An object being it's own cause

  • Thread starter Thread starter Matthias123
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
wassup,

You seem to be making gross assumptions as to what I was saying. Your responses have nothing to do with what I said. You are imagining arguments that haven’t been made.
 
James_S_Saint said:
I think you misunderstand “First Cause” (as do most). It had nothing to do with the first moment in time. Time is infinite in both directions, yet this does not effect the actual First Cause argument at all. It is just a mix up in the language.
Click to expand...
That’s not possible because infinite past time entails a contradiction.
 
James_S_Saint said:
wassup,

You seem to be making gross assumptions as to what I was saying. Your responses have nothing to do with what I said. You are imagining arguments that haven’t been made.
Click to expand...
Hmmm, I thought I was using your words, but apparently you are infinitely wiser than I and even commenting on what you said is impossible for one of my lesser intellect. I bow to your true genius. My ignorance is bare before all…
 
James_S_Saint said:
Which would be?
Click to expand...
It’s the difference between potential and actual infinities. Past time has actually occurred, future time can potentially occur.

Infinity is, by definition, unachievable.

The dictionary on my computer defines infinity as:
Mathematics a number greater than any assignable quantity or countable number (symbol ∞).
So, by definition, infinity is uncountable (unachievable == you can’t count to infinity). Future time which has not yet occurred can potentially progress infinitely, but past time has actually occurred and is countable. Infinite past time would mean that a contradiction (an countable uncountable) exists.
 
1holycatholic said:
It’s the difference between potential and actual infinities. Past time has actually occurred, future time can potentially occur.

Infinity is, by definition, unachievable.

The dictionary on my computer defines infinity as:
Mathematics a number greater than any assignable quantity or countable number (symbol ∞).
So, by definition, infinity is uncountable (unachievable == you can’t count to infinity). Future time which has not yet occurred can potentially progress infinitely, but past time has actually occurred and is countable. Infinite past time would mean that a contradiction (an countable uncountable) exists.
Click to expand...
Isn’t that red phrase an assertion of yours?

The dictionary said nothing about the past being “countable”.

Logic would dictate otherwise in that for any event to occur, it had to have a cause to bring it about and that cause had to exist prior to the event (by definition), but that cause is in itself an event subject to the same concerns of having to have a cause prior. Thus there can be no beginning point as each cause must also have a prior cause.
 
James_S_Saint said:
Isn’t that red phrase an assertion of yours?

The dictionary said nothing about the past being “countable”.

Logic would dictate otherwise in that for any event to occur, it had to have a cause to bring it about and that cause had to exist prior to the event (by definition), but that cause is in itself an event subject to the same concerns of having to have a cause prior. Thus there can be no beginning point as each cause must also have a prior cause.
Click to expand...
Days past:
Today = has no passed => 0 days in the past.
Yesterday = 1 day => 1 day in the past.
Day before yesterday = 1 day => 2 days in the past.
The day before the day before yesterday = 1 day => 3 days in the past.
etc. etc. etc.

You are stating that an infinite (∞) number of days have occurred in the past.

Count them for us. :coffeeread:
 
1holycatholic said:
You are stating that an infinite (∞) number of days have occurred in the past.

Count them for us. :coffeeread:
Click to expand...
You are the one who said they were countable. I said they are not (infinite).

So you count them for us to demonstrate your point. 🍿
 
James_S_Saint said:
You are the one who said they were countable. I said they are not (infinite).

So you count them for us to demonstrate your point. 🍿
Click to expand...
I have demonstrated that they are, in fact, countable, therefore your claim that they are not countable is demonstrably false.
 
1holycatholic said:
It’s the difference between potential and actual infinities. Past time has actually occurred, future time can potentially occur.
Click to expand...
Scientific method for determining if past time is infinite: Make astronomical observations and estimate the amount and distribution of matter in the universe. Enter that information into Einstein’s equation for gravity, and determine if the solution is a compact 4-manifold or a non-compact 4-manifold.

Metaphysical method for determining if past time is infinite: Think real hard about potential and actual infinities.

Am I really supposed to believe that the metaphysical method is superior?
 
Just_Lurking said:
Scientific method for determining if past time is infinite: Make astronomical observations and estimate the amount and distribution of matter in the universe. Enter that information into Einstein’s equation for gravity, and determine if the solution is a compact 4-manifold or a non-compact 4-manifold.
Click to expand...
But then without accepting the principle of “cause and effect” from the start, no Science would be relevant. :o
 
Just_Lurking said:
Scientific method for determining if past time is infinite: Make astronomical observations and estimate the amount and distribution of matter in the universe. Enter that information into Einstein’s equation for gravity, and determine if the solution is a compact 4-manifold or a non-compact 4-manifold.

Metaphysical method for determining if past time is infinite: Think real hard about potential and actual infinities.

Am I really supposed to believe that the metaphysical method is superior?
Click to expand...
Do you consider the Hilbertian prohibition of achieved infinite sequences a metaphysical method?
 
1holycatholic said:
Do you consider the Hilbertian prohibition of achieved infinite sequences a metaphysical method?
Click to expand...
I view mathematician David Hilbert’s program of finitism (using only finitistic principles to prove the consistency of mathematical reasoning) an interesting mathematical experiment that ended in failure when Godel proved his Incompleteness Theorem. But metaphysically speaking, I thought his end goal was to justify the mathematical use of achieved infinities to people who didn’t believe in them, which is why he focused on finitistic principles that had universal agreement.

Interestingly enough, modern proof theory uses some fairly sophisticated infinite ordinal numbers to rank the strength of various mathematical systems (see here).
 
Just_Lurking said:
I view mathematician David Hilbert’s program of finitism (using only finitistic principles to prove the consistency of mathematical reasoning) an interesting mathematical experiment that ended in failure when Godel proved his Incompleteness Theorem. But metaphysically speaking, I thought his end goal was to justify the mathematical use of achieved infinities to people who didn’t believe in them, which is why he focused on finitistic principles that had universal agreement.

Interestingly enough, modern proof theory uses some fairly sophisticated infinite ordinal numbers to rank the strength of various mathematical systems (see here).
Click to expand...
Interesting. I was just wondering the other day if I might find a mathematician on this forum.

The mathematical “formula” for the Creator (God the Father, First Cause) is known to Man, but is it known to the Catholic?

And more importantly, is it allowed to be known to the layman?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top