Philosophy Discussion Forums | A Humans-Only Philosophy Club

[pulptarkovsky]

They wouldn't let me post this anywhere useful on Reddit so I signed up here.

It used to seem to me common sense that everything must have a beginning and an end.

And I still believe in the Buddhist viewpoint that nothing lasts forever, and everything is changing.

So I went to ask the physics forum on reddit if there was any scientific laws that would confirm any of these things.

And to my surprise they seem to believe the opposite of everything I just stated, or at the very least say there is no scientific evidence that says they are facts.

This has me questioning where I got these ideas. I know I've done a lot of metaphysical research, but perhaps philosophy can give me some logical arguments that would prove these things to be true. In such a way that to deny them would be a complete fallacy.

I guess where I'm coming from is the assumption that the universe is binary.

Ch 2 of the Tao Te Ching:

When people see some things as beautiful, other things become ugly.

When people see some things as good, other things become bad.

Being and non-being create each other.

Difficult and easy support each other.

Long and short define each other.

High and low depend on each other.

Before and after follow each other.

Aren't all these opposites determinants? Isn't it so that if you take away one the other becomes meaningless?

I used to take for granted that was the case, but scientists seem to be saying it isn't?

It's like all I'm hearing from science is -- yes you can have a universe that is all good, and no evil. Yes you can have universe that is all cold, and not hot. Yes you can have a universe that is all big, and no small. Etc.

I feel weird I have to even ask for help in deciding which viewpoint is factually correct or not. That which seems like common sense or the scientists.

Please help me find any logical arguments that are hard to argue with if not impossible to bolster the theory or idea that --

1. Beginning implies end, you can't have one without the other.
2. Nothing phenomenal lasts forever (not counting noumenal things)
3. Everything is changing. (again not counting noumenal things)

For some reason I feel all three of these things are tied together, and should be fairly easy to prove from a logical standpoint, but I guess I need some assistance.

[Pattern-chaser]

The responses you have previously received come from a variety of sources, from Sciencists at one extreme, to mystics (?) at the other. You are asking some quite fundamental questions, that go deep to the very foundations of our personal and philosophical beliefs. This tends to mean that you will get strong and emotional arguments from those seeking to defend their own view on the world. Hence the confusion and disagreement?

[Lagayscienza]

polptarkovsky, what you will get at a physics forum on reddit will not help much because you seem to be asking metaphysical questions. However the language of metaphysics is not the language used when doing actual physics which is a very mathematical science. You need the language of mathematics to do physics.

This is not to say that some physicists do not sometimes wonder about metaphysical questions. They do - even to the extent that many of the greats in physics have also been theists or mystics in the eastern tradition. I think of Eddington and Schrödinger for example. I guess that physicists tend to keep their physical and metaphysical lives separate.

I don't know how you would go about logically proving the sorts of questions you mention. Some here are more au fait with formal logic than me. They may be able to help. However, it is not clear to me how one would show logically that, for example, a beginning implies an end. I can imagine circumstances is which that may not be the case. But I'd be interested to read any proposals either way.

[RJG]

I know I've done a lot of metaphysical research, but perhaps philosophy can give me some logical arguments that would prove these things to be true. In such a way that to deny them would be a complete fallacy.

I guess where I'm coming from is the assumption that the universe is binary.

Ch 2 of the Tao Te Ching:

When people see some things as beautiful, other things become ugly.

When people see some things as good, other things become bad.

Being and non-being create each other.

Difficult and easy support each other.

Long and short define each other.

High and low depend on each other.

Before and after follow each other.

Aren't all these opposites determinants? Isn't it so that if you take away one the other becomes meaningless?

Pulp, -- firstly, welcome to this forum, and secondly, you are correct. Logic tells us that the existence of X depends on the existence of ~X (not-X), and vice-versa. You can't have one without the other; i.e., it is logically impossible for one to exist without the other. There can be no identity; nor existence without this binary relationship. It is impossible to make the claim that "X exists" without logically implying the existence of ~X.

To help illustrate this logical impossibility, take out a piece of paper and mark a big “X” on it. Now ask yourself the following questions –
1. Can the “X” (the foreground mark) exist without a ~X (the background paper in this case)? [answer = no]
2. Can foregrounds exist without backgrounds (and vice-versa)? [answer = no]
3. Can anything (X) exist without something else (~X) to give it identity/existence? [answer = no]

The existence of X logically implies the existence of ~X. (...can't have one without the other!).

I used to take for granted that was the case, but scientists seem to be saying it isn't?

Don't believe these so-called "scientists". Science that defies logic is very Bad Science. …run from it!!

[Lagayscienza]

I don't think that X always implies -X. For example, if the universe is infinite, a spaceship can start a journey from Earth and keep going forever. Its journey will have a beginning but no end. Therefore it is not true that all beginnings have an end. Therefore, X does always imply -X.

And, BTW, good science will never defies logic. However, logic can be faulty. If the premises of a syllogism are wrong, then the conclusion will be wrong. Thus there may be something wrong with the premises in my argument that a beginning does not imply an end. If my premises are faulty I would like to know about it.

[pulptarkovsky]

And, BTW, good science will never defies logic. However, logic can be faulty. If the premises of a syllogism are wrong, then the conclusion will be wrong. Thus there may be something wrong with the premises in my argument that a beginning does not imply an end. If my premises are faulty I would like to know about it.

I don't know if it's a fault in the logic of your argument, but you are assuming that the universe will never cease to exist. And I thought RJG might have already proved that the universe will come to an end?

3. Can anything (X) exist without something else (~X) to give it identity/existence? [answer = no]

I don't know if the above has been proven logically sound though.

And even if it was I don't know if it proves the statement that the universe must cease to exist eventually.

Those are thing I would like to find out though.

[Pattern-chaser]

I thought RJG might have already proved that the universe will come to an end?

3. Can anything (X) exist without something else (~X) to give it identity/existence? [answer = no]

I don't know if the above has been proven logically sound though.

You are right to doubt. Consider what happens if "X" is the Universe; everything that is. In that case, there is no "~X". In that one case, at least, RJG's idea is wrong. I imagine there will be other examples too, but perhaps one is enough?

[Lagayscienza]

And, BTW, good science will never defies logic. However, logic can be faulty. If the premises of a syllogism are wrong, then the conclusion will be wrong. Thus there may be something wrong with the premises in my argument that a beginning does not imply an end. If my premises are faulty I would like to know about it.

I don't know if it's a fault in the logic of your argument, but you are assuming that the universe will never cease to exist. And I thought RJG might have already proved that the universe will come to an end?

3. Can anything (X) exist without something else (~X) to give it identity/existence? [answer = no]

I don't know if the above has been proven logically sound though.

And even if it was I don't know if it proves the statement that the universe must cease to exist eventually.

Those are thing I would like to find out though.

It is not clear that our universe will have an end. It may go on expanding forever, or it is possible that it may contract in a Big Crunch and form the seed of a new Big Bang. This sort of universal recycling could go one forever without end. Energy cannot be create or destroyed. It can only change form. In which case, a beginning need not imply and end. Pattern Chaser provided another cosmological example. So the notion that X must always imply -X seems to be wrong.

[Lagayscienza]

* Typo ...need not imply an end.

[RJG]

Consider what happens if "X" is the Universe; everything that is. In that case, there is no "~X".

Not so. ~X (not-X) is not necessarily the same as -X (neg-X). If "X" is the Universe, then "~X" is anything that is not-a-universe, e.g., a rock, pencil, and all the other items within the universe; that define/identify (give existence to) the universe.

Note: although -X is not ~X, it is a member of ~X

[Lagayscienza]

A rock, pencil, etc are part of the universe which contains everything. I'm wondering if it's invalid to pull something out of the universe and then say that dong so proves that "-X" is necessary.

[Pattern-chaser]

If "X" is the Universe, then "~X" is anything that is not-a-universe, e.g., a rock, pencil, and all the other items within the universe; that define/identify (give existence to) the universe.

Sorry, those seem to be what I usually call "weasel words". Your logic is not valid.


There is not "a Universe", there is only The Universe. There is only one — it's our word for life-the-universe-and-everything; there is nothing else. Not-X does not describe part of The Universe, it tries to describe that which is other than The Universe, and there is no such thing, by our definition of the word "Universe". This is not philosophy, it's word-play.

[RJG]

There is not "a Universe", there is only The Universe.

A "pencil" is NOT a (or The) "Universe". Plain and simple.

A rock, pencil, etc are part of the universe which contains everything. I'm wondering if it's invalid to pull something out of the universe and then say that dong so proves that "-X" is necessary.

"Universe" is not the same as a "pencil". These are two different things. A "part of something" is NOT the "something". A part of the universe is NOT the universe. Plain and simple.

It is these "parts" (these not-X's; ~X's) that give identity/existence to "Universe" (the X). Without these not-X's (~X's), the X (Universe) would not exist. Plain and simple.

******
Bottom-line: The existence of X logically implies the existence of ~X (and vice-versa).

[pulptarkovsky]

If "X" is the Universe, then "~X" is anything that is not-a-universe, e.g., a rock, pencil, and all the other items within the universe; that define/identify (give existence to) the universe.

Sorry, those seem to be what I usually call "weasel words". Your logic is not valid.


There is not "a Universe", there is only The Universe. There is only one — it's our word for life-the-universe-and-everything; there is nothing else. Not-X does not describe part of The Universe, it tries to describe that which is other than The Universe, and there is no such thing, by our definition of the word "Universe". This is not philosophy, it's word-play.

I think you're making another assumption, this time even greater than the person who suggested universe will never end. I honestly believe there could be at least one other thing outside and completely separate from "The Universe". I think logic follows that as well.

[Lagayscienza]

If there were anything else "outside" the universe, we could never know about it. Talking about what's outside the universe is like talking about what's north of the North Pole.