Existence is the default

[jcrichton]

I have no idea why you choose such a example. Of course time has a specific meaning in adult world.

Hi!

…it seems we will not meet on this subject… the reference point being the existence of time; …not that time is relevant to an adult but that it is a mechanism for measurement–a linear frame for the placing of events: past, present, future.

The Universe exist outside of such constrains!

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[ericc]

Nah, It is not like. One need to carefully define the act of creation and time to see the problem. The idea is very simple: you cannot have a theory which tells you how time starts.

Moreover that is true that the existence is the default since otherwise noting is the default which means that we need the act of creation to create the universe.

Aha! But you are avoiding answering the question. Where is your proof of existence 18 billion years ago other than your say-so?

My idea is even simpler. Prove you wrong on existence 18 billion years ago and we don’t even need to consider the creation question at all.

 

[STT]

Hi!

…it seems we will not meet on this subject… the reference point being the existence of time; …not that time is relevant to an adult but that it is a mechanism for measurement–a linear frame for the placing of events: past, present, future.

The Universe exist outside of such constrains!

Maran atha!

Angel

I don’t understand how what do say is related to what I argued.

 

[STT]

Aha! But you are avoiding answering the question. Where is your proof of existence 18 billion years ago other than your say-so?

My idea is even simpler. Prove you wrong on existence 18 billion years ago and we don’t even need to consider the creation question at all.

I am arguing against the act of creation and then conclude that the existence is the default. Do you want me to repeated that again? There exist not any theory which allows you to starts the time since the theory itself need the variable time in order to be functional.This means that the act of creation is logically impossible.

 

[Tyrel]

I am arguing against the act of creation and then conclude that the existence is the default. Do you want me to [repeat] that again? There exist not any theory which allows you to [start] time since the theory itself need the variable ‘]time’] in order to be functional.This means that the act of creation is logically impossible.

First of all, that does not mean that the act of creation is logically impossible. It is prima facie logically possible for God to create a world with an infinite past.

If, however, you are arguing your way to the conclusion that it is not logically possible for the universe to have a beginning you may be getting into trouble here. First, the current scientific consensus stands against you, for it is now the convention among physicists to concede the absolute beginning of matter, energy, space and time. Perhaps what you could say is that the notion of time bandied about by physicists is a merely physical (as opposed to metaphysical) ‘time,’ allowing you to concede everything to astrophysicists without giving up your argument. However, that will put you in the position of the scientific anti-realist.

It’s your bed. You’re going to sleep in it. Make it how you see fit. I’m just trying to alert you to the corner into which you’re about to argue yourself.

 

[STT]

First of all, that does not mean that the act of creation is logically impossible. It is prima facie logically possible for God to create a world with an infinite past.

That doesn’t resolve the problem since you are just moving time t=0 to t="-infinity".

If, however, you are arguing your way to the conclusion that it is not logically possible for the universe to have a beginning you may be getting into trouble here.

I am arguing that you cannot initiate the beginning which is different from having a beginning. This is a bit hard to comprehend.

First, the current scientific consensus stands against you, for it is now the convention among physicists to concede the absolute beginning of matter, energy, space and time.

The universe just didn’t need a creator because it has a sharp beginning which this beginning does not need to be initiated.

Perhaps what you could say is that the notion of time bandied about by physicists is a merely physical (as opposed to metaphysical) ‘time,’ allowing you to concede everything to astrophysicists without giving up your argument. However, that will put you in the position of the scientific anti-realist.

I don’t think so.

It’s your bed. You’re going to sleep in it. Make it how you see fit. I’m just trying to alert you to the corner into which you’re about to argue yourself.

 

[Tyrel]

I deliberately chosen a time longer than the age of the universe to prove the point. If the universe has always existed, you can go back 18 billion years ago. If existence was eternal, the OP would have been able to go back 18 billion years and he would be correct. If not, there was a point nothing existed. If there was a point where nothing existed, then existence as default is not true.

Are you sure God didn’t existed then? If you are Catholic, you wouldn’t have said that. You would have known God existed timelessly.
That wasn’t the subject I was replying to. I didn’t bring God up.

Be that as it may, Catholics do believe that existence (per se) is the default. Why, then, don’t we change gears and argue that the universe cannot be (or, at least, isn’t) a necessary being?

 

[STT]

Be that as it may, Catholics do believe that existence (per se) is the default. Why, then, don’t we change gears and argue that the universe cannot be (or, at least, isn’t) a necessary being?

The universe is necessary considering two facts (1) The act of creation is logically impossible (this is discussed in this thread) and (2) Things exist.

 

[jcrichton]

I don’t understand how what do say is related to what I argued.

Hi!

…perhaps I misunderstood your first post…

What I gathered was that you were claiming that there’s no Creation because there needed to be a time frame in existence prior to Creation; hence, Creation does not exist.

I attempted to demonstrate that what we know/have come to know as linear time (time frame) was engineered by man because man needed a point of reference; Creation exists outside of such constraints; therefore, Creation (Big Bang/Origin of the Universe) exists independent of man’s limited understanding and abilities (measurement of time); I thought that a simple example of pre-reason man (toddlers) was clear enough to demonstrate that existence/Universe exist even when there’s no understanding/anchor of time (linear time reference).

…but we are just ships that passed each other in the night… way back before GPS and other navigational aides.

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[STT]

Hi!

…perhaps I misunderstood your first post…

I guess so.

What I gathered was that you were claiming that there’s no Creation because there needed to be a time frame in existence prior to Creation; hence, Creation does not exist.

What I claiming is that time is a variable that allows us to quantify motion or formulate a theory. Any dynamical theory uses time to predict future (including the possibility of emergence of a new phenomena) given initial condition and time cannot be an emergent property of the system knowing the fact that time itself is variable of the dynamical theory.

I attempted to demonstrate that what we know/have come to know as linear time (time frame) was engineered by man because man needed a point of reference; Creation exists outside of such constraints; therefore, Creation (Big Bang/Origin of the Universe) exists independent of man’s limited understanding and abilities (measurement of time); I thought that a simple example of pre-reason man (toddlers) was clear enough to demonstrate that existence/Universe exist even when there’s no understanding/anchor of time (linear time reference).

…but we are just ships that passed each other in the night… way back before GPS and other navigational aides.

Maran atha!

Angel

I understand what you are saying. I hope that I am clear by now.

 

[Tyrel]

The universe is necessary considering two facts (1) The act of creation is logically impossible (this is discussed in this thread) and (2) Things exist.

That argument would be logically valid if it added the following caveats: that the sufficient condition for the universe existing is simply that “‘things’ exist,” and that if the universe could come into existence a finite time ago then the act of creation is logically possible. The problem is that there is no good reason to accept the first premise (even with the caveat).

In that thread, you state:

Any act has a before and after therefore you need time in order perform it, otherwise the act is ambiguous. How could God perform the act of creation knowing that any act is subjected to time and time is an element of universe?

First, there’s no good reason to think that every act has a before and an after. It seems logically possible, for instance, that an act has no ‘after’ (i.e., that there is one act instantaneous with the end of the universe and the end of time). Similarly it seems logically possible for there to be no temporal succession prior to an act like the creation of the universe. It may be, however, that you define ‘time’ in such an unconventional way that even the atemporal sequence of God considering the good of creation logically prior to creating, and then creating, would constitute ‘time.’ I think that’s a mistake, but if that is your definition of time, then we need only point out that time, in your sense, is by no means an element of the universe. Time is an element of the universe on the more conventional homely definition of time, but that allows for efficient causal chains whose succession doesn’t follow temporal chronology. For instance, a cause’s effect may be in the past (think about the possibility of time machines), or a cause’s effect may be simultaneous with the cause, or the cause’s effect may be, properly speaking, not temporal at all.

 

[Tyrel]

I am arguing that you cannot initiate the beginning which is different from having a beginning. This is a bit hard to comprehend.

The universe just didn’t need a creator because it has a sharp beginning which this beginning does not need to be initiated.

Yes, I see what you’re trying to argue. The problems with this abound, however. For starters, to have a universe beginning to exist without a cause is hard to reconcile with the PSR, unless the universe is necessary. If the universe itself is necessary, then that is either because some features of the universe are necessary, or the whole thing is necessary. If the whole thing is necessary then we are led to modal collapse; there will be, leftover, nothing which represents unactualized possibility. All our modal intuitions go out the window at that point, and all our modal logics are for naught. If some features of the universe are necessary, then we must ask which features, and why. However, for any features to which you may be inclined to point, it seems free of contradiction to claim that they are not necessary. Their existence is not necessary de dicto, and it’s hard to imagine that their existence is necessary de re - but even if their de re necessity is conceivable, there’s no conclusive argument for it.

 

[STT]

That argument would be logically valid if it added the following caveats: that the sufficient condition for the universe existing is simply that “‘things’ exist,” and that if the universe could come into existence a finite time ago then the act of creation is logically possible. The problem is that there is no good reason to accept the first premise (even with the caveat).

I cannot see why do you need the first premise? My reasoning is valid to my understanding.

In that thread, you state:

First, there’s no good reason to think that every act has a before and an after. It seems logically possible, for instance, that an act has no ‘after’ (i.e., that there is one act instantaneous with the end of the universe and the end of time). Similarly it seems logically possible for there to be no temporal succession prior to an act like the creation of the universe. It may be, however, that you define ‘time’ in such an unconventional way that even the atemporal sequence of God considering the good of creation logically prior to creating, and then creating, would constitute ‘time.’ I think that’s a mistake, but if that is your definition of time, then we need only point out that time, in your sense, is by no means an element of the universe. Time is an element of the universe on the more conventional homely definition of time, but that allows for efficient causal chains whose succession doesn’t follow temporal chronology. For instance, a cause’s effect may be in the past (think about the possibility of time machines), or a cause’s effect may be simultaneous with the cause, or the cause’s effect may be, properly speaking, not temporal at all.

Any act consist of a before and an after. Think of act of creation for a moment. God could decide to not create. This leads to “God alone”. There is “no thing” at that specific point since God didn’t decided to create anything. God on the other hand could decide to create. This leads to “the universe+God”. These means that we have two points which they have to be separated in order to be meaningful. In simple word, we cannot have “God alone+no thing” and “God+the universe” at the same point since the point becomes ill-defined. It would be easy to see that the same rule applies to any act since any act deals with a changes.

 

[Tyrel]

I cannot see why do you need the first premise? My reasoning is valid to my understanding.

Any act consist of a before and an after. Think of act of creation for a moment. God could decide to not create. This leads to “God alone”. There is “no thing” at that specific point since God didn’t decided to create anything. God on the other hand could decide to create. This leads to “the universe+God”. These means that we have two points which they have to be separated in order to be meaningful. In simple word, we cannot have “God alone+no thing” and “God+the universe” at the same point since the point becomes ill-defined. It would be easy to see that the same rule applies to any act since any act deals with a changes.

There is a logically possible world where God exists and nothing else exists. There is a logically possible world in which God exists and a created order (i.e., with a temporal front-edge, a beginning materially ex nihilo) exists. These two things are both possible, but they are not compossibles. In the logically possible world in which God brings into existence a created order, there is no time at which that creation did not exist. There will be a time at which that creation began to exist. We cannot meaningfully talk about what is temporally prior to that point. We can meaningfully talk about what is causally prior to that point. Causal relations do not necessarily have temporal relations any more than causes and their effects necessarily have a chronological sequence.

 

[Tyrel]

I cannot see why do you need the first premise? My reasoning is valid to my understanding.

Suppose we take the following argument:

(1) The act of creation is logically impossible.
(2) Things exist.
Therefore
(3) The universe could not have been created.

Here are some problems. First, if platonic forms existed, it wouldn’t be clear that the universe would exist. There are at least some hypothetical entities which could exist without being sufficient conditions for the universe’s existence. So you need at least that caveat…

Actually, upon reflection, it seems to me that the second premise is completely useless. Your argument would work fine as follows:

(1*) The act of creation is logically impossible.
(2*) Therefore, the universe could not have been created.

This new first premise seems equivalent to the proposition that the universe could not have had a cause. If it could have had a cause, then it could have been created, unless there are objections to that kind of creation which haven’t been articulated, but also don’t reduce to objections to atemporal causation.

… but why on earth think there can’t be atemporal causal succession?

 

[STT]

Yes, I see what you’re trying to argue. The problems with this abound, however. For starters, to have a universe beginning to exist without a cause is hard to reconcile with the PSR, unless the universe is necessary. If the universe itself is necessary, then that is either because some features of the universe are necessary, or the whole thing is necessary. If the whole thing is necessary then we are led to modal collapse; there will be, leftover, nothing which represents unactualized possibility. All our modal intuitions go out the window at that point, and all our modal logics are for naught. If some features of the universe are necessary, then we must ask which features, and why. However, for any features to which you may be inclined to point, it seems free of contradiction to claim that they are not necessary. Their existence is not necessary de dicto, and it’s hard to imagine that their existence is necessary de re - but even if their de re necessity is conceivable, there’s no conclusive argument for it.

What I claiming is that time is a variable that allows us to quantify motion or formulate a theory. Any dynamical theory uses time to predict future (including the possibility of emergence of a new phenomena such as emergence of space) given initial condition and time itself cannot be an emergent property of any system knowing the fact that it is the basic variable any dynamical theory.

 

[STT]

Sorry for misprint.

Hi!

…perhaps I misunderstood your first post…

What I gathered was that you were claiming that there’s no Creation because there needed to be a time frame in existence prior to Creation; hence, Creation does not exist.

I attempted to demonstrate that what we know/have come to know as linear time (time frame) was engineered by man because man needed a point of reference; Creation exists outside of such constraints; therefore, Creation (Big Bang/Origin of the Universe) exists independent of man’s limited understanding and abilities (measurement of time); I thought that a simple example of pre-reason man (toddlers) was clear enough to demonstrate that existence/Universe exist even when there’s no understanding/anchor of time (linear time reference).

…but we are just ships that passed each other in the night… way back before GPS and other navigational aides.

Maran atha!

Angel

What I claiming is that time is a variable that allows us to quantify motion or formulate a theory. Any dynamical theory uses time to predict future (including the possibility of emergence of a new phenomena such as emergence of space) given initial condition and time itself cannot be an emergent property of any system knowing the fact that it is the basic variable any dynamical theory.

 

[Tyrel]

What I claiming is that time is a variable that allows us to quantify motion or formulate a theory. Any dynamical theory uses time to predict future (including the possibility of emergence of a new phenomena such as emergence of space) given initial condition and time itself cannot be an emergent property of any system knowing the fact that it is the basic variable any dynamical theory.

… wait a minute. Are you a transcendental idealism of the approximately Kantian variety? Do you think that creation is possible the way Kant thought atheism was possible (i.e., as something which we cannot disprove definitively, but which we can prove definitively to be believed in, if at all, only irrationally)?

I’ve been interpreting you as something like a realist, intending your statements to be interpreted literally (and as literally true). If I’ve been wrong about that, I would appreciate you signaling that fact so that I can adjust myself accordingly.

If I haven’t been wrong about that fact, and if you do intend your statements to be both literally construed and literally true, then your definition of time seems to include atemporal causal sequences, in which case your notion of time transcends that of the physicist or theologian. On your view the theist might as well say that God, for all we know, resides in his own time. We can then speak about God’s sequential activity in a way roughly analogously to the way we might have spoken of a multiverse causing our universe (with its time) to begin to exist.

 

[Tyrel]

What I claiming is that time is a variable that allows us to quantify motion or formulate a theory. Any dynamical theory uses time to predict future (including the possibility of emergence of a new phenomena such as emergence of space) given initial condition and time itself cannot be an emergent property of any system knowing the fact that it is the basic variable any dynamical theory.

Do you adopt a version of scientific anti-realism akin to what’s called structural realism? [see: Structural Realism (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)]. In other words, are you simply saying that the act of creation is unintelligible to us because of the necessary preconditions for human reasoning (that is, the necessary presuppositions without which human beings cannot reason at all), even if it did occur? I would hold some qualified disagreement with you there, if that’s your view, but then, at least, your view would make a lot more sense to me.

 

[STT]

… wait a minute. Are you a transcendental idealism of the approximately Kantian variety?

I believe that we construct concepts through process of sensory (name removed by moderator)uts and afterward create knowledge by careful analyze of concepts.

Do you think that creation is possible the way Kant thought atheism was possible (i.e., as something which we cannot disprove definitively, but which we can prove definitively to be believed in, if at all, only irrationally)?

I think that the creation is impossible given the fact that time is an element of universe and time cannot be emergent. Needless to say that I am making a huge claim when I say that there exist not a theory… By this I include all God’s knowledge.

I’ve been interpreting you as something like a realist, intending your statements to be interpreted literally (and as literally true). If I’ve been wrong about that, I would appreciate you signaling that fact so that I can adjust myself accordingly.

Please interpret my statements literally.

If I haven’t been wrong about that fact, and if you do intend your statements to be both literally construed and literally true, then your definition of time seems to include atemporal causal sequences, in which case your notion of time transcends that of the physicist or theologian. On your view the theist might as well say that God, for all we know, resides in his own time. We can then speak about God’s sequential activity in a way roughly analogously to the way we might have spoken of a multiverse causing our universe (with its time) to begin to exist.

That (bold part) is completely new to me. But we can put it aside for sake of discussion.