Nothing cannot exist

[STT]

I don;t see where there is any rule of logic broken by assuming that time extends infinitely in the past as does the real line. Please advise us of what rule of logic you are thinking about. The numbers on the real line can be taken to represent the years. So 1054 can represent the year of the East West Schism. 2016 can represent the year of today. The point -2036 (minus 2036) can represent the year that the pyramids were beginning to be built. There is no rule of logic that says that the real line cannot be extended infinitely into the negative territory. We are now at 2016, which does not require infinite waiting. It is just a point at which we are presently situated on the infinite timeline. No rule of logic is violated as is proven by mathematics which breaks no logical rule by assuming an infinite real line. Actually, no rule of logic is broken by assuming an infinite planar surface. Mathematics is perfectly in accord with all the rules of logic.

I agree with all you said but the argument is something else. Can you gather infinite wealth by gathering finite amount of money each year? No. In the same manner you cannot reach from minus infinity to now by finite amount of waiting.

 

[Tomdstone]

I agree with all you said but the argument is something else. Can you gather infinite wealth by gathering finite amount of money each year? No. In the same manner you cannot reach from minus infinity to now by finite amount of waiting.

You have not told us what rule of logic is broken in mathematics by assuming the existence of the real line.

 

[STT]

You have not told us what rule of logic is broken in mathematics by assuming the existence of the real line.

I didn’t say so. I agree with the fact that the real line exists. I am saying something else which apparently you don’t pay any attention to it. I am sorry, I have to just repeat myself again which there is not point in it. I already gave you an example to think about.

 

[Tomdstone]

I didn’t say so.

Here’s what you said:“A eternal universe means that one has to come from infinite past to reach now. This is logically impossible since it requires infinite waiting.”
Your fallacy is assuming a starting point at infinity. There is no starting point at infinity. There are only points on the real time line which extends infinitely into the past. This is not logically impossible.
In some high school math courses, they talk about the paradoxes of infinity. There is one called Zeno’s paradox. There is one version of it in which Zeno fallaciously claims that it is impossible to proceed from point A to point B, because it would require an infinite number of steps and you would never get there. Say point A was 0 on the real line and point B was 1.
In the first step you proceed from 0 to .5
In the second step you procees from .5 to .75
in the third step you proceed from .75 to point .875, etc, and proceeding this way means that you have to take an infinite number of steps to get to 1. He then claims that it is impossible to take an infinite number of steps, so you will never get to 1.

 

[STT]

Here’s what you said:“A eternal universe means that one has to come from infinite past to reach now. This is logically impossible since it requires infinite waiting.”
Your fallacy is assuming a starting point at infinity. There is no starting point at infinity. There are only points on the real time line which extends infinitely into the past. This is not logically impossible.
In some high school math courses, they talk about the paradoxes of infinity. There is one called Zeno’s paradox. There is one version of it in which Zeno fallaciously claims that it is impossible to proceed from point A to point B, because it would require an infinite number of steps and you would never get there. Say point A was 0 on the real line and point B was 1.
In the first step you proceed from 0 to .5
In the second step you procees from .5 to .75
in the third step you proceed from .75 to point .875, etc, and proceeding this way means that you have to take an infinite number of steps to get to 1. He then claims that it is impossible to take an infinite number of steps, so you will never get to 1.

Can you gather infinite wealth by gathering finite amount of money each year? No. Then you cannot reach infinity on real line either with finite steps either. Eternal universe means that the universe has ever existed. This means that you cannot reach its starting by finite steps and this equivalent by considering that the beginning of the universe is in minus infinity. That is the definition of infinity, you can never reach it, so can never reach back if you start from infinity. This is what I am talking about.

 

[Tomdstone]

Can you gather infinite wealth by gathering finite amount of money each year? No. Then you cannot reach infinity on real line either with finite steps either. Eternal universe means that the universe has ever existed. This means that you cannot reach its starting by finite steps and this equivalent by considering that the beginning of the universe is in minus infinity. That is the definition of infinity, you can never reach it, so can never reach back if you start from infinity. This is what I am talking about.

There is no starting point at infinity. Time extends without bound into the past, as does the real line, without any starting point. You have not shown that “This is logically impossible”. There is no rule of logic violated, unless you can show us what rule of logic is broken.

 

[STT]

There is no starting point at infinity. Time extends without bound into the past, as does the real line, without any starting point. You have not shown that “This is logically impossible”. There is no rule of logic violated, unless you can show us what rule of logic is broken.

Can we ever reach the infinite future? If no, then the reverse is no hence we cannot reach from infinite past to now.

 

[Wesrock]

I think it is matter of definition. Of course, there could not be anything like nothing if it is not-being. We can however define it as a state of existence, a being, with no attribute.

Defining nothing as a state of existence (being) with no attributes is not what is meant by “nothing” by metaphysicians when they speak of it, though, so I’m not sure it’s a useful one for the topic.

I cannot follow you here. What do you mean?

If we take that “existence is necessary” is true (which I don’t believe is true, but for the sake of argument here I’ll allow it) and then take the fact that the universe exists, it does not follow necessarily that the universe is necessary and not contingent. It does not serve as proof that the universe is not contingent on another necessary existence. Ontological dependence does not require a before.

 

[Wesrock]

To state my objections to your syllogism more clearly.

Premise 1 is not demonstrably true and the apparent contradiction seems to be based in a faulty conception of nothing.

Premise 3 is true, but the implication you are drawing from it, that therefore there can be no cause upon which it is dependent, is not demonstrably true and is something that is just false.

Premise 4 does not follow as necessary even if we assume 1 to be true because the implication drawn from 3 is false. 1 is false as well, though, anyway.

 

[STT]

If we take that “existence is necessary” is true (which I don’t believe is true, but for the sake of argument here I’ll allow it) and then take the fact that the universe exists, it does not follow necessarily that the universe is necessary and not contingent.

This I understand. But I am arguing (the corrected argument) that the universe is necessity rather than existence. The necessity of existence follows from the necessity of universe. Here I provide the argument again if you want to discuss it further.

1. The universe exists
2. The universe has a beginning (universe cannot be eternal and this can be proven)
3. There is no point before the beginning but after
4. Existence of universe is necessary

It does not serve as proof that the universe is not contingent on another necessary existence.

That is true. But we can say that the opposite is true too since we cannot prove that the universe is contingent. Do you have any proof?

Ontological dependence does not require a before.

This I understand.

 

[STT]

To state my objections to your syllogism more clearly.

Premise 1 is not demonstrably true and the apparent contradiction seems to be based in a faulty conception of nothing.

Premise 3 is true, but the implication you are drawing from it, that therefore there can be no cause upon which it is dependent, is not demonstrably true and is something that is just false.

Premise 4 does not follow as necessary even if we assume 1 to be true because the implication drawn from 3 is false. 1 is false as well, though, anyway.

Are you talking about this argument?

1. The universe exists
2. The universe has a beginning (universe cannot be eternal and this can be proven)
3. There is no point before the beginning but after
4. Existence of universe is necessary

 

[Wesrock]

Yes. That is what I meant when I originally said 4 does not follow from 1, 2, and 3.

 

[STT]

To state my objections to your syllogism more clearly.

Premise 1 is not demonstrably true and the apparent contradiction seems to be based in a faulty conception of nothing.

I cannot follow you here. All I said was that the universe exists.

Premise 3 is true, but the implication you are drawing from it, that therefore there can be no cause upon which it is dependent, is not demonstrably true and is something that is just false.

Do you mean the premises (4) by the bold part?

Premise 4 does not follow as necessary even if we assume 1 to be true because the implication drawn from 3 is false. 1 is false as well, though, anyway.

I had a way to demonstrate that how (4) follows from (3) but I have forgot it. I will think about it.

 

[Wesrock]

I cannot follow you here. All I said was that the universe exists.

You cannot follow because I was being a dolt and phone posting from memory and I got your premises 1 and 2 all confused in my head with other statement from this topic. Whoops! Sorry about that.

1. The universe exists

Yep.

1. The universe has a beginning

Yep.

1. There is no point before the beginning but after

It’s 3 in which there is an issue, and I did get that one right in my head. "Premise 3 is true, but the implication you are drawing from it, that therefore there can be no cause upon which the universe is dependent, is not demonstrably true and there is no reason to accept it as true.

1. Existence of universe is necessary

Premise 4 does not follow as necessary because the implication drawn from 3 is false. And I see no reason to assume that this configuration of the universe is necessary over some other configuration.

 

[Wesrock]

STT, do you hold that the arrangement of every quark/gluon in the universe at every moment in time is the only possible arrangement for what the universe could have been?

 

[STT]

You cannot follow because I was being a dolt and phone posting from memory and I got your premises 1 and 2 all confused in my head with other statement from this topic. Whoops! Sorry about that.

No Problem.

1. The universe exists

Yep.

Good.

1. The universe has a beginning

Yep.

Good.

1. There is no point before the beginning but after

It’s 3 in which there is an issue, and I did get that one right in my head. "Premise 3 is true,** but the implication you are drawing from it, that therefore there can be no cause upon which the universe is dependent, is not demonstrably true and there is no reason to accept it as true.**

Do you mean the premises (4) by the bold part?

1. Existence of universe is necessary

Premise 4 does not follow as necessary because the implication drawn from 3 is false. And I see no reason to assume that this configuration of the universe is necessary over some other configuration.

I cannot follow you here. (4) follows from (1), (2) and (3). That is true because something which exists, has a beginning and there is no point before its beginning doesn’t need and cannot have any temporal cause.

 

[STT]

STT, do you hold that the arrangement of every quark/gluon in the universe at every moment in time is the only possible arrangement for what the universe could have been?

Yes. Why do you need that?

 

[Wesrock]

No Problem.

Thanks

Do you mean the premises (4) by the bold part?

No, I mean 3.

I cannot follow you here. (4) follows from (1), (2) and (3). That is true because something which exists, has a beginning and there is no point before its beginning doesn’t need and cannot have any temporal cause.

The bolded part is the issue. Sure, there cannot be a cause temporally before because there is no before. However, a temporally-before cause is only one type of cause, not all causes are temporally-before. Nor are all causes discrete. There are things that continue to be so only because an external force continually acts. A scholastic would view an ontological dependence as a type of causation. Saying it does not need a cause is also not demonstrated by your point.

 

[Wesrock]

Yes. Why do you need that?

Just checking for an inconsistency. It’s a very bold claim, and rather rules out any type of free will.

 

[o_mlly]

Yes, considering the fact that the universe exist. You can write this in syllogism:

1. The universe exists
2. The universe has a beginning (universe cannot be eternal and this can be proven)
   2a) Everything in the universe has a beginning
   2b) Anything outside the universe cannot have a beginning
3. -]There is no point before the beginning but after/-]Does not follow
   3a) Everything in the universe must have a cause
4. Existence outside the universe is necessary