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

[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.

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

Logic does not deal with possibilities, but with validity.

[Sculptor1]

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.

Please state your premises.
Please explain, without induction, how such claims can be true (without empirical evidence).

[GE Morton]

Well, time isn't real at all.

That would depend upon the criteria you've adopted for pronouncing something "real."

Indeed, which is why explain that thoroughly in my topic, Neither time, time-ness, unconscious here-ness, unconscious now-ness, nor any unconscious presence exist.

Well, I found there a long list of things you claim don't "really exist," but no criterion for determining what is and is not "real."

Most attempts by philosophers to pronounce upon what is "real" or "fundamental" amount to speculations upon the nature of the "noumenon." Like Kant, I consider all those speculations to be idle. ""Real" and "reality" only have meaning within some theoretical framework or context. The terms are useful for distinguishing horses from unicorns, dreams from waking experience, electromagnetic fields from the aether, etc. If time is experienced then it is "real." Speculating as to whether it exists in the noumenon is idle.

[Bahman]

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.

Please state your premises.
Please explain, without induction, how such claims can be true (without empirical evidence).

My first premise is that any act requires time. To elaborate, any act has a before and an after since it deals with a change. Therefore, any act requires time.
My second premise is that the act of creating everything out of nothing includes the creation of time.

It is easy to show that following these two premises one faces an infinite regress since time is needed for the creation of time.

[Eckhart Aurelius Hughes]

Well, time isn't real at all.

That would depend upon the criteria you've adopted for pronouncing something "real."

Indeed, which is why explain that thoroughly in my topic, Neither time, time-ness, unconscious here-ness, unconscious now-ness, nor any unconscious presence exist.

Well, I found there a long list of things you claim don't "really exist," but no criterion for determining what is and is not "real."

In that case, please do reply in that other topic with your inquiry or objection or comment about it.

[Eckhart Aurelius Hughes]

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?

I wouldn't necessarily say that.

What I would say is that, due to special and general relativity, most namely the relativity of simultaneity, I believe change is incompatible with determinism, if--and the word if here is a key word--we assume there is nothing transcendental to the 4D block universe.

Most specifically, I generally mean causal determinism, but I would conjecture that logically it applies to any reasonable definition of or form of determinism one could propose. To me, it seems almost like basic grammar in a sense, simply because of the way the words fit together: If the future and/or past can change, then they aren't determined, ipso facto.

Defining or redefining one of the terms ('change' or 'determinism') seems to simply result in logically equally defining/redefining the other to match. In analogy, if we redefine what the word being 'married' means exactly it is still true that all bachelors are unmarried. Any reasonable definition or redefinition of the words would still retain that relationship between them. Roughly, I believe the same relationship appears between determinism and change (if determinism is the bachelor, then change existing is the state of being married). Reality (i.e. the universe as a 4D whole) cannot be married to change and free of change at the same time; That is, at least, once we eliminate the illusion of objective simultaneity and an objective now from the equation (i.e. reject the classical and Newtonian physics, which both have been thoroughly debunked the same as Flat Earth Theory). That isn't to say those ideas (e.g. Newtonian physics or Flat Earth Theory) ever made sense in the first place, or don't create all sorts of nonsense paradoxes like the one wisely illustrated in your OP here.

[Sculptor1]

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.

Please state your premises.
Please explain, without induction, how such claims can be true (without empirical evidence).

My first premise is that any act requires time.

You are assuming that creation was an "act".
And that the conditions of the universe have always been the same.
This is not a valid assumption since the moment of "creation" was a unique event.

To elaborate, any act has a before and an after since it deals with a change. Therefore, any act requires time.
My second premise is that the act of creating everything out of nothing includes the creation of time.

This undermines your own objection since you realise that "creation" is a unique event in which your first premise may not apply.

It is easy to show that following these two premises one faces an infinite regress since time is needed for the creation of time.

You can try to do that, but your premises may not be valid.

[GrayArea]

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.

Going by your logic, there can only be creation from "something", but then now you wouldn't be able to explain why that "something" exists, without employing the same scenario (of creation from "something") over and over again. An eternal cycle.

So I say this: The only reason why there is "creation" is because that what "creation" means. That is to say the sole cause of existence lies in its own definition.

[GE Morton]

Going by your logic, there can only be creation from "something", but then now you wouldn't be able to explain why that "something" exists, without employing the same scenario (of creation from "something") over and over again. An eternal cycle.

Correct. "Something cannot come from nothing. Therefore, something has always existed." (An argument Robert Nozick attributed to his 9 year-old daughter).

There was never any "creation."

[GrayArea]

Going by your logic, there can only be creation from "something", but then now you wouldn't be able to explain why that "something" exists, without employing the same scenario (of creation from "something") over and over again. An eternal cycle.

Correct. "Something cannot come from nothing. Therefore, something has always existed." (An argument Robert Nozick attributed to his 9 year-old daughter).

There was never any "creation."

Yes, I agree that there was never any "creation"—as in—the process of something "emerging" from nothing. That's to say what I meant as "creation" in my initial reply was not the process of something emerging from nothing, but a synonymous for "existence" or a "something".

So perhaps in alignment with Robert Nozick's quote, I could re-phrase what I said to "The only reason why there is "something" is because that's what "something" means."

[Consul]

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

What do you mean by "empirically possible"?

[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?

I wouldn't necessarily say that.

What I would say is that, due to special and general relativity, most namely the relativity of simultaneity, I believe change is incompatible with determinism, if--and the word if here is a key word--we assume there is nothing transcendental to the 4D block universe.

Most specifically, I generally mean causal determinism, but I would conjecture that logically it applies to any reasonable definition of or form of determinism one could propose. To me, it seems almost like basic grammar in a sense, simply because of the way the words fit together: If the future and/or past can change, then they aren't determined, ipso facto.

Defining or redefining one of the terms ('change' or 'determinism') seems to simply result in logically equally defining/redefining the other to match. In analogy, if we redefine what the word being 'married' means exactly it is still true that all bachelors are unmarried. Any reasonable definition or redefinition of the words would still retain that relationship between them. Roughly, I believe the same relationship appears between determinism and change (if determinism is the bachelor, then change existing is the state of being married). Reality (i.e. the universe as a 4D whole) cannot be married to change and free of change at the same time; That is, at least, once we eliminate the illusion of objective simultaneity and an objective now from the equation (i.e. reject the classical and Newtonian physics, which both have been thoroughly debunked the same as Flat Earth Theory). That isn't to say those ideas (e.g. Newtonian physics or Flat Earth Theory) ever made sense in the first place, or don't create all sorts of nonsense paradoxes like the one wisely illustrated in your OP here.

Let me ask you this question then since you evade to define determinism: Is it correct to say that only one state of affairs is actual in 4D block universe at any given point? Now for example, you are reading what I am writing. You then reply to me. So there are two state of you that both cannot be actual at the same point. How can you be in two different state of affairs, one after another one, if you don't move in 4D block universe?

[Bahman]

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

Please state your premises.
Please explain, without induction, how such claims can be true (without empirical evidence).

My first premise is that any act requires time.

You are assuming that creation was an "act".

No, I am assuming that the universe is caused by an act.

And that the conditions of the universe have always been the same.

When did I say that?

This is not a valid assumption since the moment of "creation" was a unique event.

What is not valid?

To elaborate, any act has a before and an after since it deals with a change. Therefore, any act requires time.
My second premise is that the act of creating everything out of nothing includes the creation of time.

This undermines your own objection since you realise that "creation" is a unique event in which your first premise may not apply.

What is my first premise?

It is easy to show that following these two premises one faces an infinite regress since time is needed for the creation of time.

You can try to do that, but your premises may not be valid.

My premises are valid.

[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.

Going by your logic, there can only be creation from "something", but then now you wouldn't be able to explain why that "something" exists, without employing the same scenario (of creation from "something") over and over again. An eternal cycle.

The eternal cycle is invalid since there is no beginning for it. Both the act of creation and the cyclic universe suffer from the same problem, infinite regress. Putting all these models, the creation of the universe, the cyclic universe, and the eternal universe, aside one can conclude that nothing to something must be possible.

So I say this: The only reason why there is "creation" is because that what "creation" means. That is to say the sole cause of existence lies in its own definition.

I cannot follow you here.

[Sculptor1]

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

What do you mean by "empirically possible"?

There is no two words that have a more simple meaning.
I find your question puzzling.