What property of the universe leads us to conclude that it required a cause to exist?

[JohnDamian]

By his definition, the tooth fairy is an object…

Yes. The tooth fairy is an object.

In terms of what type of object it is using philosophy it would be regarded as a personal supposito; see Summa toitus Logicae, I, c. Ixxii - Ixviii.

To put this simply; clearly; we can have something that is the object of a sentance; such a thing could be regarded in grammatical terms as a material supposito - that is to say; the object is supposited within the sentance materially; insofar as it operates as a noun or a word; such as saying “Man is a noun”.

We can also supposit objects simply; insofar as the word is used as a referant to mental content; ie – to say an word with simple suppositio would be to say something such as “Man is a species”.

Now; in the sense that we refer to objects per se; we would be speaking of the thing in itself; in this we would be saying something upon the lines of “Every man is an animal”. We are making use of a term in referance to the object which is signified; be it outside the mind; a vocal sound; a mental concept; a writing etc.

The difference between simple and personal; if not clear enough already - is that simple suppositio obtains when a term stands for a mental content which is not properly speaking the object signified by the term (which would be personal).

This mechanic for grammar allows us to understand the use of terms more fully. When I say the “Tooth Fairy” is an object; I am saying that the Tooth Fairy has personal suppositio in this sentance; the words for the Tooth Fairy are used inasmuch as they refer to an object.

Now; we can sensibly believe that the “Tooth Fairy” does not exist in reality; and by consequence we can only refer to it as a personal object of conception; rather than a physically material object.

However; I hope it is clear from this that more than one type of Object can exist. There is no need to change the term “object” because that would be misleading; confusing; ambiguous and increase equivocal errors manyfold - generally speaking; unless a definition is bad - there is no need to change it. A rock is a physical object which is reffered to here with personal suppositio. (Suppositio is distinct from supposition formally; but it shares a unity of sorts).

 

[Moonstruck888]

Yes. The tooth fairy is an object.

In terms of what type of object it is using philosophy it would be regarded as a personal supposito; see Summa toitus Logicae, I, c. Ixxii - Ixviii.

To put this simply; clearly; we can have something that is the object of a sentance; such a thing could be regarded in grammatical terms as a material supposito - that is to say; the object is supposited within the sentance materially; insofar as it operates as a noun or a word; such as saying “Man is a noun”.

We can also supposit objects simply; insofar as the word is used as a referant to mental content; ie – to say an word with simple suppositio would be to say something such as “Man is a species”.

Now; in the sense that we refer to objects per se; we would be speaking of the thing in itself; in this we would be saying something upon the lines of “Every man is an animal”. We are making use of a term in referance to the object which is signified; be it outside the mind; a vocal sound; a mental concept; a writing etc.

The difference between simple and personal; if not clear enough already - is that simple suppositio obtains when a term stands for a mental content which is not properly speaking the object signified by the term (which would be personal).

This mechanic for grammar allows us to understand the use of terms more fully. When I say the “Tooth Fairy” is an object; I am saying that the Tooth Fairy has personal suppositio in this sentance; the words for the Tooth Fairy are used inasmuch as they refer to an object.

Now; we can sensibly believe that the “Tooth Fairy” does not exist in reality; and by consequence we can only refer to it as a personal object of conception; rather than a physically material object.

However; I hope it is clear from this that more than one type of Object can exist. There is no need to change the term “object” because that would be misleading; confusing; ambiguous and increase equivocal errors manyfold - generally speaking; unless a definition is bad - there is no need to change it. A rock is a physical object which is reffered to here with personal suppositio. (Suppositio is distinct from supposition formally; but it shares a unity of sorts).

Since thought still relies on time, every kind of object that you’ve mentioned here relies on time. This is as true for mental processes as it is for physical material objects. No time means no thought can occur. Time is necessary to this Universe, from a solipsist point of view as well as a material one.

 

[Soulewolf]

ob·ject
[n. ob-jikt, -jekt; v. uhb-jekt] -noun
anything that is visible or tangible and is relatively stable in form.
2.
a thing, person, or matter to which thought or action is directed: an object of Medical investigation.
3.
the end toward which effort or action is directed; goal; purpose: Profit is the object of business.
4.
a person or thing with reference to the impression made on the mind or the feeling or emotion elicited in an observer: an object of curiosity and pity.
5.
anything that may be apprehended intellectually: objects of thought.
6.
Optics . the thing of which a lens or mirror forms an image.
7.
Grammar . (in many languages, as English) a noun, noun phrase, or noun substitute representing by its syntactical position either the goal of the action of a verb or the goal of a preposition in a prepositional phrase, as ball in John hit the ball, Venice in He came to Venice, coin and her in He gave her a coin. Compare direct object, indirect object.
8.
Computers . any item that can be individually selected or manipulated, as a picture, data file, or piece of text.
9.
Metaphysics . something toward which a cognitive act is directed.

From Dictionary.com

Just thought this might be useful in your discussion.

 

[cassini]

Sorry for interrupting boys, but is there room on this thread for the non-philosopher? Here is my understanding as to why the universe could not have existed forever which leads me to conclude its matter and form had to be created by the person we know as God.

And God said: Let there be lights made in the firmament of the heaven, to divide the day and the night, and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days and years. (Gen. 1:14)

Time is defined, after Aristotle, as ‘the numbering of motion according to the before and after.’ Time then is the duration of motion or change in which all things happen. It therefore came into being with matter. True empirical science admits that all matter is in a process in its existence (the law of entropy-decay – the Second law of thermodynamics). Everything in the whole universe is undergoing energy breakdown, from the stars to the earth and all things on it. Now a process in motion is something changing, and change needs time to run its course.
The very existence of ‘time’ shows there was a beginning, and not so long ago, for, as the Second Law of Thermodynamics dictates, if everything was here forever, all would be burned down to zero energy matter by now, which is not the case.
Measuring time is of course not time itself. We measure time according to God’s plan, the ordained movement of the cosmos, but specifically the daily and yearly cycle of the sun, stars and seasons. Thus the first object of astronomy was measuring time, begun, we know, by the first people to inhabit the earth. Every measurement - from the watch on your hand to the calendar on your wall - is but a division of the cosmic day and the cosmic year. Of crucial importance in any sane and rational concept of time is that it has to be universal, that is, all time must be the same for everyone. When we relate to the past, present and future, it should go without saying we must all have the same understanding of it. Fortunately, for most of us, apart from the space-time relativists that is, this is how it is, has always been, and always will be.

No doubt Moonstruck pal you can show I am full of delusions, but I thought I would put my tuppenceworth in anyway.

 

[JohnDamian]

Since thought still relies on time, every kind of object that you’ve mentioned here relies on time. This is as true for mental processes as it is for physical material objects. No time means no thought can occur. Time is necessary to this Universe, from a solipsist point of view as well as a material one.

What do you mean by time? Time is merely the experience of motion within an entity, singly or relatively.

If there is no motion; it is not sensible to say that there is time; thus - an object does not need time unless it needs motion; and not all physical objects need motion; thus not all physical objects need time.

It is correct to say time is required to bring about a contingent object; but an object does not have to have time to exist as an accidentally ordered product (not essentially ordered) .

 

[Moonstruck888]

What do you mean by time? Time is merely the experience of motion within an entity, singly or relatively.

Correct, including neural activity.

If there is no motion; it is not sensible to say that there is time; thus - an object does not need time unless it needs motion; and not all physical objects need motion; thus not all physical objects need time.

Physical bodies maintain their physical inegrity by transferring quanta between sub atomic particles. Gluons hold Quarks in place and tell them how to behave. Electrons orbit atomic nuclei and are kept in discrete energy levels according to the activities of the electromagnetic force.

All these things happen as a function of time. No time, no matter. No matter, no thought. No thought and no matter, no objects by either your or my definition of the word.

It is correct to say time is required to bring about a contingent object; but an object does not have to have time to exist as an accidentally ordered product (not essentially ordered)

Oh, but as you can see, it does.

 

[JohnDamian]

Physical bodies maintain their physical inegrity by transferring quanta between sub atomic particles. Gluons hold Quarks in place and tell them how to behave. Electrons orbit atomic nuclei and are kept in discrete energy levels according to the activities of the electromagnetic force.

So what would happen if they stopped moving?

 

[Moonstruck888]

So what would happen if they stopped moving?

Nothing in the Universe would exist any more.

 

[JohnDamian]

Nothing in the Universe would exist any more.

Wouldn’t that defy the law of conservation of energy and matter?

Sure; I can visualise material objects changing if their atomic structure and so forth ceased to be functioning fully; but would they degrade into nothing?

Notwithstanding; such degradation would imply motion; and thus time…

 

[Moonstruck888]

Wouldn’t that defy the law of conservation of energy and matter?

Sure; I can visualise material objects changing if their atomic structure and so forth ceased to be functioning fully; but would they degrade into nothing?

Notwithstanding; such degradation would imply motion; and thus time…

Degradation to nothing is not a good way to look at it. It would happen at the speed of light. The one thing that might have a chance is photons, since they move at light speed and therefore do not experience time as it is infinitely dilated.

It could never actually happen, precisely because of the law of conservation of energy and the other thermodynamic laws…

That’s what I was getting at when I was trying to impress upon you how fundamental energy conservation actually is…

 

[JohnDamian]

It could never actually happen, precisely because of the law of conservation of energy and the other thermodynamic laws…

So motion must have be happening constantly; that is acceptable…

However; how do we reconcile that with the fact that motion occurs as finite interactions; as these are finite interactions they cannot ever compose an infinite number of interactions (as infinite cannot be reached by any finite addition or multiplication) thus there must have been a start to motion…

 

[Moonstruck888]

So motion must have be happening constantly; that is acceptable…

However; how do we reconcile that with the fact that motion occurs as finite interactions; as these are finite interactions they cannot ever compose an infinite number of interactions (as infinite cannot be reached by any finite addition or multiplication) thus there must have been a start to motion…

This paradox is resolved by the fact that the lifespan of particles is not infinite…

You don’t need an infinite number of interactions, you need interactions in three phase space dimensions for every particle in the Universe, in some cases for every pico second and less that the particle exists. That is a large number of interactions to be sure, but the number falls infinitely short of an infinite number of interactions…

 

[JohnDamian]

You don’t need an infinite number of interactions, you need interactions in three phase space dimensions for every particle in the Universe for every pico second the particle exists. That is a large number of interactions to be sure, but the number falls infinitely short of an infinite number of interactions…

I agree; they could never form an “infinite number”. Such a concept is demonstrably untennable…

So we must have a starting point; unless we make the claim that time is cyclic; which would be create more problems (causal emergence of a cyclic system) than it would solve.

It follows from science then that there was a start to motion; does science define this in any way?

 

[Moonstruck888]

I agree; they could never form an “infinite number”. Such a concept is demonstrably untennable…

So we must have a starting point; unless we make the claim that time is cyclic; which would be create more problems (causal emergence of a cyclic system) than it would solve.

It follows from science then that there was a start to motion; does science define this in any way?

Not in any way that satisifies my criteria for belief… Scientists are still working on it…

The start to motion would be the big bang, but the explanation behind that is entirely unknown at the present time…

 

[JohnDamian]

The start to motion would be the big bang, but the explanation behind that is entirely unknown at the present time…

Absolutely; we can know that it was something tmporally before the Big Bang; because (correct me if I am wrong) the Big Bang is believed to have originated in some material or energetic object.

This causal chain regresses until we reach an object or entity that meets certain characteristics. Whilst it would be imprudent to at this point in the discussion claim that this is necessarily God; do you think it would be unreasonable to state that space-time-energy-matter must have had a cause; and that cause must have necessarily been outside of that genus (It cannot have created the genus if it was already inside it; that would be absurd).

It seems self evident that a non-temporal cause must exist in some form or another.

 

[Moonstruck888]

Absolutely; we can know that it was something tmporally before the Big Bang; because (correct me if I am wrong) the Big Bang is believed to have originated in some material or energetic object.

This causal chain regresses until we reach an object or entity that meets certain characteristics. Whilst it would be imprudent to at this point in the discussion claim that this is necessarily God; do you think it would be unreasonable to state that space-time-energy-matter must have had a cause; and that cause must have necessarily been outside of that genus (It cannot have created the genus if it was already inside it; that would be absurd).

It seems self evident that a non-temporal cause must exist in some form or another.

Any attempt on my part to answer what that cause might be would not be based on knowledge or even belief. It would just be wild surmise…

 

[JohnDamian]

Any attempt on my part to answer what that cause might be would not be based on knowledge or even belief. It would just be wild surmise…

Perhaps you don’t feel we can have any positive knowlege about it; but are you sure we cannot have any negative knowlege about it?

Surely; we can know that if being temporal means being caused; then any first cause cannot be temporal (law of non contradiction) - it cannot be both temporal and non temporal; and as it cannot be temporal (infinite recess = absurd) then it must be non-temporal.

We cannot gather empirical evidence about this cause at present; but using logic we can identify what traits or functions it must have. This is not “wild surmise”; it is critical step-by-step logic that leads to only one possible outcome - we can be certain of a few things regarding this cause; (without guessing or surmising)

We know; if it caused - it must be able to cause.
We know it cannot be temporal - so we know that it is not temporal
We know that to cause; it must exist - so if it caused it must exist. It caused; so it must exist.

Are these three claims “wild surmise”? It appears that they are logically necessary; and so not so much a guess as a certainty; derived from logic.

 

[Moonstruck888]

Perhaps you don’t feel we can have any positive knowlege about it; but are you sure we cannot have any negative knowlege about it?

Surely; we can know that if being temporal means being caused; then any first cause cannot be temporal (law of non contradiction) - it cannot be both temporal and non temporal; and as it cannot be temporal (infinite recess = absurd) then it must be non-temporal.

We cannot gather empirical evidence about this cause at present; but using logic we can identify what traits or functions it must have. This is not “wild surmise”; it is critical step-by-step logic that leads to only one possible outcome - we can be certain of a few things regarding this cause; (without guessing or surmising)

We know; if it caused - it must be able to cause.
We know it cannot be temporal - so we know that it is not temporal
We know that to cause; it must exist - so if it caused it must exist. It caused; so it must exist.

Are these three claims “wild surmise”? It appears that they are logically necessary; and so not so much a guess as a certainty; derived from logic.

You know the way I think John. That kind of chain of reasoning is more up your street than mine.

Anyhow, I’m glad we managed to end that go round on a civilized footing…

 

[Geremia]

What property of the universe leads us to conclude that it required a cause to exist?

That it changes