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

[Terrapin Station]

It's a pretty futile battle, by the way, if I can't even explicitly correct a misunderstanding of what I'm saying.

[psyreporter]

The comment isn't a means of suggesting what might exist. One might want to posit meaning, or mind, or whatever, and one might want to posit that as the sole (sort of) existent that occurs. Whatever one posits, one has to posit some sort of existent (which can be just a process of whatever--there's no limit on what it could be). Among whatever one posits as existing, there will be some initial existent(s)--perhaps everything one posits, perhaps just some subset. Those initial existents either suddenly just started existing, with no cause (otherwise they couldn't just suddenly start existing and they wouldn't be the initial existents) or they simply always existed.

If you can think of another logical option there, present it.

Those two options are counterintuitive simply because it's difficult for us to imagine if not even make sense of things just spontaneously "popping" into existence "out of nothing" (hence the off-repeated "something can't come from nothing" as if that notion is inarguable) and it's difficult for us to imagine if not even make sense out of infinite backwards temporal extension.

The notion of an existent as an 'it' that requires an explanation within the scope of a pattern (causality) is at question. Without that limited frame of thinking, an 'existent' would not necessarily either magically have sprung into existence or have always existed.

Your defense of the Kalam cosmological argument by your denotion of time as Tn in topic Endless and infinite by which you argued that an infinite amount of time cannot precede a given Tn (impossibility of ‘traversing the infinite’), provides an example. The perception on time that provides the foundation for the ability to denote time as Tn is left out of consideration.

There is a belief involved to consider an existent to be of a quality that requires the described limited frame of thinking (causality) to explain it.

Simple logic shows that 'a pattern cannot be the origin of itself', thus, that the quality 'pattern-ness' (value) cannot be applicable to the origin of what can be named an existent. The nature of a pattern makes it obvious that the origin is conscious mind.

The cited study in the OP indicates that all particles in the Universe are 'entangled by kind'. That would imply that the quality Non-Unique or non-locality is applicable to 'kind' in Nature.

What does the quality kindness imply when it is applicable to 'all particles' in the Universe, and thus all time?

The idea of time as Tn (a state of which there can be an amount, which prohibits infinite backwards temporal extension) would not be applicable. It would also mean that 'objective reality' cannot be considered to posses a nature that allows one to consider it 'real' outside the scope of a perspective (the idea that facts posses of a certainty factor that allows one to consider them valid without philosophy).

[Terrapin Station]

The notion of an existent as an 'it' that requires an explanation within the scope of a pattern (causality) is at question.

I don't know if "an 'it'" would be saying anything different than "existent," but an existent is an existent.

It's not that it requires an explanation. It's that logically, initial existents either always existed (in which case we're certainly not requiring an explanation), or they "spontaneously appeared"--otherwise they're not initial existents. There's no other option available, logically, a la "first principles." "Spontaneous appearance" is a stretch as an explanation, too. So I don't know how we'd see any of this as "requiring an explanation." It's just exhausting the logical possibilities in the vein of first principles (a la standard metaphysics).

Without that limited frame of thinking, an 'existent' would not necessarily either magically have sprung into existence or have always existed.

Again, if you can think of a third option, that's great, but you'd need to present what the third option would be.

Your defense of the Kalam cosmological argument by your denotion of time as Tn in topic Endless and infinite by which you argued that an infinite amount of time cannot precede a given Tn (impossibility of ‘traversing the infinite’), provides an example. The perception on time that provides the foundation for the ability to denote time as Tn is left out of consideration.

(1) I don't agree with the Kalam cosmological argument. (Personally I'm an atheist after all.)
(2) I wouldn't say that the infinite backwards extension of time is impossible; I'd just say that it's counterintuitive, a fortiori because we can't really conceive of inifite series, at least not in anything like an experiential sense.
(3) I also don't agree with "whatever begins to exist has a cause." An initial existent can't have a cause, because then it's not an initial existent. Whatever caused it to exist would have to be prior. Initial existents, where they didn't always exist, have to come about acausally.

The cited study in the OP indicates that all particles in the Universe are 'entangled by kind'. That would imply that the quality Non-Unique or non-locality is applicable to 'kind' in Nature.

I'd have to look back at what thread this even is at this point. I'm guessing that we're way off-topic, but I don't know.

[detail]

Well that all particles are non unique somehow is clear from the the theory that two bodies cannot exist on the same space in the same moment of time, thus the priciple state undergoies a constrain in every possible theory of physics (even in quantum mechanics, if the projection algorithm implies the measurement as a personal perception ). If one would take the state of ones mind, the uniqueness of the mind , is already implied by turings stopping time theory and the impossiblity to predict the stopping of the action of turing machine for all turing machines in advance. The uniqueness comes for the quality of real numbers that they are uncountable and there is no function that can map all real numbers to all natural numbers. The existence of pi and the eulernumber is somehow an implication on non-uniqueness of all particles.

[detail]

Well that all particles are non unique somehow is clear from the the theory that two bodies cannot exist on the same point in space in the same moment of time, thus the priciple state undergoes a constraint in every possible theory of physics (even in quantum mechanics, if the projection algorithm implies the measurement as a personal perception ). If one would take the state of ones mind, the uniqueness of the mind , is already implied by turings stopping time theory and the impossiblity to predict the stopping of the action of turing machine for all turing machines in advance. The uniqueness comes for the quality of real numbers that they are uncountable and there is no function that can map all real numbers to all natural numbers. The existence of pi and the eulernumber is somehow an implication on non-uniqueness of all particles.

The mapping of all real numbers to all natural numbers should be one on one for sure.

[Steve3007]

Has anybody raised the modern social phenomenon of "non-fungible tokens" in relation this topic? Those are even more weird and seemingly ridiculous than cryptocurrencies. Based on the same "block chain" technology I hear. There must surely be some philosophical mileage there on the nature of unique identity re digital existents.

Somebody said "bitcoin combines everything you don't understand about money with everything you don't understand about computers". Perhaps non-fungible tokens combine everything we don't understand about everything else in this crazy modern world.

[Tegularius]

Has anybody raised the modern social phenomenon of "non-fungible tokens" in relation this topic? Those are even more weird and seemingly ridiculous than cryptocurrencies. Based on the same "block chain" technology I hear. There must surely be some philosophical mileage there on the nature of unique identity re digital existents.

Somebody said "bitcoin combines everything you don't understand about money with everything you don't understand about computers". Perhaps non-fungible tokens combine everything we don't understand about everything else in this crazy modern world.

Insanity isn't logical but who knows what it can lead to.

[psyreporter]

Again, if you can think of a third option, that's great, but you'd need to present what the third option would be.

That question is being asked from the assumption that an option needs to be present, i.e. that an existent is 'real' and requires an option.

When it can be shown that an existent is not real (in the sense: that it is not bound to require a cause within a limited frame of thinking), then such an option is not required and it would solve the problem.

[detail]

Is infinite just non-compact or is infinite that some particles need infinite time travel from point a to point b or that the universe has an infinte volume? I don't know the statistical consequences for an infinite volume, but the fluctuations and the general relativistic structure impose constraints on the statistical dynamics of the gas. The probable occurence of black-holes could somehow deplete an infinite volume universe totally of free matter
if the stochastic variance would be high enough !!!! If even compactness is sufficient , it could even take infinite time to travel from one region to another (for example through the existence of black-holes) !!! The problem is how to define an infinite universe then.

[detail]

By the way if an infitite volume universe has a too weak stochastic variance , s.th. the collection of all matter via black holes would be probable it could be that the stochastic dynamics of the universe is expanding and a total cooldown would be possible. In fact , were not talking about quantum gravitation and the theory of elementary particles but about statistical phyisics ( under the constraint of a relativistic dynamic).

[Terrapin Station]

Again, if you can think of a third option, that's great, but you'd need to present what the third option would be.

That question is being asked from the assumption that an option needs to be present, i.e. that an existent is 'real' and requires an option.

Logical options. Either we're exhausting the logical possibilities or we're not.

There's no suggestion that an existent need be "real" in the traditional real/antireal sense, just that an existent must be an existent.

[psyreporter]

Is infinite just non-compact or is infinite that some particles need infinite time travel from point a to point b or that the universe has an infinite volume? I don't know the statistical consequences for an infinite volume, but the fluctuations and the general relativistic structure impose constraints on the statistical dynamics of the gas. The probable occurence of black-holes could somehow deplete an infinite volume universe totally of free matter
if the stochastic variance would be high enough !!!! If even compactness is sufficient , it could even take infinite time to travel from one region to another (for example through the existence of black-holes) !!! The problem is how to define an infinite universe then.

The concept 'infinite amount' is a logical impossibility. Because infinity does not have a beginning, it cannot be counted and the idea of an infinite amount is invalid.

The counting that occurs is mathematics which is a mental construct and thus a perception.

As can be seen in the topic about the Infinite monkey theorem, the factoring out of the observer (perception) results in the idea that mathematical infinity can be applicable to reality, for example as a ground for the claim that there is no need for a God or intelligent design, or in your example, to explain the fundamental nature of reality.

The 'begin' (start of a pattern or 'value') that is introduced by the observing mind implies that what preceded it (which is necessarily 'meaning') lays beyond it from the perspective of the individual. What preceded a begin on a fundamental level logically knows no end, which results in the idea of infinity.

[psyreporter]

Again, if you can think of a third option, that's great, but you'd need to present what the third option would be.

That question is being asked from the assumption that an option needs to be present, i.e. that an existent is 'real' and requires an option.

Logical options. Either we're exhausting the logical possibilities or we're not.

There's no suggestion that an existent need be "real" in the traditional real/antireal sense, just that an existent must be an existent.

There is an 'issness' involved in your argument ("existent 'is' an existent"), denoting a quality as if it is an indisputable certainty within any context of thinking, which results in the consideration that there are logical options that can be exhausted, which then is used as a basis to explain the fundamental nature of reality, as can be seen in your denotion of time as Tn in topic Endless and infinite by which you argued that an infinite amount of time cannot precede a given Tn (impossibility of ‘traversing the infinite’).

The issness-factor of an 'existent' of which it is assumed to be non-disputable within any context of thinking is applied to the concept 'time state' with the cited two options as the only possible explanation (logical possibilities to be exhausted), on the basis of which you concluded that time must have had a beginning.

The cited study in the OP indicates that all particles in the Universe are entangled by kind which implies that non-locality is applicable to reality itself.

From the perspective of non-locality there cannot be an 'amount' of anything other than as seen from a 'begin' that is introduced by the observing mind (a perspective). That perspective logically knows no end because what preceded a begin on a fundamental level cannot have an end.

[Terrapin Station]

Again, if you can think of a third option, that's great, but you'd need to present what the third option would be.

That question is being asked from the assumption that an option needs to be present, i.e. that an existent is 'real' and requires an option.

Logical options. Either we're exhausting the logical possibilities or we're not.

There's no suggestion that an existent need be "real" in the traditional real/antireal sense, just that an existent must be an existent.

There is an 'issness' involved in your argument ("existent 'is' an existent"), denoting a quality as if it is an indisputable certainty within any context of thinking, which results in the consideration that there are logical options that can be exhausted, which then is used as a basis to explain the fundamental nature of reality, as can be seen in your denotion of time as Tn in topic Endless and infinite by which you argued that an infinite amount of time cannot precede a given Tn (impossibility of ‘traversing the infinite’).

The issness-factor of an 'existent' of which it is assumed to be non-disputable within any context of thinking is applied to the concept 'time state' with the cited two options as the only possible explanation (logical possibilities to be exhausted), on the basis of which you concluded that time must have had a beginning.

Say what now? I have no idea what any of that is saying really.

The cited study in the OP indicates that all particles in the Universe are entangled by kind which implies that non-locality is applicable to reality itself.

From the perspective of non-locality there cannot be an 'amount' of anything other than as seen from a 'begin' that is introduced by the observing mind (a perspective). That perspective logically knows no end because what preceded a begin on a fundamental level cannot have an end.

Just as lost here. You might as well be speaking another language.

[Terrapin Station]

There is an 'issness' involved in your argument ("existent 'is' an existent"),

I mean, just to start with the above, what the heck does it mean for there to be an "isness" versus an alternative? What would the alternative be?