. I.e. 1, The law of non-contradiction. 2, The law of excluded middle. 3, The principle of identity. 

Or show me how science can refute modus ponens: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modus_ponens

If we are going to speak about logic then let's actually speak about logic and not another thing.

Abbas. likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Muhammed Ali said:

These are not at all examples of logic. These examples fall under the domain of science and not plain logic. Logic does not deal with heliocentrism, science does. I was expecting better from you. Even I could think of better examples, e.g. from quantum mechanics.

Now please tell me how can science ever demonstrate that the part is greater than the whole? 

Or how about Aristotle's (since you mention him as a logician) Laws of Thought: http://oregonstate.edu/instruct/phl201/modules/Philosophers/Aristotle/aristotle_laws_of_thought.html

Please explain how you would ever demonstrate that any of those three laws were broken. I.e. 1, The law of non-contradiction. 2, The law of excluded middle. 3, The principle of identity. 

Or show me how science can refute modus ponens: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modus_ponens

If we are going to speak about logic then let's actually speak about logic and not another thing.

You keep ignoring parts of my posts  and only address what you feel comfortable talking about.

I never said that logic is always wrong or false; I said logic is a method, a tool for evaluating ideas. It can be useful but also manipulative and that logic can be valid but untrue. 

You can find examples of that in the link I provided earlier: 
http://hubpages.com/religion-philosophy/What-is-LOGIC-Logic-does-NOT-Provide-PROOFS-and-TRUTHS

If you feel very strongly that logic forces reality to conform to its laws ... so be it.  Life is too short and I am not going to bust a gut to comment on the tasks you set;  I know that what I said is reasonable enough.

Thank you for talking to me, interesting talking to you.
All the best.
*
 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

You keep ignoring parts of my posts  and only address what you feel comfortable talking about.

I am trying to get to the point by asking you to demonstrate the validity of your claims.

Quote

I never said that logic is always wrong or false;

And I never made that accusation. All I am asking for is one example of where reality contradicts logic. And more importantly how would the mind even know about it? E.g. the mind can never conceive or recognise that the whole is lesser than the part. So even if were true in reality, we would never know it.

Quote

I said logic is a method, a tool for evaluating ideas. It can be useful but also manipulative and that logic can be valid but untrue.

Logic can be used as a tool for evaluating assertions and arguments. It can never be manipulative and it can never be untrue.

Quote

If you feel very strongly that logic forces reality to conform to its laws

Logic does not force reality. Logical truths are a description of the way things are.

Does reality agree with your beliefs about logic? If not, why are you so confident about them?

Abbas. likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/23/2017 at 4:33 AM, Quisant said:

 

Reality just is, it does not oppose or care about logic.
 

Reality in terms of what? Reality of the universe? Existence? The self? 

Ali.Isa likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think what quisant is saying is that people have an idea of how reality exists.  We then design logical thoughts and statements based around our view of how reality exists. Should reality not exist in the way we believed, we find that our logical derivation is incorrect.

Rather than the system of logic itself being what is flawed, it typically would be people that are wrong, unknowingly creating fallacies.

Logic and science are only as good as the people who use them.

In regards to the universe, so far as I am aware, philosophers have been debating over its contingency for as long as mankind has been able to consider these questions. I wish we could turn to science for the answers, but mankind seems too limited in knowledge to answer these questions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, iCambrian said:

In regards to the universe, so far as I am aware, philosophers have been debating over its contingency for as long as mankind has been able to consider these questions. I wish we could turn to science for the answers, but mankind seems too limited in knowledge to answer these questions.

I wish we could turn to One which is Supreme in knowledge & power.

We understand this universe as a system, which has boundaries, components, processes, rules of business. This system will remain a system if we reverse it to the stage of big-bang, to the state of singularity, a very hot & dense state.

Every system is contingent, by nature. Means, depends on someone or something for its existence, from its origination to its extinction.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Engineer73 said:

I wish we could turn to One which is Supreme in knowledge & power.

We understand this universe as a system, which has boundaries, components, processes, rules of business. This system will remain a system if we reverse it to the stage of big-bang, to the state of singularity, a very hot & dense state.

Every system is contingent, by nature. Means, depends on someone or something for its existence, from its origination to its extinction.

We hardly even know what is in the bottom of our own oceans, let alone understand the bizarre nature of our universe. You simply speaking, means nothing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, iCambrian said:

We hardly even know what is in the bottom of our own oceans, let alone understand the bizarre nature of our universe. You simply speaking, means nothing.

What is said was based on the scientific understanding of scientists. Universe is a system, systems are contingent. 

You're correct that we know less than 5% of universe. But that is enough to prove universe as system. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not convinced by the above statement.^

feel free to elaborate

Edited by iCambrian

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, iCambrian said:

I'm not convinced by the above statement.^

feel free to elaborate

"System is a set of interacting or interdependent component parts forming a complex or intricate whole. Every system is delineated by its spatial and temporal boundaries, surrounded and influenced by its environment, described by its structure and purpose and expressed in its functioning."

Universe is known as "SYSTEM".  Systems are contingent by nature as well as by definition. 

Example 1:

You might be familiar with solar system! Our solar system which is a sub-system of milky way galaxy which is again a sub-system .......... and so on. The mother system of all of them is Universe.

Example 2:

We are living systems, we have within ourselves so many sub-systems e.g., respiratory, digestive, immune, sensory systems etc.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.