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

[psyreporter]

How can it be said that it is counter-intuitive to consider that time has had a beginning when considering your reasoning and fierce defence thereof in this topic?

As it appears, you use belief-as-such ('for whatever reason that does not need to be justified') as foundation for random claims instead of logical implications of what has been said.

If you would argue that you are the Pope, it would make no difference when it concerns the examination of the validity of your reasoning.

Your argument could imply that you hold a belief on the basis of which you make assumptions about, or within, your reasoning.

If a Kalamist would make the exact same argument as you, would it be different?

The question was whether you understand the idea of explaining why something is counterintuitive.

Would it merely concern the 'idea of explaining' with regard why anything is counter-intuitive? If so, would the basis of that be belief-as-such without the requirement to justify underlying reasoning?

Say what now?

You consistently referenced time as Tn (a change state) in this topic. Not once did you deviate from that vision that you have fiercely defended.

Example:

The problem is the "continuing flux of change." There's this state, and then it changes to that state, etc.

To get to any particular state, T, if there's an infinity of previous change states, it's not possible to arrive at T, because an infinity can't be completed to get to T.

Do you view time in other ways? If not, is a deviation of your reasoning with regard 'impossibility of traversing the infinite' possible in theory? If not, how is it possible to argue that it is non-intuitive to consider time to have had a begin?

When your reasoning in this topic is taken into consideration, the only possible way in which it would be possible to consider it to be counter-intuitive for time to have had a beginning would be when you would use 'belief-as-such' for a random claim which underlying reason does not need to be justified.

The motive to suspect this is based on our recent conversion about free will in which you were dodging my question how it it possible to maintain a belief in free will as being a materialist, since reasoning by free will sceptics indicated that it is impossible to escape determinism in a purely physical world.

Your response was the counter-question whether I could understand that people believe in all kind of things.

1. according to free will sceptics, it is impossible to escape determinism in a purely physical world.
2. whether people believe in free will or not within a purely physical world is therefore irrelevant.

Your argument: Do you at least understand that not everyone believes that the physical world operates deterministically?

My reply: Is it merely about the 'believing' part for you, similar to people's ability to believe in a pink elephant on the top of Mount Everest?

Your reply:

Sure, if there are people who believe that there's a pink elephant on top of Mount Everest, then there are people who believe that, and you should be able to understand that, right? Simple question, right?

The scope of our 'interaction' is the simple question how you can possibly justify a belief in free will while in the same time claiming that you are a materialist that believes that mind originates from the physical and that physical reality is ultimate and 'real'.

For context:

So I'm a physicalist. I'm convinced that the mind is simply brain processes.

I don't at all buy determinism.

1. Do you believe in intrinsic existence without mind?
2. Do you believe that mind has a cause within the scope of physical reality?

Yes and yes. I'm a realist and a physicalist (aka "materialist").

The discussion ended with the following:

You are dodging a simple question: how are you able to maintain a belief in free will as being a materialist?

The cited quote by free will sceptics indicates that it is impossible to escape determinism in a purely physical world.

lol - what a jackass.

The cited quote by free will sceptics that indicated that it is impossible to escape determinism in a purely physical world:

To make a choice that wasn’t merely the next link in the unbroken chain of causes, you’d have to be able to stand apart from the whole thing, a ghostly presence separate from the material world yet mysteriously still able to influence it. But of course you can’t actually get to this supposed place that’s external to the universe, separate from all the atoms that comprise it and the laws that govern them. Your conscious 'I' is just some of the atoms in the universe, governed by the same predictable laws as all the rest.

(2021) The clockwork universe: is free will an illusion?
https://www.theguardian.com/news/2021/a ... n-illusion

Therefore, the apparently only option for an explanation:

- you use belief-as-such for the claim that you find it counter-intuitive that time has had a beginning while your reasoning within this topic has indicated that time would need to have had a beginning.

Example reasoning:

The problem is the "continuing flux of change." There's this state, and then it changes to that state, etc.

To get to any particular state, T, if there's an infinity of previous change states, it's not possible to arrive at T, because an infinity can't be completed to get to T.

[psyreporter]

Follow up of the paper Endless & infinite, published in Oxford's Mind journal in March 2021:

All the time in the world
My paper on the Kalam and successive addition argument came out in the journal Mind today. You can read it here:
https://academic.oup.com/mind/advance-a ... a2mzcxC0VY

Source: https://useofreason.wordpress.com/2021/ ... the-world/

Proponents of the Kalām cosmological argument (henceforth the 'Kalām'), in particular William Lane Craig (1979), seek to show that the past must have had a beginning, a moment of creation.

[Justintruth]

I read a paper around 1979 that said that either there was a first second or there was an infinite number of seconds going backward was a false dilemma - there is a third option: the third option is that the natural symmetries on which the definition of time is based could gradually cease to be as you go back until there were no regular processes like the cesium atom or the earths revolution that allowed you to define a second. The point is that by gradually getting rid of the symmetry it would be impossible to describe where the first second was.

[SteveKlinko]

The answer is similar to the solution of Zeno's Paradox. The description of the problem in Zeno's Paradox artificially causes the traveler to travel each half distance in the same amount of time, thus slowing him down to zero speed in the limit. But the traveler is going at constant speed so in the limit the traveler will in fact be traversing an Infinite number of half distances per time, compensating for the fact that there are an Infinite number of these distances.

So, for the State Transition Paradox the solution is similar. Only if you assume it takes finite time for each state change will you never get to the next state. But Time is going at constant rate and as the State change time between intermediate states gets smaller and smaller (--> 0) and the number of state changes goes to Infinity, the number of state changes per Time interval will go to Infinity because Time does not slow down in this non Relativistic case, which exactly compensates for the Infinite number of intermediate transition states.

Can a mathematics based infinite division mind experiment be compared to the mentioned change states of which @Terrapin Station will argue that they are 'objectively real? What would be the basis for that claim?

First of all, there are no Infinite Real things. Infinity is a Mathematical Fiction. How are an Infinite amount of State Changes Objectively Real? They are not. But if you want to throw an Infinity at me, I can counteract your Infinity with an Infinity of my own to cancel your Infinity as I stated above.

TP mentioned the following with regard 'physical reality':

First, why would "what causes reality to exist" be necessary for knowing whether there is reality? (Keeping in mind that by "reality" here we're referring to the objective world.)

In the case that you argue that infinite regress of 'real world' change states are comparable to mathematical infinite division potential of length and time, would that not imply that idealism philosophy is applicable since both would necessarily consist of a mental concept?

There you go again with the faulty assumption that Real World States can be an Infinite Regress. Even if you want to perpetrate the Mathmaticians Infinity Fantasy on a Real World problem then my solution to the Paradox still holds. The reason you might think that an Infinite amount of States would take forever is because you are trying to think about each state as it happens. This slows the Time of the situation down because at Infinite States there would not only be differential time between the States but it would be Zero Time. So the State Transitions would happen at an Infinite rate, making it quite possible to transition through an Infinite amount of States in a Finite amount of Time. This is basic Calculus where you have the Numerator and the Denominator going to zero at the same time.

What do you think of the following reasoning of @Terrapin Station? Do you believe that it is valid? If not, how can you argue in the Inter Mind theory that it is clear that there is a causality trajectory from the Physical World to the Conscious World and not the other way around.

Now, if there's an infinite amount of time prior to the creation of the Earth, how does the time of the creation of the Earth arrive. For it to arrive time has to pass through an infinity of durations, right? (Again, this is going by you saying that time is duration and that time as duration occurs independently of us.) Can time pass through an infinity of durations to get to a particular later time? How?

When you say that something is in fact

You don't seem to understand my comments to creation. The whole point is that if there's an infinite amount of time prior to Tn then we can't get to Tn because you can't complete an infinity of time prior to Tn. Why not? Because infinity isn't a quantity or amount we can ever reach or complete.

If you speculate things like Infinite past time then you are imposing a Mathematical Fiction on the past time. Since it is a Mathematical Fiction, you can make up all kinds of things about it. Note that true Mathematicians know there is no such thing as Infinity. They never really say that something is Infinite, they always, without exception, stipulate it as Approaching Infinity. If it goes to Infinity, it becomes an Absurdity.

Take something as simple as the conception of points on a line between 0 and 1. You can say that the segment between the points is dx and so the count of points is 1/dx. The Mathematician says that as dx-->0 that the number of points approaches Infinity. But Mathematicians always avoid actually saying there are an Infinite number of points. An Infinite number of points would require dx = 0. But the absurdity of this is that with dx = 0 all the points would collapse onto a single point. There is now Zero segment length between the points. There cannot be an Infinite amount of points as long as dx > 0, no matter how small dx gets. dx > 0 and 1/dx < Infinity. This is why Infinity is not allowed in Mathematics and obviously should not be allowed in any talk of an Objective world.

The problem is the "continuing flux of change." There's this state, and then it changes to that state, etc.

To get to any particular state, T, if there's an infinity of previous change states, it's not possible to arrive at T, because an infinity can't be completed to get to T.

TP would share your idea that mind originates from the physical so if you would not agree with his vision on time, then it may be interesting to discover what the basis is in each case for the idea that mind originates from the physical.

So I'm a physicalist. I'm convinced that the mind is simply brain processes.

I don't at all buy determinism.

1. Do you believe in intrinsic existence without mind?
2. Do you believe that mind has a cause within the scope of physical reality?

Yes and yes. I'm a realist and a physicalist (aka "materialist").

Mind is the Primary Existence for us. Mind uses the Physical Mind (Brain).
I think that Volition does come from Mind so that Mind can make things happen in the PHysical Worl. But this Volition is only through a special interface like a Brain. It will be at the Brain/Mind interface. The concept of an IM is crucial in this interface process.

[Bluemist]

I read a paper around 1979 that said that either there was a first second or there was an infinite number of seconds going backward was a false dilemma - there is a third option: the third option is that the natural symmetries on which the definition of time is based could gradually cease to be as you go back until there were no regular processes like the cesium atom or the earths revolution that allowed you to define a second. The point is that by gradually getting rid of the symmetry it would be impossible to describe where the first second was.

This cosmological scenario seems correct to me.

To physics, what can't be measured can't exist. Whether there is an underlying continuous time or not becomes irrelevant if there are no discrete physical measures as yet in the universe, or if all measures have disappeared already back into a state pure energy.

In the beginning the cosmos was a compact undifferentiated whole, and in the infinite end it should dissolve or thin out to become an undifferentiated nothing.

[Terrapin Station]

The question was whether you understand the idea of explaining why something is counterintuitive.

Would it merely concern the 'idea of explaining' with regard why anything is counter-intuitive? If so, would the basis of that be belief-as-such without the requirement to justify underlying reasoning?

Say what now?

You consistently referenced time as Tn (a change state) in this topic. Not once did you deviate from that vision that you have fiercely defended.

What I'm confused about is what that (or anything else below) has to do with whether whether you understand the idea of explaining why something is counterintuitive.

[psyreporter]

What I'm confused about is what that (or anything else below) has to do with whether whether you understand the idea of explaining why something is counterintuitive.

Reminder of the question that was addressed in this topic:

Can time pass through an infinity of durations to get to a particular later time? How?

On what basis do you believe that it is a valid idea to perceive time from a totality perspective?

Why would you ask 'how is it possible for time to pass through an infinite durations?' if you find it counter-intuitive for time to have had a beginning?

If your reasoning indicates that time cannot pass through an infinite durations, then it is not counter-intuitive for time to have had a beginning. The claim that you do find it counter-intuitive would require an explanation.

Is it similar to your argument that you hold a belief in free will as being a materialist while reasoning by free will sceptics has indicated that it is impossible to escape determinism in a purely physical world? Do you intend to use 'belief-as-such' as ground for a random claim?

Why wouldn't you answer the question 'how' you are able to escape determinism in a purely physical world?

Questions:

1. Can you explain how your reasoning in this topic does not imply that time must have had a beginning?
2. According to free will sceptics it is impossible to escape determinism in a purely physical world.
   
   How are you able to escape determinism in a purely physical world?

[psyreporter]

Can a mathematics based infinite division mind experiment be compared to the mentioned change states of which @Terrapin Station will argue that they are 'objectively real'? What would be the basis for that claim?

First of all, there are no Infinite Real things. Infinity is a Mathematical Fiction. How are an Infinite amount of State Changes Objectively Real? They are not. But if you want to throw an Infinity at me, I can counteract your Infinity with an Infinity of my own to cancel your Infinity as I stated above.

That is incorrect. Mathematical infinity is a mental concept and is merely a 'potential infinity'. Mathematical infinity necessarily has a begin and therefore is merely endless.

The concept 'actual infinity' does not have a begin and therefore cannot be counted. It is of a different nature than anything that can be mathematical.

When it concerns infinity being applicable to 'change states' of which Terrapin Station would argue that they are objectively real (as part of physical reality that is to be considered all there is) then one is to establish whether time is beginningless (thus whether actual infinity is applicable to time).

A mathematical mind experiment cannot logically provide a solution in this case since mathematics always involves merely potential infinities that require a begin that is introduced by an observing mind.

There you go again with the faulty assumption that Real World States can be an Infinite Regress.

What exactly is indicated here with 'Infinite Regress'? Aren't you referring to mathematical potential infinity?

At question would be whether actual infinity - the kind that cannot be counted - would be applicable to time.

If you speculate things like Infinite past time then you are imposing a Mathematical Fiction on the past time.

No, that is not valid. Infinite past time would imply that actual infinity is applicable to time, of which then can be said that it cannot be counted and thus that it is of a different nature than mathematical potential infinity.

They never really say that something is Infinite, they always, without exception, stipulate it as Approaching Infinity. If it goes to Infinity, it becomes an Absurdity.

The error is made to exclude the observer from the consideration. What would be absurd is for a human to physically count into infinity.

But the absurdity of this is that with dx = 0 all the points would collapse onto a single point.

Mathematical infinity simply requires a begin in time. It would be absurd for mathematics to calculate something that never began.

This is why Infinity is not allowed in Mathematics and obviously should not be allowed in any talk of an Objective world.

I see no ground to assume that problems related to mathematical potential infinity would imply that actual infinity cannot be applicable in what is named reality, for example when it concerns the question whether time has a begin.

[psyreporter]

I read a paper around 1979 that said that either there was a first second or there was an infinite number of seconds going backward was a false dilemma - there is a third option: the third option is that the natural symmetries on which the definition of time is based could gradually cease to be as you go back until there were no regular processes like the cesium atom or the earths revolution that allowed you to define a second. The point is that by gradually getting rid of the symmetry it would be impossible to describe where the first second was.

This cosmological scenario seems correct to me.

To physics, what can't be measured can't exist. Whether there is an underlying continuous time or not becomes irrelevant if there are no discrete physical measures as yet in the universe, or if all measures have disappeared already back into a state pure energy.

The error is made to exclude the observer from the consideration. Counting seconds is possible only by an observing mind.

The idea 'infinite number' (backwards in time) is a nonsensical idea since actual infinite cannot be counted. The question whether actual infinite is applicable to time is nonetheless a valid question.

In the beginning the cosmos was a compact undifferentiated whole, and in the infinite end it should dissolve or thin out to become an undifferentiated nothing.

The concept nothing presupposed the idea something. It cannot logically be possible.

The idea that the Universe and time must have had a begin is only possible in a retro-perspective. It is similar to mathematics requiring a begin that is introduced by an observing mind that only allows for 'potential infinity'.

With the concept actual infinity, one is to consider the nature of beginningless.

A recent study indicated that all particles in the Universe are entangled by 'kind'. This would imply that actual infinity is necessarily applicable to physical reality and thus also time.

[psyreporter]

(2020) Is nonlocality inherent in all identical particles in the universe?
The photon emitted by the monitor screen and the photon from the distant galaxy at the depths of the universe seem to be entangled only by their identical nature. This is a great mystery that science will soon confront.
https://phys.org/news/2020-03-nonlocali ... verse.html

[Terrapin Station]

What I'm confused about is what that (or anything else below) has to do with whether whether you understand the idea of explaining why something is counterintuitive.

Reminder of the question that was addressed in this topic:

Which has what to do, exactly, with the question I'm asking you?

[SteveKlinko]

Can a mathematics based infinite division mind experiment be compared to the mentioned change states of which @Terrapin Station will argue that they are 'objectively real'? What would be the basis for that claim?

First of all, there are no Infinite Real things. Infinity is a Mathematical Fiction. How are an Infinite amount of State Changes Objectively Real? They are not. But if you want to throw an Infinity at me, I can counteract your Infinity with an Infinity of my own to cancel your Infinity as I stated above.

That is incorrect. Mathematical infinity is a mental concept and is merely a 'potential infinity'. Mathematical infinity necessarily has a begin and therefore is merely endless.

The concept 'actual infinity' does not have a begin and therefore cannot be counted. It is of a different nature than anything that can be mathematical.

What do you mean Mathematical Infinity has a Beginning? What do you mean by Actual Infinity? If we are talking about Time, and if you can nail down when Time began then you cannot say it began an Infinite amount of Time ago. The Infinite past would have no Beginning and we could never have gotten to our present Time. If you say that the Beginning of Time is Now then you can invoke the Mathematicians Fantasy of an Infinite amount of Time in the future.

When it concerns infinity being applicable to 'change states' of which Terrapin Station would argue that they are objectively real (as part of physical reality that is to be considered all there is) then one is to establish whether time is beginningless (thus whether actual infinity is applicable to time).

A mathematical mind experiment cannot logically provide a solution in this case since mathematics always involves merely potential infinities that require a begin that is introduced by an observing mind.

Mathematical Infinities always only exist in the Minds of Mathematicians. Infinities in Physical Worlds are always Absurdities that don't exist in the Minds of Mathematicians or in any kind of Objective Physical World.

There you go again with the faulty assumption that Real World States can be an Infinite Regress.

What exactly is indicated here with 'Infinite Regress'? Aren't you referring to mathematical potential infinity?

At question would be whether actual infinity - the kind that cannot be counted - would be applicable to time.

I would not apply anything to Time, since it is questionable if Time actually is a Thing In Itself that really Exists. You might be chasing Phantoms.

If you speculate things like Infinite past time then you are imposing a Mathematical Fiction on the past time.

No, that is not valid. Infinite past time would imply that actual infinity is applicable to time, of which then can be said that it cannot be counted and thus that it is of a different nature than mathematical potential infinity.

There is no Actual Infinite anything. An Infinite anything always ends up not Possible, not Real, and ultimately a Fiction.

They never really say that something is Infinite, they always, without exception, stipulate it as Approaching Infinity. If it goes to Infinity, it becomes an Absurdity.

The error is made to exclude the observer from the consideration. What would be absurd is for a human to physically count into infinity.

But the absurdity of this is that with dx = 0 all the points would collapse onto a single point.

Mathematical infinity simply requires a begin in time. It would be absurd for mathematics to calculate something that never began.

I don't understand the stipulation that Infinity has to have a Beginning. Why not let Time (whatever that is) go -Infinity to +Infinity? No Beginning and no Ending.

This is why Infinity is not allowed in Mathematics and obviously should not be allowed in any talk of an Objective world.

I see no ground to assume that problems related to mathematical potential infinity would imply that actual infinity cannot be applicable in what is named reality, for example when it concerns the question whether time has a begin.

What is Mathematical Potential Infinity?

[psyreporter]

What do you mean Mathematical Infinity has a Beginning? What do you mean by Actual Infinity? If we are talking about Time, and if you can nail down when Time began then you cannot say it began an Infinite amount of Time ago. The Infinite past would have no Beginning and we could never have gotten to our present Time. If you say that the Beginning of Time is Now then you can invoke the Mathematicians Fantasy of an Infinite amount of Time in the future.

It is addressed in the paper. Did you read it?

Quote from Endless and Infinite: potential vs actual infinite

The most commonly heard proposal is that an endless series of future events differs from a beginningless series of past events in that it is a merely potential infinite, having none of the absurd implications of the actual infinite. It is this alleged difference that particularly interests us first. Is it the case that a beginningless series is an actual infinite, whereas an endless series would be only potentially infinite?

The answer might seem to depend on one’s view of time.

https://useofreason.wordpress.com/2020/ ... -infinite/
PDF: https://www.dropbox.com/s/16kwvcuqxf3ww ... 5.pdf?dl=0

With the concept actual infinity, one is to consider the nature of 'unbegun' (beginningless).

I would not apply anything to Time, since it is questionable if Time actually is a Thing In Itself that really Exists. You might be chasing Phantoms.

What about 'change states' of which Terrapin Station argues that they are objectively real?

Can time pass through an infinity of durations to get to a particular later time? How?

What would be your reply to Terrapin Station's question?

I don't understand the stipulation that Infinity has to have a Beginning. Why not let Time (whatever that is) go -Infinity to +Infinity? No Beginning and no Ending.

That question is addressed in the paper: potential vs actual infinity.

What is Mathematical Potential Infinity?

Mathematical infinity is always a potential infinity because mathematics is only possible with a begin that is introduced by an observing mind.

[psyreporter]

What I'm confused about is what that (or anything else below) has to do with whether whether you understand the idea of explaining why something is counterintuitive.

You consistently referenced time as Tn (a change state) in this topic. Not once did you deviate from that vision that you have fiercely defended.

Example:

The problem is the "continuing flux of change." There's this state, and then it changes to that state, etc.

To get to any particular state, T, if there's an infinity of previous change states, it's not possible to arrive at T, because an infinity can't be completed to get to T.

Do you view time in other ways? If not, is a deviation of your reasoning with regard 'impossibility of traversing the infinite' possible in theory? If not, how is it possible to argue that it is non-intuitive to consider time to have had a begin?

Which has what to do, exactly, with the question I'm asking you?

Can you cite your reasoning that would indicate that it is counter-intuitive for time to have had a begin?

[SteveKlinko]

What do you mean Mathematical Infinity has a Beginning? What do you mean by Actual Infinity? If we are talking about Time, and if you can nail down when Time began then you cannot say it began an Infinite amount of Time ago. The Infinite past would have no Beginning and we could never have gotten to our present Time. If you say that the Beginning of Time is Now then you can invoke the Mathematicians Fantasy of an Infinite amount of Time in the future.

It is addressed in the paper. Did you read it?

Quote from Endless and Infinite: potential vs actual infinite

The most commonly heard proposal is that an endless series of future events differs from a beginningless series of past events in that it is a merely potential infinite, having none of the absurd implications of the actual infinite. It is this alleged difference that particularly interests us first. Is it the case that a beginningless series is an actual infinite, whereas an endless series would be only potentially infinite?

A Potential Infinity would therefore have Potential Absurd Implications.

The answer might seem to depend on one’s view of time.

https://useofreason.wordpress.com/2020/ ... -infinite/
PDF: https://www.dropbox.com/s/16kwvcuqxf3ww ... 5.pdf?dl=0

With the concept actual infinity, one is to consider the nature of 'unbegun' (beginningless).

I would not apply anything to Time, since it is questionable if Time actually is a Thing In Itself that really Exists. You might be chasing Phantoms.

What about 'change states' of which Terrapin Station argues that they are objectively real?

Can time pass through an infinity of durations to get to a particular later time? How?

What would be your reply to Terrapin Station's question?

I already answered this. Let's say some Process is going from State 1 (S1) to State 2 (S2). This will happen during some interval of Time between S1 and S2 (T12). Now let's propose that there are multiple Sub States that the Process must go through between S1 and S2. As the number of Sub States increases the time between them decreases. If you want to propose that the number of Sub States then goes to Infinity and say that it is impossible to traverse an Infinite number of Sub States then that would be wrong. The fact is that at a constant Time rate, that the System will in fact transition between an Infinite number of Sub States in the original time Interval. Only if you artificially slow the Time down for each Sub State in your Mind does it seem Impossible. Infinities are an Absurdity, so you have to be careful about just throwing them into argument about anything. If you want to put an Infinite number of Sub States into the Process, then you must accept that other Infinities will show up to compensate.

I don't understand the stipulation that Infinity has to have a Beginning. Why not let Time (whatever that is) go -Infinity to +Infinity? No Beginning and no Ending.

That question is addressed in the paper: potential vs actual infinity.

What is Mathematical Potential Infinity?

Mathematical infinity is always a potential infinity because mathematics is only possible with a begin that is introduced by an observing mind.

I tried to read the Paper, but my Neuron was tired. Maybe after it regenerates, I'll give it another try.