Philosophy Discussion Forums | A Humans-Only Club for Open-Minded Discussion & Debate

[Wossname]

Wossname wrote: ↑Today, 10:06 am
Bluebell?
Your original argument:
Wossname wrote: ↑February 7th, 2020, 2:23 pm
I don’t actually believe Bluebell exists. That would be silly. But I fear that somewhere there is a fervent eyed mathematician who is willing to tell me that, in an infinite universe, Bluebell does exist. She must exist. Worse still, in an infinite universe there are an infinite number of Bluebells. Even worse still, I must accept that in an infinite universe there are an infinite number of mathematicians regaling me with terrible claims about my poor Bluebell which can be of infinite variety and many of which are unrepeatable in polite company. That’s mathematicians for you.
The simple factual logic that infinity is not countable implies that it is not possible to consider an infinite amount of Bluebell's.

It is being discussed in the topic Infinite monkey theorem

Thanks arjand.
I am unhappy about even one Bluebell – but I take the hint.
I struggle with the language I think. It is never suitable for the average idiot.
The notion that infinity cannot be divided is tough. Mathematically some infinities can be bigger than others e.g. the points on your computer screen and the points in your room. You are referring to something else I think?
Are you saying maybe that I am trying to understand infinity by understand its parts, to fit the limitations of my thinking, but infinity just cannot be understood in this way?
Is this linked with Hegelian philosophy at all? I once read about two pages of Hegel and had to stop for fear of a brain haemorrhage.

[psyreporter]

Thanks arjand.
I am unhappy about even one Bluebell – but I take the hint.
I struggle with the language I think. It is never suitable for the average idiot.
The notion that infinity cannot be divided is tough. Mathematically some infinities can be bigger than others e.g. the points on your computer screen and the points in your room. You are referring to something else I think?
Are you saying maybe that I am trying to understand infinity by understand its parts, to fit the limitations of my thinking, but infinity just cannot be understood in this way?
Is this linked with Hegelian philosophy at all? I once read about two pages of Hegel and had to stop for fear of a brain haemorrhage.

Mathematical infinite is a perceived potential for infinity. In the context of conscious being humans have learned to recognize patterns which has resulted in logic and mathematics. Humans learned to count "1, 2, 3 ..." and their imagination does not know a reason why the counting should ever end, thus, it results in a perceived potential for infinity. The observer (human) can count into infinity.

True infinity does not have a beginning. It knows no distance or amount.

The human mind is something special. It observes the world and it is a great mystery how that is possible. One of the aspects to consider with regard to infinity is that the mind (as an observer) introduces a "begin", a start from which the mind starts to observe the world. The mind can observe into infinity. For example, it can count into infinity and imagine an infinite amount of Bluebell's. The reason for the possibility of a perceived potential of infinity is the "begin" that the mind introduces. That same fact may imply something about reality.

[creation]

But the circular nature of reality can be very simply and very easily explained in a linear structure.

The Universe is eternal and infinite.
There is no beginning and there was no end.
Looking as far as can been seen forwards or backwards temporally or in any direction spatially you will always come back to the HERE-NOW.
There is only HERE-NOW in constant-change.
HERE-NOW is the beginning and the end.
The end of the past and the beginning of the future.

Constant-change, creation is logically impossible, obviously. So if you insist on solving the universe using logic, you can start by throwing out your philosophy.

You now make the claim that constant-change is obviously logically impossible. So, now explain why constant-change is logically impossible.

The Universe, Itself, is not "solved", but what the Universe actually IS, and how It actually works can be and is already solved.

[creation]

And, as exactly as I said both play an equal part. But did I really need to have worked this out for you and/or have to show how this is actually the case?

Yes, I definitely need that worked out if I am to have the slightest chance of understanding it.

To understand that 'free will' and 'determinism' both have and play an equal part is to firstly understand that human beings have been led to believe that only one or the other is factual, while the other is not, which is totally false.

This seeing things as one or the other is an incorrect way to look at, find, and see the actual Truth of things. Like creation or evolution, nature or nurture, and the other 'one' or 'the other' discussions, which have been going on for thousands of years now without any resolution in sight, the actual resolution is found in finding the actual truths and the falsehoods in both of them. The Truth lays in between "both sides" of them as they each contain truths and falsehoods.

You either can not, will not, or did not understand the question.

What question?

My response was to what you wrote:
I don't think you really need me to work this out for you. If I am an independent agent, if my will is free, then for any choice, I could have chosen otherwise under identical circumstances. At that exact moment in time that I could have decided differently. If determinism is true, then only the effects of the causes of the past were responsible for my decision, There was no chance that I would have taken another path at that moment.
And, as can be clearly seen here, there is no question anywhere in this.

You are absolutely free to choose absolutely anything you want to. But your list, to choose from, was formed by, and is limited by, your past limited experiences.

Yes, that is correct and a fine description of free will, without determinism. Welcome to the free will camp.

Because you are limited by a pre-determined selection of things to choose from, you do not have absolute freedom to choose from absolutely everything, and your list of choices that you can freely choose from pre-determines what you will choose, and therefore as well as what will happen in the future, but again not absolutely.

But while people believe one is true, and the other is not, then they may find what I am saying here much harder to understand than those who do not hold a particular belief either way here.

[creation]

I have heard it argued that, mathematically, in an infinite universe, whatever can be true must be true. So, in an infinite universe my red dragon Bluebell, mentioned earlier, must exist.

Absolutely anything can be argued. But, if what is argued is not sound and/nor valid, then it is not really an argument that is best accepted.

Also, why do you think your red dragon, which you call bluebell, could be true.

I find that counter-intuitive. My philosophy will not allow Bluebell. I will accept no more absurdity than I must. There’s too much of it already. Some here, find the idea of a finite space equally absurd and will not allow it for similar reasons (counter-intuitive). However, if space is just conceived as an infinite largely empty void, the possibility of which I think some of you are arguing for, it can (must?) still contain a finite number of objects. So we must be careful not to be misled by the way some mathematical arguments are presented. I think the “infinite empty space” philosophy (Gater is specific about his view here) allows that there are not an infinite number of Bluebells and not necessarily even one Bluebell.

I am not forced to accept an infinite universe by my philosophy though. But I am clear it does not show the infinite space view must be wrong. It is tempting to argue that a difficulty for that position is that the experimental evidence supports the admittedly weird idea that space is something and not just a void. For example, space as substance explains the motion of the planets, gravitational lensing, and the recent detection of gravity waves. This is not bad science. We are left arguing about the interpretation of the data. I think if we can find another way to explain these findings it might give the infinite empty space argument more force, though, again, if we can’t it doesn’t mean it must be wrong either.

It is very hard to imagine the ”what is north of the North Pole” kind of nothing proposed by Hawking. We want to imagine it as a void. But that is not what he was suggesting. There is literally nothing there, no void, to be imagined. Is this something that cannot be countenanced? If so, is this a failure of logic or a failure of imagination? I think that may be the nub of the issue.

I do not think the notion of “no void” can be shown to be logically mistaken. It may be that in our observable universe space is substance that is curved and closed so that we cannot get outside of it and it is sensible to think of time and space as having a beginning. Maybe, it really is all there is. But if space as void is infinite, we cannot generalise from our knowledge of the infinitely small part of it that we can observe to make firm statements about the rest. Logically there may be other miniverses,

There could only logically be other so called "miniverses" when what a 'miniverse' actually is explained how how it differentiates from thee 'Universe'

these may stand in some kind of (unknowable) relationship to each other, in which case the notion of a void that allows for such relations seems to have some merit.

What could logically possibly be the boundary between this so called "miniverse" and the void between these so called "miniverses"?

Also, why do so many contradictory things need to be imagined up to support a finite universe, especially when none is needed to explain and understand an infinite Universe?

Whether that void is infinite seems beyond the ability of our logic and experience to provide definitive answers. Maybe we are in a black hole within a bigger black hole etc. like some set of awesome Russian dolls. May there is a final largest black hole beyond which there is Hawking’s nothing. Maybe it’s just black holes all the way down. I need a drink now.

[creation]

No, why would you assume or ask such a ridiculous thing?

Have I said absolutely anything that could even be construed in such a distorted way?

The duration of 'change', which is only what is actually being measured by clocks, and/or what is referred to by the word 'time', has been a constant since there has been matter and space.

To me, there cannot be change if there was either only space or only matter. If there is one of them, then so to there is the other one, because if there is just only one, then the other could not come to be.

Space, matter, and change are always, forever together.

So if "time" is referring to duration, it's not referring to something that's exclusively a human activity, right?

This would all depend on how one is using the word 'time' and in relation to what they refer 'time' to exactly.

But I use the word 'time' in relation to the duration of motion or change, which has been happening constantly before and after human beings came into existence.

[Terrapin Station]

So if "time" is referring to duration, it's not referring to something that's exclusively a human activity, right?

This would all depend on how one is using the word 'time' and in relation to what they refer 'time' to exactly.

But I use the word 'time' in relation to the duration of motion or change, which has been happening constantly before and after human beings came into existence.

Sure, so then prior to humans' arrival, let's say prior to the creation of the Earth, if durations extend infinitely "backwards," an infinity of durations had to occur prior to the creation of the Earth, and that doesn't have anything to do with how anyone thinks about this (we're talking about prior to the existence of humans after all). But an infinity of durations can't occur--an infinity can never be completed.

[creation]

This would all depend on how one is using the word 'time' and in relation to what they refer 'time' to exactly.

But I use the word 'time' in relation to the duration of motion or change, which has been happening constantly before and after human beings came into existence.

Sure, so then prior to humans' arrival, let's say prior to the creation of the Earth, if durations extend infinitely "backwards," an infinity of durations had to occur prior to the creation of the Earth, and that doesn't have anything to do with how anyone thinks about this (we're talking about prior to the existence of humans after all). But an infinity of durations can't occur--an infinity can never be completed.

An infinity may never be able to be completely by a finite human being, but so what? Explain how and why an infinity to you can never be "completed" in reality, and then explain how and why that makes an infinity of duration cannot supposedly occur.

Also, because you already believe an infinity of duration can not occur you have never looked into how it could actually occur.

[chewybrian]

Because you are limited by a pre-determined selection of things to choose from, you do not have absolute freedom to choose from absolutely everything, and your list of choices that you can freely choose from pre-determines what you will choose, and therefore as well as what will happen in the future, but again not absolutely.

But while people believe one is true, and the other is not, then they may find what I am saying here much harder to understand than those who do not hold a particular belief either way here.

I don't have any problem understanding and agreeing with what you say here. I have a problem with your description of what you say as a reconciliation between free will and determinism, because it is not! You are simply describing free will.

If I look in the fridge and see orange juice and iced tea, and decide to choose iced tea, when I could have just as easily taken orange juice, then it is game over for determinism, and the issue is resolved in favor of free will for all time. It does not matter if I limited my choices to only those two options for the sake of convenience, or if there are other drink options I have never seen and therefore did not consider. That is free will, and it is not determinism. Your 'reconciliation' validates the presence of free will and negates determinism.

You seem to be confusing the influence of experience, instinct, environment and such for determinism. But, determinism argues that there is only one possible outcome at every point in time, and it is the cumulative effect of the events that came before, and that I am effectively and object rather than a subject. According to the principles of determinism, my choice could only have been iced tea, and with perfect knowledge, someone could have seen the events of my past and predicted with perfect certainty that I would choose iced tea.

I believe, as it seems you do, that many factors can influence my decisions. But, I do not believe that my decision is in the complete control of these factors. If you also do not, then you deny determinism.

[creation]

Because you are limited by a pre-determined selection of things to choose from, you do not have absolute freedom to choose from absolutely everything, and your list of choices that you can freely choose from pre-determines what you will choose, and therefore as well as what will happen in the future, but again not absolutely.

But while people believe one is true, and the other is not, then they may find what I am saying here much harder to understand than those who do not hold a particular belief either way here.

I don't have any problem understanding and agreeing with what you say here. I have a problem with your description of what you say as a reconciliation between free will and determinism, because it is not!

As I already explained, when people have a belief that something is true, then there is absolutely nothing that can change this. So, for those, what I say here is not so easy to understand.

You are simply describing free will.

I also described how it is not absolute free will, so this explains how determinism also plays a part.

If I look in the fridge and see orange juice and iced tea, and decide to choose iced tea, when I could have just as easily taken orange juice, then it is game over for determinism, and the issue is resolved in favor of free will for all time.

But you could not choose molinon could you?

It does not matter if I limited my choices to only those two options for the sake of convenience, or if there are other drink options I have never seen and therefore did not consider. That is free will, and it is not determinism. Your 'reconciliation' validates the presence of free will and negates determinism.

I was not talking about those types of choices. The only choices you could choose from where pre-determined.

Free will is validated anyway, but equally so is determinism, to me.

You seem to be confusing the influence of experience, instinct, environment and such for determinism. But, determinism argues that there is only one possible outcome at every point in time,

Determinism does not argue anything at all. Only human beings make and form arguments. Human beings try to make and form arguments to try to justify their already held belief of things.

Human beings only argue that with determinism there is only one possible outcome at every point because they believe that only determinism exists and free will does not so they have to argue against free will, and about the only human beings, so far, have come up with is that there can only be one possible outcome.

These people have not yet looked at and considered all things. This is because of their already held assumptions and beliefs about what is true and their confirmation biases.

and it is the cumulative effect of the events that came before, and that I am effectively and object rather than a subject. According to the principles of determinism, my choice could only have been iced tea, and with perfect knowledge, someone could have seen the events of my past and predicted with perfect certainty that I would choose iced tea.

That may be the case that some people will say things like that and argue that way, but so be it. You will say and argue things, which people on the "other side" will totally disagree with as well, but again, so be it.

I believe, as it seems you do, that many factors can influence my decisions. But, I do not believe that my decision is in the complete control of these factors. If you also do not, then you deny determinism.

Firstly I neither believe nor disbelieve anything.

To me, only one factor influences your decisions.

Your decisions are the complete control of thee 'I'.

When who, and what, that 'I' is exactly is discovered and known, then who and what is in complete control of all decision making will be fully understood.

I do not deny determinism, nor deny free will. I neither believe nor disbelieve determinism, nor free will. I understand fully how and why determinism AND free will equally play a part.

[Terrapin Station]

Explain how and why an infinity to you can never be "completed" in reality,

Infinities can't end. If there's an infinity of time prior to any arbitrary point T, we can never there's no end to the durations that need to pass prior to arriving at point T.

Also, because you already believe an infinity of duration can not occur

That's not actually something I said. I'm just pointing out a logical dilemma with the idea that makes it counterintuitive. As I've stated many times, both "Time/the universe has always existed" and "Time/the universe had a starting point" are counterintuitive. So we're necessarily stuck between a rock and a hard place with that.

[chewybrian]

I do not deny determinism, nor deny free will. I neither believe nor disbelieve determinism, nor free will. I understand fully how and why determinism AND free will equally play a part.

I could say I believe that I am both single and married, that my team both won and lost the game last night, or that my dog is also a goldfish. But, nobody would make any sense of these statements, because they are aware that these things are mutually exclusive, such that they can't both be true at the same time. So it is with free will and determinism, and nobody who knows the meaning of these concepts would understand your belief that they are both true at the same time. The idea of 'compatibilism' is a unicorn to me until someone can say, even in theory. how the two ideas could both be true at the same time. You've not even tried, so I must assume you can't. Saying you believe something impossible will obviously not sway me to think about joining you, unless or until you can open a window to see how it might be possible.

[Terrapin Station]

I do not deny determinism, nor deny free will. I neither believe nor disbelieve determinism, nor free will. I understand fully how and why determinism AND free will equally play a part.

I could say I believe that I am both single and married, that my team both won and lost the game last night, or that my dog is also a goldfish. But, nobody would make any sense of these statements, because they are aware that these things are mutually exclusive, such that they can't both be true at the same time. So it is with free will and determinism, and nobody who knows the meaning of these concepts would understand your belief that they are both true at the same time. The idea of 'compatibilism' is a unicorn to me until someone can say, even in theory. how the two ideas could both be true at the same time. You've not even tried, so I must assume you can't. Saying you believe something impossible will obviously not sway me to think about joining you, unless or until you can open a window to see how it might be possible.

I can never make sense of compatibilism, either, aside from people seeming to redefine one side or the other so that they're not really talking about either ontological freedom of determinism or both.

[Terrapin Station]

Typo: "so that they're not really talking about either ontological freedom OR determinism or both."

[creation]

Explain how and why an infinity to you can never be "completed" in reality,

Infinities can't end. If there's an infinity of time prior to any arbitrary point T, we can never there's no end to the durations that need to pass prior to arriving at point T.

And so what?

This has absolutely no bearing on the Universe's ability to be infinite.

There is a lot more to be understood and known first, to see exactly why what you are saying here is the wrong way to look at and see this.

That's not actually something I said.

You did not have to.

I'm just pointing out a logical dilemma with the idea that makes it counterintuitive.

But there is no logical dilemma, nor any counter intuitiveness here to me. You are just pointing out something, which is presumed to be the case, which, if it was, would be a logical dilemma and an idea that makes it counter intuitive, but that idea and what you are pointing out is incorrect to begin with.

As I've stated many times, both "Time/the universe has always existed" and "Time/the universe had a starting point" are counterintuitive. So we're necessarily stuck between a rock and a hard place with that.

But I am not stuck anywhere. That is just an non-equivocal contradiction for a finite universe.

There is absolutely nothing counter intuitive in what I have observed and understood here. Obviously what you have stated is a logical dilemma that makes your ideas counter intuitive. But I do see things a lot differently than you do, and why I would not say what you have stated many times already.

Actually when looked into fully and openly, then just understanding how the constantly changing instance is actually occurring HERE-NOW infinitely and eternally comes to be known and understood very simply and very easily. Then, all previously supposed logical dilemmas and counter-intuitions diminish completely. Also, the non-equivocal contradictions associated with a finite Universe become easily seen and simply fully understood.