Marblehead Posted July 6, 2016 Interesting that you went to the concept of finite/infinity. Recently, again I can't recall who said it but it was one of the scientists during a documentary regarding the universe, I have heard the statement (paraphrased): When we scientists do our calculations and our end result is infinity we think that we have found an answer. What really has happened is that we made errors in our calculations. 3 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Karl Posted July 6, 2016 Yes, though it should be said that scientists that stick to their specific fields and apply reason are often considered Neanderthals. Just as in every other subject we find the belief that reality can't be known. That A is not A all of the time and a thing is not always itself. It leads to economic policies that ignore philosophic economic reality and substitute trial and error on the principle that 'what didn't work last time, may work better this time with a couple of tweaks' and that economics can't account for everything because it didn't predict the exact date of the crash, or the exact decline of the stock market. 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Marblehead Posted July 6, 2016 Yeah, but now you are going places I do not have the base knowledge to speak to. I haven't studied economics as a stand alone subject. All I know is that I thought the Bernanke (spelling) was part of the US's economy problems and what's her name is following exactly in his footsteps. But don't ask me why I feel this way. 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Michael Sternbach Posted July 6, 2016 And who created this supreme being ? I mean nothing comes out of nothing, you said so yourself ? So this being must have been created by some other supreme being, who must have been created by another supreme being. Your argument simply creates infinite regression. So, no such God is required or exists. The universe does not need a designer. The universe is the universe-all and everything and all causality. While I don't buy into Pedro's anthropomorphic view of God, rigorously, something doesn't need to be created once you step outside the time frame and therefore causality. 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Karl Posted July 6, 2016 Yeah, but now you are going places I do not have the base knowledge to speak to. I haven't studied economics as a stand alone subject. All I know is that I thought the Bernanke (spelling) was part of the US's economy problems and what's her name is following exactly in his footsteps. But don't ask me why I feel this way. So was Greenspan, which is particularly galling considering he was one of Ayn Rand's acolytes. Apparently Ayn Rand said that Greenspan and Piekoff had serious deficiencies. Peikoff was too moral and insufficiently practical; Greenspan was practical and insufficiently moral. Peikoff said of Greenspan that he was a truly brilliant man that he admired a lot, but that though he (Peikoff) had worked to increase his practicality, Greenspan had done nothing to attend to his morality and had succumbed to temptation. 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Karl Posted July 6, 2016 While I don't buy into Pedro's anthropomorphic view of God, rigorously, something doesn't need to be created once you step outside the time frame and therefore causality. Which applies to the universe as a whole. If the universe needed a God to create it, then God also requires a creator. If God did not require a creator, then neither does the universe. Some will defer to God as the universe, or some aspect of the universe, but it's clear there was no creator of the universe. 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Michael Sternbach Posted July 6, 2016 No, I deny a prime mover. Let's don't get confused about that. But I do hold to the theory of the Big Bang and therefore to the theory of Singularity but I add that I hold that Singularity caused itself to bang, based solely on its own nature. No external cause. (I's still within your universe.) Yes, I think that one day it will be shown scientifically that the Universe unfolded from innate necessity. This is not to say that this could not at once be looked at philosophocally. Therefore I don't accept the dichotomy as per Karl's post: And that, of course is for scientists to discover, but they are completely off target if they think they can discover why the universe began. This the reason philosophy precedes science by providing the context. 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Michael Sternbach Posted July 6, 2016 Which applies to the universe as a whole. If the universe needed a God to create it, then God also requires a creator. If God did not require a creator, then neither does the universe. Some will defer to God as the universe, or some aspect of the universe, but it's clear there was no creator of the universe. The problem with this is that the Universe exists in time, therefore cause and effect apply. I'm not sure how you want to bridge the gap from time to timelessness. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Karl Posted July 6, 2016 (edited) The problem with this is that the Universe exists in time, therefore cause and effect apply. I'm not sure how you want to bridge the gap from time to timelessness. The universe doesn't exist IN anything because there is no outside it. It is the universe, it is the totality of all causality and all nature of things. If you can stop thinking of the universe as a single thing for a moment and accept that it is the totality of all things then you can perhaps get a sense of what I'm saying. Edited July 6, 2016 by Karl 3 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Karl Posted July 6, 2016 Yes, I think that one day it will be shown scientifically that the Universe unfolded from innate necessity. This is not to say that this could not at once be looked at philosophocally. Therefore I don't accept the dichotomy as per Karl's post: There is no dichotomy. Just put the horse before the cart and it flows really nicely. The universe can expand and collapse, perhaps it will turn into a bacon butty or a slice of pizza, but it will remain the universe however it is arranged. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Stosh Posted July 6, 2016 (edited) There is no dichotomy. Just put the horse before the cart and it flows really nicely. The universe can expand and collapse, perhaps it will turn into a bacon butty or a slice of pizza, but it will remain the universe however it is arranged. Linguistically I suppose thats accurate, but, should it be found that the giant bit of 'space-time' which we inhabit was a subsection of some even greater situation with differing rules ( like E=Mc to the 4th power....) I think some sort of linguistic distinction should be made between the different situations. like 'multiverse' Edited July 6, 2016 by Stosh Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
silent thunder Posted July 6, 2016 I think I've got it. The origin of man. 1 part source 2 parts duality 3 parts motion 10,000 parts sensation/perception/fear/love/paradox/irony/projection... 3 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Karl Posted July 6, 2016 Linguistically I suppose thats accurate, but, should it be found that the giant bit of 'space-time' which we inhabit was a subsection of some even greater situation with differing rules ( like E=Mc to the 4th power....) I think some sort of linguistic distinction should be made between the different situations. like 'multiverse' Then it would equally be part of the universe. :-) Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Stosh Posted July 6, 2016 Then it would equally be part of the universe. :-) Linguistically I suppose thats accurate, but, should it be found that the giant bit of 'space-time' which we inhabit was a subsection of some even greater situation with differing rules ( like E=Mc to the 4th power....) I think some sort of linguistic distinction should be made between the different situations. like 'multiverse' 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Michael Sternbach Posted July 6, 2016 The universe doesn't exist IN anything because there is no outside it. It is the universe, it is the totality of all causality and all nature of things. If you can stop thinking of the universe as a single thing for a moment and accept that it is the totality of all things then you can perhaps get a sense of what I'm saying. Yet we know that the Universe is of limited expansion. However, I only need to draw a certain kind of Desargues configuration to demonstrate that Infinity actually exists. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Michael Sternbach Posted July 6, 2016 Linguistically I suppose thats accurate, but, should it be found that the giant bit of 'space-time' which we inhabit was a subsection of some even greater situation with differing rules ( like E=Mc to the 4th power....) I think some sort of linguistic distinction should be made between the different situations. like 'multiverse' Yes, that's in keeping with what I said in my last post. There is actually another form of Einstein's formula which reads E2 = m2c4. The German scientist Dr Peter Plichta considers this one of several indications of there being an infinite four-dimensional space. 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Junko Posted July 6, 2016 Multi dimensional world, a world we have no idea.....! 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Karl Posted July 6, 2016 Linguistically I suppose thats accurate, but, should it be found that the giant bit of 'space-time' which we inhabit was a subsection of some even greater situation with differing rules ( like E=Mc to the 4th power....) I think some sort of linguistic distinction should be made between the different situations. like 'multiverse' Have we found that to be the case ? No. 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Karl Posted July 6, 2016 Yet we know that the Universe is of limited expansion. However, I only need to draw a certain kind of Desargues configuration to demonstrate that Infinity actually exists. It may well have a limit of expansion doesn't change anything. Infinity is not possible, it's a useful mathematical expression when solving equations. Infinity means a number larger than ANY specific quantity. This means no specific quantity. That would be a quantity without identity. Infinity denotes potentiality which is why it's useful I'm mathematics. However, potentiality is different from actuality. It is possible to subdivide the universe into ever smaller pieces and these are potentially infinite, but, however many pieces the universe is subdivided into, that is the true number. Potentiality may well spread ahead, but reality demands an actual number at whatever point that has been reached in that subdivision. That is why the universe is boundless but finite. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Michael Sternbach Posted July 6, 2016 It may well have a limit of expansion doesn't change anything. Infinity is not possible, it's a useful mathematical expression when solving equations. Infinity means a number larger than ANY specific quantity. This means no specific quantity. That would be a quantity without identity. Infinity denotes potentiality which is why it's useful I'm mathematics. However, potentiality is different from actuality. It is possible to subdivide the universe into ever smaller pieces and these are potentially infinite, but, however many pieces the universe is subdivided into, that is the true number. Potentiality may well spread ahead, but reality demands an actual number at whatever point that has been reached in that subdivision. That is why the universe is boundless but finite. The Universe is. The Multiverse possibly not. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Karl Posted July 6, 2016 The Universe is. The Multiverse possibly not. Any multiverse would also be part of the universe, but multiverses are only theories as are extra dimensions. So far nature has never proven quite so convoluted, only the mind of man has envisaged heaven, hell, multiple spiritual realms and a host of gods and mythical creatures. The universe appears to be spectacularly free from them so far. 2 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Michael Sternbach Posted July 6, 2016 Any multiverse would also be part of the universe, but multiverses are only theories as are extra dimensions. So far nature has never proven quite so convoluted, only the mind of man has envisaged heaven, hell, multiple spiritual realms and a host of gods and mythical creatures. The universe appears to be spectacularly free from them so far. Your Universe may be. Mine is not. I know more or less what you are going to say next... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Marblehead Posted July 6, 2016 Well, my universe is bigger than your universe. 3 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Karl Posted July 6, 2016 Your Universe may be. Mine is not. I know more or less what you are going to say next... "It may be true for you but not for me" which is usually a relativist argument against God, which is quite trippy. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Nungali Posted July 6, 2016 Dogs can't use fork or knief.Again this animal can do what we can't.....!Their smelling ability! Magnificent! Indeed ... they can smell cancer ! 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
