I
IWantGod
Guest
So you think its possible for something to come from absolutely nothing by itself as its own cause. Correct?
- Status
S
Sophia
Guest
No, not correct. I don’t accept that proposition as meaningful. Why don’t you read the rest of my post? Nothing “does not” exist as an ontological entity. It is just an abstraction. You cannot speak of “nothing” as if it would or could “exist”.
There is physical existence, and there are concepts about the physical existence. Of course one can extend the concepts beyond referring to actual, physical objects. There can be concepts about concepts, too. Or concepts about imaginary entities (like demons or “flying spaghetti monsters” or honest politicians). You can create “concepts” about anything. The point is that many concepts are truly imaginary, they have NO REFERENTS in the objective reality. There is nothing wrong with exercising one’s fantasy, as long as one can differentiate between the reality and the fantasy and does not confuse them.
I
IWantGod
Guest
So you agree that a thing would never just pop into reality without a cause because it’s meaningless and absurd. Such things would never happen in reality, correct?
You admit that the principle of non-contradiction applies to reality, correct?
Last edited:
S
Sophia
Guest
You keep changing the goalposts. Now it is not “nothing”. We already live in the physical world. The existence of “virtual particles” has nothing to do with “something emerging from nothing”. Make up your mind.
This principle has nothing to do with what you wrote. Let me explain: “The principle of non-contradiction is about PROPOSITIONS. It says that a proposition cannot be true and not true at the same time in the same context.” A proposition is either “true”, or “false” or “undecidable”. (This last one also includes meaningless gobbledygook).
Do read the details in what I wrote.
I
IWantGod
Guest
So you agree that it’s impossible that a thing would just pop into reality without a cause. It’s absurd, yes?
S
Sophia
Guest
You try to speak of physics again. There are many things for which there is no external cause. And there is nothing absurd about it.
W
Wesrock
Guest
What’s a cause? Or causality in general, anyway?
W
Wesrock
Guest
There is a lot, and I mean a lot, of metaphysical discussion going on in this post. Pretty much the whole thing. And just so you know, we’re in agreement on “nothing” not being an ontological entity.IWantGod:
I reject it as a syntactically correct, but meaningless proposition. Pretty much on par with “the sweet taste of the sound of middle-C is green, but it is hard to hold in your palm because it tends to float upward”. Or “ezo kaperok worop rabnul”.
Trivially self evident principles need no justification. They are “brute facts”. (and as such they refute the universality of the concept of PSR.) After all every system needs a foundation, because explanations cannot go to infinity (or do you propose: “it is turtles all the way down?”). We all experience the physical reality via our senses and their extensions. If you wish to call this “metaphysics”, be my guest. I just call it a trivial proposition.
By the way: “there is no difference between a nonexistent table and a nonexistent flower”. “Nothing” is just a concept, not an ontological entity. It is nonsensical to speak of a “nonexistent something” as being able to perform any action. The proposition “here is a nonexistent table, with an imaginary book on it, which contains a never-written curriculum vitae about a made-up person”… is a syntactically correct, but semantically nonsensical statement. Just because the paper (or the computer screen) does not reject nonsensical propositions, one should not “abuse” these mediums by making meaningless propositions on them.
Let’s stick to reality. Physical reality first, because we experience it. If you wish to stipulate a different kind of “reality” (spiritual?), that is fine, but in that case it is your job to provide the epistemological method to find out if a proposition about that new kind of “reality” evaluates to true or false. For example: “the final score in the soccer game between the angels and the demons had to be decided by penalty kicks, and the demons won 4:3”. This epistemological method MUST be objective, and others must be able to perform it. Not much of a restriction, I would say. You make a proposition about your alleged reality, and tell ME how to decide if your proposition is correct or not.
Go for it.
I
IWantGod
Guest
I’m talking about a thing popping into reality without a cause, which is absurd, wouldn’t you agree?
W
Wesrock
Guest
Okay, just to close the loop on this, you do realize that the consideration of, opinions on, and study of these “first principles” is the root of what metaphysics is, don’t you? You are just presuming a metaphysical system of “self-evident principles,” taking it as a given, and deluding yourself into thinking you’re above metaphysics.
Last edited:
A
AlNg
Guest
Yes. I suppose it is possible that much of metaphysics is about deluding yourself. In any case, I am not convinced that an infinite regress in time is impossible. I don’t see any contradiction in assuming that there might have always been something out there. There was a universe yesterday and there will be a universe tomorrow. It is possible to move back or forward with no restriction.
I
IWantGod
Guest
Error. Newton, when talking about the laws of motion, is talking about how things behave specifically, how they move particularly (science/physics). Aquinas’s and Aristotle were talking about change in general and what that means in the context of being (metaphysics).
If you are going to criticize a position, at least get it right.
Last edited:
I
IWantGod
Guest
And again you are confusing physics with metaphysics because you don’t actually understand what you are criticizing despite people pointing it out to you…yet again…
Last edited:
A
AlNg
Guest
That is a problem that I see with some of the arguments presented here. Is it warranted to assume that there has to be a beginning in time.
I
IWantGod
Guest
The argument in the OP does not speak of a beginning of time and neither does @Wesrock try to prove that time has a beginning.
A
AlNg
Guest
I thought that physics was part of metaphysics? Does your definition of metaphysics mean that knowledge obtained using the scientific methodology is automatically excluded from metaphysics? What is your definition of metaphysics.
W
Wesrock
Guest
Neither am I. Good thing that question is irrelevant to the argument this topic is about.
A
AlNg
Guest
OK. So there is no evidence of a beginning in time? Or if there is what would it be. The BB certainly would not be evidence of such because we have no knowledge of what occurred before the BB.
Last edited:
W
Wesrock
Guest
None of that has anything to do with the argument, which people don’t seem to actually be reading, for the most part.AlNg:
What people don’t seem to realize, is that the whole concept of an infinite regress is irrelevant. And an argument from motion, doesn’t even make sense.
Aristotle thought that he understood cause and effect. Aquinas thought that he understood cause and effect. Newton…the creator of the laws of motion…thought that he understood cause and effect. Even Einstein thought that he understood cause and effect. But they were all wrong.
Because as it turns out, cause and effect are neither linear nor local. Which means that there’s no point in time and space that could ever be designated as the “first cause”. There’s just no such thing. Just as there’s no such thing as the center of the universe. No point in space can be differentiated from any other point in space when it comes to its proximity to the center. And no point in time can be differentiated as being closer or further from the beginning of time. Because there’s no point that can be designated as the beginning of time. That’s just what happens when cause and effect aren’t linear.
So the whole idea of an argument from motion doesn’t make sense. You can follow the path of cause and effect forever, and never get any closer to the beginning.
W
Wesrock
Guest
No, and that’s why I never assumed or tried to answer that question.
- Status