The begining is relative

[Bahman]

We have to first demonstrate what intellect is and what it does.

In reality the only thing that an intellect can observe are events. Lets say that we observe a set of events so called changes, E={E1,E2,E3…} which E1 happens earlier than E2 etc. By earlier we mean that the intellect is aware that E1 happened in advance compared to E2, etc. How does intellect could be aware of such a thing is subject of discussion (please read the following). The intellect however can experience the rate at which changes happen as well which.

We can now talk about the concept of beginning in which changes start. As you see the role of intellect or observer (what ever it is, whether is a single particle or a human being) is crucial since no changes can be observed without an intellect meaning that changes is a relative concept which means at least two entities are needed by which one is subjective and another one objective. In reality what is subjective to X belongs to outside X because it is experienced by X and what is experienced lets call Y is objective to X. This however apply to Y as well, namely what is experienced by Y is subjective to Y because it is experienced which is objective reality X. This means that we at least need two beings X and Y to complete the pictures. Without X, Y cannot experience anything hence it cannot be aware of its own existence as well and vice versa. So the beginning by definition is where X could experience Y and vise versa but Y could not experience anything but X and vice versa which means that the event beginning which express the existence of subjective reality is subjected to existence of an objective reality. This means that the existence of X or T is necessary for beginning but not sufficient hence the beginning is relative.

This also means that the idea of time cannot exist as a subjective reality prior to existing of an objective reality.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

We have to first demonstrate what intellect is and what it does.

In reality the only thing that an intellect can observe are events. Lets say that we observe a set of events so called changes, E={E1,E2,E3…} which E1 happens earlier than E2 etc. By earlier we mean that the intellect is aware that E1 happened in advance compared to E2, etc. How does intellect could be aware of such a thing is subject of discussion (please read the following). The intellect however can experience the rate at which changes happen as well which.

We can now talk about the concept of beginning in which changes start. As you see the role of intellect or observer (what ever it is, whether is a single particle or a human being) is crucial since no changes can be observed without an intellect meaning that changes is a relative concept which means at least two entities are needed by which one is subjective and another one objective. In reality what is subjective to X belongs to outside X because it is experienced by X and what is experienced lets call Y is objective to X. This however apply to Y as well, namely what is experienced by Y is subjective to Y because it is experienced which is objective reality X. This means that we at least need two beings X and Y to complete the pictures. Without X, Y cannot experience anything hence it cannot be aware of its own existence as well and vice versa. So the beginning by definition is where X could experience Y and vise versa but Y could not experience anything but X and vice versa which means that the event beginning which express the existence of subjective reality is subjected to existence of an objective reality. This means that the existence of X or T is necessary for beginning but not sufficient hence the beginning is relative.

This also means that the idea of time cannot exist as a subjective reality prior to existing of an objective reality.

Cannot agree to that. Time is the measure of duration of a substance in existence. Even if nothing else exisists outside the mind, I am aware of my past and present. But what does all this have to do with " beginning " and the " beginning " of what?

Linus2nd

 

[Neofight]

Cannot agree to that. Time is the measure of duration of a substance in existence. Even if nothing else exisists outside the mind, I am aware of my past and present. But what does all this have to do with " beginning " and the " beginning " of what?

Linus2nd

But that’s not quite right…beginning is subjective…Your example is similar to the beginning of the cosmos in genesis…which relates to a frame of reference (time) created for man by God.

But what about the beginning (as used in chapter 1 of the 4th gospel) not restricted to the constraints of time? The Word (Christ as the logos) was with God from the beginning, but that beginning, unlike the genesis rendition, lives outside of time.

Time, like the almighty, has no beginning, or end…only worldly events have beginnings and ends to give us a frame of reference.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

But that’s not quite right…beginning is subjective…Your example is similar to the beginning of the cosmos in genesis…which relates to a frame of reference (time) created for man by God.

But what about the beginning (as used in chapter 1 of the 4th gospel) not restricted to the constraints of time? The Word (Christ as the logos) was with God from the beginning, but that beginning, unlike the genesis rendition, lives outside of time.

Time, like the almighty, has no beginning, or end…only worldly events have beginnings and ends to give us a frame of reference.

I am speakin of this world where time is a measure of duration.

Linus2nd.

 

[empther]

Bahman,

Your “Revelation” thread laid an egg. Nobody believed your confused claims. You never explained how evil could “substantially exist”. I’m still waiting for that answer.

So now you start this new thread,
in which it’s hard to nail anything down (as usual :ehh: ),
because the title itself is meaningless.

Let’s see how far we get into the original post of this thread before we have to hit the gong.

We have to first demonstrate what intellect is and what it does.

I can’t wait to see that.

In reality the only thing that an intellect can observe are events.

**GONG! **

The intellect can know things it has not observed if the events had to have happened,or, if events could NOT have happened.
So we know the universe could not have existed through an infinite past,
and it could not have started itself from nothing.
Therefore, God created the universe.
We know these things without having observed them because we are intelligent, respect the truth, and want to know the truth.

==========================================

It really is sad to see you continue with these useless obfuscations. Nobody buys them. It’s really embarrassing to see this go on.

 

[Bahman]

Cannot agree to that. Time is the measure of duration of a substance in existence. Even if nothing else exisists outside the mind, I am aware of my past and present.

How you could measure time if nothing changes?

But what does all this have to do with " beginning " and the " beginning " of what?
Linus2nd

The beginning is where changes start and you at least need two beings to recognize changes. This means that time as a measure for duration of existence of an objective reality cannot exist without existence of an intellect which experience the existence. Hence time is subjective and needs two elements, one is intellect that experiences and the second being substance in your language or objective reality in my language which is experienced.

 

[Bahman]

You never explained how evil could “substantially exist”. I’m still waiting for that answer.

How possible could you discuss on a entity that does not exist, namely it is not experienced by intellect?

So now you start this new thread,
in which it’s hard to nail anything down (as usual :ehh: ),
because the title itself is meaningless.

You have to understand the title through the text otherwise the title becomes too long.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

How you could measure time if nothing changes?

The beginning is where changes start and you at least need two beings to recognize changes. This means that time as a measure for duration of existence of an objective reality cannot exist without existence of an intellect which experience the existence. Hence time is subjective and needs two elements, one is intellect that experiences and the second being substance in your language or objective reality in my language which is experienced.

Perhaps I should have said " the duration in existence of changing/moving being. " The intellect has nothing to do with it because there was a time, billions of years ago when only matter existed, if evolutionary theory is correct. I think time depends on both duration and change. Because in any change something purdures, certainly the essence or nature purdures, as it changes.

Linus2nd

 

[notorelativism]

The argument from the original post seems to me a superstition. For, how can the intelligence affect a beginning of a being? Regardless whether we know or not that something began to exist, that something will begin to exist.

 

[Bahman]

Perhaps I should have said " the duration in existence of changing/moving being. " The intellect has nothing to do with it because there was a time, billions of years ago when only matter existed, if evolutionary theory is correct. I think time depends on both duration and change. Because in any change something purdures, certainly the essence or nature purdures, as it changes.

Linus2nd

By intellect I didn’t mean only human being but anything that could experience an objective reality. For example, if we have two electrons A and B, then electron A is an objective reality for B and vice versa. Hence we lose the concept of motion and changes if B does not exist.

 

[Bahman]

The argument from the original post seems to me a superstition. For, how can the intelligence affect a beginning of a being? Regardless whether we know or not that something began to exist, that something will begin to exist.

Could you please elaborate?

 

[Linusthe2nd]

By intellect I didn’t mean only human being but anything that could experience an objective reality. For example, if we have two electrons A and B, then electron A is an objective reality for B and vice versa. Hence we lose the concept of motion and changes if B does not exist.

Even then time would exist, but it would simply be a duration in existence.

But the situation you describe is a hypothetical. I am certain that there is nothing that does not change/move.

Linus2nd

 

[ynotzap]

If the beginning is relative’ meaning it is not absolute, then reality can have a beginning and not have a beginning, there is no anchor and to argue about objectivity is useless We draw our knowledge from the material world Then we abstract concepts that represent that reality, in order to maintain our contact with the truth of what we know from the outside world we have to use our knowledge gathered from observation of imperical data, the scientific experience. One such experience gathered from human experience is the principle, or experience of cause and effect eg. for every action their is a reaction, for every cause their is an effect. The experience of having a capacity for knowledge, and the fulfillment of that capacity ( Potency and Act) By the correct use of logic and the use of universal self-evident principles we can arrive to the position where we can say our thinking is based on objective reality, and not on our subjective thoughts which will involve all kinds of human fallibility.

Change is in our nature, our being is called “becomming” our existence is not static, but ever changing (Potency and Act ) makes up part of our nature It is not a duration, for duration implies rate. Rate is a mathematical concept applied to the material world, but it is a spiritual concept so it takes on the concept of infinity, thats why math can deal with infinity. Now these concepts can be applied to the the p hysical world when a clock is designed to tell the duration of time, but the fact is that when the design is physical,it will constantly change, the closest we come to accurate time is called “an atomic clock” The math concept is spiritual, and the principles applied to building the clock are designed to invent a perfect clock. but the reality is there will never be a perfect clock, it will be constantly changing in the material world. With thought you can have concepts of infinity, in the material reality you are dealing with finiteness, constant change, Potency and Act

 

[Linusthe2nd]

By intellect I didn’t mean only human being but anything that could experience an objective reality. For example, if we have two electrons A and B, then electron A is an objective reality for B and vice versa. Hence we lose the concept of motion and changes if B does not exist.

This is wrong. " A hydrogen atom is an atom of the chemical element hydrogen. The electrically neutral atom contains a single positively charged proton and a single negatively charged electron bound to the nucleus by the Coulomb force. Atomic hydrogen constitutes about 75% of the elemental (baryonic) mass of the universe.( wikipedia article ) This one electron moves constantly, so your statement is wrong. Everything moves/changes even if it is only one thing.

Furthermore Aristotle has explained that every thing that is real has a nature ( essence or form ) from which all a being’s actions and characteristics are derived. Inanimate beings have natures not " intellects. " Only man has an intellect and my intellect is different from yours.

Linus2nd

 

[Bahman]

This is wrong. " A hydrogen atom is an atom of the chemical element hydrogen. The electrically neutral atom contains a single positively charged proton and a single negatively charged electron bound to the nucleus by the Coulomb force. Atomic hydrogen constitutes about 75% of the elemental (baryonic) mass of the universe.( wikipedia article ) This one electron moves constantly, so your statement is wrong. Everything moves/changes even if it is only one thing.

You don’t carefully read my statement. By two I meant just two particle. Could you imagine a world full of changes just with one particle.

Furthermore Aristotle has explained that every thing that is real has a nature ( essence or form ) from which all a being’s actions and characteristics are derived. Inanimate beings have natures not " intellects. " Only man has an intellect and my intellect is different from yours.
Linus2nd

He could be wrong. What is nature and what is intellect? Don’t forget where did you come from? You were borne of this nature. youtube.com/watch?v=W6JUw99gero

 

[Linusthe2nd]

You don’t carefully read my statement. By two I meant just two particle. Could you imagine a world full of changes just with one particle.

But we live in a real world in which every thing does change. What you call " lower intellect " is a " gap " explanation which is explained by nature. Aristotle demonstrated that nature is the source of the typical characteristics of a given substance. He futher defined nature as the principle of motion and rest in those things which have a nature, as opposed to those things which are products of art ( artifacts ) or force.

Nature is thus the source of all those actions and characteristics which a given substance displays in its typical activities. For example nurishment, growth, reproduction, sensation, self preservation, movement, thinking, etc. And the higher forms of nature exercise all the functions of the lower forms of nature. For example, man, who has a nature with the faculty of intellegence, exercises all the functions of the lower natures.

He could be wrong. What is nature and what is intellect? Don’t forget where did you come from? You were borne of this nature. youtube.com/watch?v=W6JUw99gero

Each nature has a specific set of characteristics. Man has a nature which has the faculty of intelligence. But man’s intelligence is a faculty of his nature, it is not the only faculty his nature possesses. His nature also has all the faculties that lower natures have. So man’s nature is not his intelligence. Man’s nature possesses all his faculties, of which his intellect is only one. His nature includes both the material and the non-material, that is his body and his soul. And his intellect and will are only two of the faculties or powers of his soul, which, in turn, is only one ot the components of his nature, the other being his body.

Now man gets the material component of his nature, his body, from his parents. But he gets the spiritual component of his nature from God. He does not get it from his parents.

Linus2nd

 

[notorelativism]

Could you please elaborate?

In other words, your conclusion that “Beginning is Relative” has a hidden premise that seem to say that unless there is no observer, there would be no beginning and therefore observation is a cause of beginning.

But, observation has nothing to do with a beginning. Something will begin regardless we know it or not. For, if I cook an instant noodles, I need not to make it known to you so that the noodles will start to be cooked.

Therefore, since your hidden premise is false, it follows that your conclusion is necessarily false. It cannot be at the same moment that something is starting and not starting. That would be absurd.

 

[Bahman]

In other words, your conclusion that “Beginning is Relative” has a hidden premise that seem to say that unless there is no observer, there would be no beginning and therefore observation is a cause of beginning.

But, observation has nothing to do with a beginning. Something will begin regardless we know it or not. For, if I cook an instant noodles, I need not to make it known to you so that the noodles will start to be cooked.

Therefore, since your hidden premise is false, it follows that your conclusion is necessarily false. It cannot be at the same moment that something is starting and not starting. That would be absurd.

Because the observer is need to experience thing in which this experience can affect the observer causing a change in it. Once this change is accomplished then the other being plays the role of observer which allows changes from no changes.

 

[ynotzap]

In your example you make change relative. One observer causing a change in the other observer and dependent on each other. This change that takes place in one observer is not due to the relationship to the other, but due to the nature of the observer, who has a real capacity to change to the actual changing. The other observer has the same capacity and operates independently (Potency and Act)You can’t have an infinite series of changes if they were infinite, there would be no change, because there wouldn.t be a beginning or and end to change infinity implies the fullness of being, or pure act, and there is not change in the fullness of being, or pure act., We can change because we have not experienced the fullness of being,or act. and never will, the finite can not contain the infinite but the infinite can supply our finiteness infinitely Every thing created has a beginning necessarily because there is an Absolute, even things that are relative to each other have to have an absolute otherwise how would you measure their relationship.

 

[Bahman]

In your example you make change relative. One observer causing a change in the other observer and dependent on each other. This change that takes place in one observer is not due to the relationship to the other, but due to the nature of the observer, who has a real capacity to change to the actual changing. The other observer has the same capacity and operates independently (Potency and Act).

That is correct.

You can’t have an infinite series of changes if they were infinite, there would be no change, because there wouldn.t be a beginning or and end to change infinity implies the fullness of being, or pure act, and there is not change in the fullness of being, or pure act.

We can have an infinite set of changes when we have two being meaning that two is necessary for changes to occur and the point beginning is where two come to existence or minimally the second being come to existence.

We can change because we have not experienced the fullness of being,or act. and never will, the finite can not contain the infinite but the infinite can supply our finiteness infinitely Every thing created has a beginning necessarily because there is an Absolute, even things that are relative to each other have to have an absolute otherwise how would you measure their relationship.

By beginning I meant when changes is possible. In another word, one being cannot experience its being if one being does exist since the self-experienced is meaningless unless it is reflected through a change in another being. In another word I can claim that I do exist as I can experience relative changes due to my existence.