Philosophy Discussion Forums | A Humans-Only Philosophy Club

[Bahman]

I also forgot to mention my even more recent post which also discusses the illusionary nature of time (and by extension the relativity of timeness and the relativity of simultaneity) in my topic, Commentary on self-transcendence, ego death, and dying before you die; with a finger snap more brutal than Thanos

I couldn't add a comment on the other thread so I add my comment here. But before I provide my argument for the existence of the mind I need to see if we can agree that change exists.

Understandable, and fair enough.

I doubt we can agree that change really exists.

That conclusion of mine (that change does not really exist) is included in my argument that neither time nor timeness really exist (without appealing to conscious presences at least) at statement number 44 of 48 in the numbered statements of the argument:

[44] Assuming there is nothing transcendental to the 4D block universe, without objective time, change is incompatible with determinism.
Example: If the Big Bang and the death of the Sun are changing or could change, then determinism is not true.

[Emphasis added.]

So you believe in block universe and determinism. How do you define determinism?

[Sculptor1]

Logic does not address what is or is not empirically possible.

It is a method by which premises and conclusions are analysed, with clearly defined rules.

[Sculptor1]

To show this we first notice that any act including the act of creation has a before and an after. This means that time is needed for any act since there is a before and an after in any act. The act of creation however includes the creation of time as well. This means that we need time for the creation of time. This leads to an infinite regress. The infinite regress is not acceptable. Therefore, the act of creation from nothing is logically impossible.

Inductive reasoning to not logical. Logic relies mostly on deduction.

[Bahman]

Logic does not address what is or is not empirically possible.

It is a method by which premises and conclusions are analysed, with clearly defined rules.

Empirically? I am trying to show that the act of creation is logically (not empirically) impossible.

[JackDaydream]

To show this we first notice that any act including the act of creation has a before and an after. This means that time is needed for any act since there is a before and an after in any act. The act of creation however includes the creation of time as well. This means that we need time for the creation of time. This leads to an infinite regress. The infinite regress is not acceptable. Therefore, the act of creation from nothing is logically impossible.

Part of the issue which I see here is what you see as 'nothing' as a concept. The physicist, Guido Tonelli (2022) argued that in understanding the origins of everything is whether such a state is seen as being an empty vacuum or as a void with underlying potential. This may parallel with the idea of the unconscious as a precondition with potential, as a source.

Also, I would say that in understanding the nature of creation, as manifestation, and reality our own epistemological and logical thinking is limited. That is not to say that it is beyond all philosophical discussion but simply that our abstractions are only captured partially. Time itself is an idea, which may or may not exist depending which dimensional framework it is viewed from. In 3D 'reality', space and time are the essential perimeters of experience, but there may be more dimensions beyond the physical. The idea of the multidimensional, or infinite, may be an important idea here, especially in connection with what the new physicists captured in the nature of quantum reality.

[Bahman]

To show this we first notice that any act including the act of creation has a before and an after. This means that time is needed for any act since there is a before and an after in any act. The act of creation however includes the creation of time as well. This means that we need time for the creation of time. This leads to an infinite regress. The infinite regress is not acceptable. Therefore, the act of creation from nothing is logically impossible.

Inductive reasoning to not logical. Logic relies mostly on deduction.

I am deducing. The main two premises are any act requires time and that the act of creation includes the creation of time. Infinite regress follows immediately.

[Bahman]

To show this we first notice that any act including the act of creation has a before and an after. This means that time is needed for any act since there is a before and an after in any act. The act of creation however includes the creation of time as well. This means that we need time for the creation of time. This leads to an infinite regress. The infinite regress is not acceptable. Therefore, the act of creation from nothing is logically impossible.

Part of the issue which I see here is what you see as 'nothing' as a concept. The physicist, Guido Tonelli (2022) argued that in understanding the origins of everything is whether such a state is seen as being an empty vacuum or as a void with underlying potential.

I can conceive nothing. Here, I am suggesting that there was a point that only God existed and nothing else. The regress follows immediately after accepting two premises, 1) Any act requires time and 2) The act of creation includes the creation of time.

This may parallel with the idea of the unconscious as a precondition with potential, as a source.

What do you mean?

Also, I would say that in understanding the nature of creation, as manifestation, and reality our own epistemological and logical thinking is limited. That is not to say that it is beyond all philosophical discussion but simply that our abstractions are only captured partially. Time itself is an idea, which may or may not exist depending which dimensional framework it is viewed from. In 3D 'reality', space and time are the essential perimeters of experience, but there may be more dimensions beyond the physical. The idea of the multidimensional, or infinite, may be an important idea here, especially in connection with what the new physicists captured in the nature of quantum reality.

Well, I can show that time is real if we accept that change is real.

[JackDaydream]

To show this we first notice that any act including the act of creation has a before and an after. This means that time is needed for any act since there is a before and an after in any act. The act of creation however includes the creation of time as well. This means that we need time for the creation of time. This leads to an infinite regress. The infinite regress is not acceptable. Therefore, the act of creation from nothing is logically impossible.

Part of the issue which I see here is what you see as 'nothing' as a concept. The physicist, Guido Tonelli (2022) argued that in understanding the origins of everything is whether such a state is seen as being an empty vacuum or as a void with underlying potential.

I can conceive nothing. Here, I am suggesting that there was a point that only God existed and nothing else. The regress follows immediately after accepting two premises, 1) Any act requires time and 2) The act of creation includes the creation of time.

This may parallel with the idea of the unconscious as a precondition with potential, as a source.

What do you mean?

Also, I would say that in understanding the nature of creation, as manifestation, and reality our own epistemological and logical thinking is limited. That is not to say that it is beyond all philosophical discussion but simply that our abstractions are only captured partially. Time itself is an idea, which may or may not exist depending which dimensional framework it is viewed from. In 3D 'reality', space and time are the essential perimeters of experience, but there may be more dimensions beyond the physical. The idea of the multidimensional, or infinite, may be an important idea here, especially in connection with what the new physicists captured in the nature of quantum reality.

Well, I can show that time is real if we accept that change is real.

The idea of 'God's existence is another matter than the one you pose in your outpost. So, I am not sure if your thread is to ask whether the idea of not believing in God is illogical. There is a thread on that which is still active and I believe that the author of the post has explored the idea of the problem of how can something come from nothing in that thread, so it may be worth you reading that thread, even though it is long. Also, in a way, Tonelli's argument could may be relevant because it does query the idea of nothingness. He is not a materialist.

Also, as far as change, it is questionable whether this proves time as such. It may be that the changes are not due to time as a causal agent. It is more the dimension in which perceived changes take place as the framework of sensory perception in human consciousness.

[Bahman]

To show this we first notice that any act including the act of creation has a before and an after. This means that time is needed for any act since there is a before and an after in any act. The act of creation however includes the creation of time as well. This means that we need time for the creation of time. This leads to an infinite regress. The infinite regress is not acceptable. Therefore, the act of creation from nothing is logically impossible.

Part of the issue which I see here is what you see as 'nothing' as a concept. The physicist, Guido Tonelli (2022) argued that in understanding the origins of everything is whether such a state is seen as being an empty vacuum or as a void with underlying potential.

I can conceive nothing. Here, I am suggesting that there was a point that only God existed and nothing else. The regress follows immediately after accepting two premises, 1) Any act requires time and 2) The act of creation includes the creation of time.

This may parallel with the idea of the unconscious as a precondition with potential, as a source.

What do you mean?

Also, I would say that in understanding the nature of creation, as manifestation, and reality our own epistemological and logical thinking is limited. That is not to say that it is beyond all philosophical discussion but simply that our abstractions are only captured partially. Time itself is an idea, which may or may not exist depending which dimensional framework it is viewed from. In 3D 'reality', space and time are the essential perimeters of experience, but there may be more dimensions beyond the physical. The idea of the multidimensional, or infinite, may be an important idea here, especially in connection with what the new physicists captured in the nature of quantum reality.

Well, I can show that time is real if we accept that change is real.

The idea of 'God's existence is another matter than the one you pose in your outpost. So, I am not sure if your thread is to ask whether the idea of not believing in God is illogical.

Well, of course, it depends on how you define God. If by God you mean the creator of everything from nothing then it is easy to see that such a God is illogical.

There is a thread on that which is still active and I believe that the author of the post has explored the idea of the problem of how can something come from nothing in that thread, so it may be worth you reading that thread, even though it is long. Also, in a way, Tonelli's argument could may be relevant because it does query the idea of nothingness. He is not a materialist.

If we accept that things start to exist at the beginning of time and the act of creation is logically impossible then it follows that nothing to something must be possible.

By the way, could you please provide a link to the other thread?

Also, as far as change, it is questionable whether this proves time as such.

I can prove that.

It may be that the changes are not due to time as a causal agent. It is more the dimension in which perceived changes take place as the framework of sensory perception in human consciousness.

Any change is due to a conscious agent. I can prove that as well.

[JackDaydream]

Part of the issue which I see here is what you see as 'nothing' as a concept. The physicist, Guido Tonelli (2022) argued that in understanding the origins of everything is whether such a state is seen as being an empty vacuum or as a void with underlying potential.

I can conceive nothing. Here, I am suggesting that there was a point that only God existed and nothing else. The regress follows immediately after accepting two premises, 1) Any act requires time and 2) The act of creation includes the creation of time.

This may parallel with the idea of the unconscious as a precondition with potential, as a source.

What do you mean?

Also, I would say that in understanding the nature of creation, as manifestation, and reality our own epistemological and logical thinking is limited. That is not to say that it is beyond all philosophical discussion but simply that our abstractions are only captured partially. Time itself is an idea, which may or may not exist depending which dimensional framework it is viewed from. In 3D 'reality', space and time are the essential perimeters of experience, but there may be more dimensions beyond the physical. The idea of the multidimensional, or infinite, may be an important idea here, especially in connection with what the new physicists captured in the nature of quantum reality.

Well, I can show that time is real if we accept that change is real.

The idea of 'God's existence is another matter than the one you pose in your outpost. So, I am not sure if your thread is to ask whether the idea of not believing in God is illogical.

Well, of course, it depends on how you define God. If by God you mean the creator of everything from nothing then it is easy to see that such a God is illogical.

There is a thread on that which is still active and I believe that the author of the post has explored the idea of the problem of how can something come from nothing in that thread, so it may be worth you reading that thread, even though it is long. Also, in a way, Tonelli's argument could may be relevant because it does query the idea of nothingness. He is not a materialist.

If we accept that things start to exist at the beginning of time and the act of creation is logically impossible then it follows that nothing to something must be possible.

By the way, could you please provide a link to the other thread?

Also, as far as change, it is questionable whether this proves time as such.

I can prove that.

It may be that the changes are not due to time as a causal agent. It is more the dimension in which perceived changes take place as the framework of sensory perception in human consciousness.

Any change is due to a conscious agent. I can prove that as well.

I am afraid that I am not able to provide links on my phone but the thread is 'Atheism is not logical' and it is being written on most days so it should be high up on the list below this thread in the philosophy of religion. I am sure you would find the author @3017Metaphysician interesting to interact with because he also has threads on time and change. He hasn't written on the site for a couple of weeks but he may get an email because I have included his name.

My understanding is that time is an aspect of human experience and can be understood as 'real' in that respect. Its metaphysics reality is another matter. That may be where the specific 'reality' of concepts such as metaphysics and logic get complex, with Wittgenstein pointing so much of philosophy down to linguistics and its limitations.

[Bahman]

I can conceive nothing. Here, I am suggesting that there was a point that only God existed and nothing else. The regress follows immediately after accepting two premises, 1) Any act requires time and 2) The act of creation includes the creation of time.


What do you mean?


Well, I can show that time is real if we accept that change is real.

The idea of 'God's existence is another matter than the one you pose in your outpost. So, I am not sure if your thread is to ask whether the idea of not believing in God is illogical.

Well, of course, it depends on how you define God. If by God you mean the creator of everything from nothing then it is easy to see that such a God is illogical.

There is a thread on that which is still active and I believe that the author of the post has explored the idea of the problem of how can something come from nothing in that thread, so it may be worth you reading that thread, even though it is long. Also, in a way, Tonelli's argument could may be relevant because it does query the idea of nothingness. He is not a materialist.

If we accept that things start to exist at the beginning of time and the act of creation is logically impossible then it follows that nothing to something must be possible.

By the way, could you please provide a link to the other thread?

Also, as far as change, it is questionable whether this proves time as such.

I can prove that.

It may be that the changes are not due to time as a causal agent. It is more the dimension in which perceived changes take place as the framework of sensory perception in human consciousness.

Any change is due to a conscious agent. I can prove that as well.

I am afraid that I am not able to provide links on my phone but the thread is 'Atheism is not logical' and it is being written on most days so it should be high up on the list below this thread in the philosophy of religion. I am sure you would find the author @3017Metaphysician interesting to interact with because he also has threads on time and change. He hasn't written on the site for a couple of weeks but he may get an email because I have included his name.

My understanding is that time is an aspect of human experience and can be understood as 'real' in that respect. Its metaphysics reality is another matter. That may be where the specific 'reality' of concepts such as metaphysics and logic get complex, with Wittgenstein pointing so much of philosophy down to linguistics and its limitations.

Ok, thanks for the information.

[Sculptor1]

Logic does not address what is or is not empirically possible.

It is a method by which premises and conclusions are analysed, with clearly defined rules.

Empirically? I am trying to show that the act of creation is logically (not empirically) impossible.

Creation is a matter of empirical reality.
The existence of the universe is a material question.

Logic does not even deal with possibilities.

[Sculptor1]

To show this we first notice that any act including the act of creation has a before and an after. This means that time is needed for any act since there is a before and an after in any act. The act of creation however includes the creation of time as well. This means that we need time for the creation of time. This leads to an infinite regress. The infinite regress is not acceptable. Therefore, the act of creation from nothing is logically impossible.

Inductive reasoning is not logical. Logic relies mostly on deduction.

I am deducing. The main two premises are any act requires time and that the act of creation includes the creation of time. Infinite regress follows immediately.

You can only deduce from premises, not from realities.
You make a circular argument claiming that creation cannot happen because creation cannot happen.
But you have no precedent for making that statement.

[Bahman]

Logic does not address what is or is not empirically possible.

It is a method by which premises and conclusions are analysed, with clearly defined rules.

Empirically? I am trying to show that the act of creation is logically (not empirically) impossible.

Creation is a matter of empirical reality.
The existence of the universe is a material question.

Logic does not even deal with possibilities.

Empirically: by means of observation or experience rather than theory or pure logic.

[Bahman]

To show this we first notice that any act including the act of creation has a before and an after. This means that time is needed for any act since there is a before and an after in any act. The act of creation however includes the creation of time as well. This means that we need time for the creation of time. This leads to an infinite regress. The infinite regress is not acceptable. Therefore, the act of creation from nothing is logically impossible.

Inductive reasoning is not logical. Logic relies mostly on deduction.

I am deducing. The main two premises are any act requires time and that the act of creation includes the creation of time. Infinite regress follows immediately.

You can only deduce from premises, not from realities.
You make a circular argument claiming that creation cannot happen because creation cannot happen.
But you have no precedent for making that statement.

I am deducing from the premises which are evident or can be shown to be true.