Concept of Infinity

[pat]

[quote]kamui wrote:

So you admit god is just as logical as an “it always existed” universe?

i would say that both are equally illogical.
we are playing a “my aporetic affirmation is better than yours !” kind of game here.

which is kinda pointless.

if logic was the only criterium, the agnostic position (“i don’t know”) would be the best.

but logic is NOT the only criterium. [/quote]

No they are not. They are not equally logical, they are two different arguments with different premises. One is purely deductive, the other is inductive. It is always the case that the deductive argument is more solid. In an inductive argument, you can always attack the conclusion based on a in complete set of premises. Inductive arguments are inferred based on facts. The deductive arguments are perfectly linear and complete; i.e. it is a “whole”. You can only attack the conclusion of a deductive argument by attacking the premises, but you cannot add or subtract premises. Deductive arguments are deduced inductive are inferred.

If you want to get really technical, I can make a better argument for the existence of a Prime Mover, that anyone hear can make for their own existence. But the virtue of pure deduction, the Prime Mover is more real than you are.

[pat]

[quote]ephrem wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]ephrem wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

Well it’s his fault for not being specific. Yes, the accordion universe is plausible and even logically possible, but is it probable? Even if it is an accordion universe, his singularity theory requires random causation and that is as far fetched as it gets. Especially when their is no evidence. If the universe was random then there should be randomness all over it, instead causation is rampant.
Further, you cannot regress infinitely and arrive at a eternal universe at least contingently speaking. Eventually you run out of properties and starting over is where the argument becomes circular.

And how dare you understand ephrem![/quote]

Ouroboros; the snake that eats it’s own tail.

The universe collapses in to a singularity. This singularity expands to form a new universe; ad infinitum.

This always was and always will be. Just as logical as your god.[/quote]

So you admit god is just as logical as an “it always existed” universe?[/quote]

Using pat’s logic it is. The only downside to the god-scenario is that he’s nowhere to be found. The universe on the other hand… well, we’re made of stardust after all.
[/quote]

According to pat’s logic my ass. I would never make such an ad hoc, flippant claim.

[pat]

[quote]kamui wrote:

So you admit god is just as logical as an “it always existed” universe?

i would say that both are equally illogical.
we are playing a “my aporetic affirmation is better than yours !” kind of game here.

which is kinda pointless.

if logic was the only criterium, the agnostic position (“i don’t know”) would be the best.

but logic is NOT the only criterium. [/quote]

What would be another criteria?

[pat]

[quote]forlife wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]forlife wrote:
What comprises space if there is no matter, antimatter, or energy present?

Isn’t it possible the unpredictability of the double slit experiment is caused by randomness rather than ignorance?[/quote]

What’s unpredictable about the double slit experiment? If you shoot enough electrons at it the slits you will get a interference pattern every time with out fail…That’s pretty damn predictable.[/quote]

The pattern is predictable, but the fate of each individual electron is completely unpredictable.[/quote]

Not true. You know the electron will go through one of the two slits and will hit the background somewhere. Again, the fact that it makes an interference patter ever time with out fail only tells we don’t know why the electrons do what they do, but what ever they do they do it reliably. Not understanding something and random are not the same things. We don’t understand the behaviour of electrons, but shoot enough and you will have an interference pattern. This tell us something about their behaviour.
Eventually, we should be able to predict where an electron will land in the double-slit experiment…I have faith in our quantum physicists.

[DoubleDuce]

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]forlife wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]forlife wrote:
What comprises space if there is no matter, antimatter, or energy present?

Isn’t it possible the unpredictability of the double slit experiment is caused by randomness rather than ignorance?[/quote]

What’s unpredictable about the double slit experiment? If you shoot enough electrons at it the slits you will get a interference pattern every time with out fail…That’s pretty damn predictable.[/quote]

The pattern is predictable, but the fate of each individual electron is completely unpredictable.[/quote]

Not true. You know the electron will go through one of the two slits and will hit the background somewhere. Again, the fact that it makes an interference patter ever time with out fail only tells we don’t know why the electrons do what they do, but what ever they do they do it reliably. Not understanding something and random are not the same things. We don’t understand the behaviour of electrons, but shoot enough and you will have an interference pattern. This tell us something about their behaviour.
Eventually, we should be able to predict where an electron will land in the double-slit experiment…I have faith in our quantum physicists.[/quote]

The reason you cannot predict the individual electron is because initial conditions are not exactly measurable, Not because there is randomness.

And according to verified theory, particles like electrons in the dual slit experiment cannot be predicted. The uncertainty principal would have to be violated.

You are having faith that quantum is wrong, not that it will learn. Uncertainty Prevents observation of conditions. That does NOT mean that the uncertainty is caused by randomness. It just means that it isn’t possible to build a tape measure that can measure certain things.

For me to believe that it was indeed random, I would need to see evidence of any randomness anywhere, but there is none.

[ephrem]

[quote]pat wrote:

It doesn’t. Ephrem claims this not I.

Starting over from a formally collapsed universe is not what I am talking about. I am talking about infinite regress in logic. It is not possible to ever come to a conclusion if your argument starts over all the time.[/quote]

Everything in nature starts over all the time. All that has form ends at some point in time, but as you and i know, while the form ends the building blocks the form was made-up from are used in some other form.

Nothing really ends.

[ephrem]

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]ephrem wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]ephrem wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

Well it’s his fault for not being specific. Yes, the accordion universe is plausible and even logically possible, but is it probable? Even if it is an accordion universe, his singularity theory requires random causation and that is as far fetched as it gets. Especially when their is no evidence. If the universe was random then there should be randomness all over it, instead causation is rampant.
Further, you cannot regress infinitely and arrive at a eternal universe at least contingently speaking. Eventually you run out of properties and starting over is where the argument becomes circular.

And how dare you understand ephrem![/quote]

Ouroboros; the snake that eats it’s own tail.

The universe collapses in to a singularity. This singularity expands to form a new universe; ad infinitum.

This always was and always will be. Just as logical as your god.[/quote]

So you admit god is just as logical as an “it always existed” universe?[/quote]

Using pat’s logic it is. The only downside to the god-scenario is that he’s nowhere to be found. The universe on the other hand… well, we’re made of stardust after all.
[/quote]

According to pat’s logic my ass. I would never make such an ad hoc, flippant claim.[/quote]

No matter how logical you think you can get, it’s all “theoretical”.

I am here. You are there. The universe is.

That’s all that matters.

[swoleupinya]

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]swoleupinya wrote:
A lack of causality does not “violate science.”

Nor has science told us that the “universe cannot have been created.”
[/quote]

A lack of causality does violate the scientific method. You cannot perform an experiment and trust the results if the cause and effect relationship does not exist.[/quote]

Then, how would you observe a reverse of causality, such as a unit of space in which time moves backwards?

I’m afraid you are wrong here, and someone like Hawkings would probably agree with me… at least his work does. It is possible to observe the effects of reverse causality and infer its existence from them.

[swoleupinya]

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]forlife wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]forlife wrote:
What comprises space if there is no matter, antimatter, or energy present?

Isn’t it possible the unpredictability of the double slit experiment is caused by randomness rather than ignorance?[/quote]

What’s unpredictable about the double slit experiment? If you shoot enough electrons at it the slits you will get a interference pattern every time with out fail…That’s pretty damn predictable.[/quote]

The pattern is predictable, but the fate of each individual electron is completely unpredictable.[/quote]

Not true. You know the electron will go through one of the two slits and will hit the background somewhere. Again, the fact that it makes an interference patter ever time with out fail only tells we don’t know why the electrons do what they do, but what ever they do they do it reliably. Not understanding something and random are not the same things. We don’t understand the behaviour of electrons, but shoot enough and you will have an interference pattern. This tell us something about their behaviour.
Eventually, we should be able to predict where an electron will land in the double-slit experiment…I have faith in our quantum physicists.[/quote]

The reason you cannot predict the individual electron is because initial conditions are not exactly measurable, Not because there is randomness.

And according to verified theory, particles like electrons in the dual slit experiment cannot be predicted. The uncertainty principal would have to be violated.

You are having faith that quantum is wrong, not that it will learn. Uncertainty Prevents observation of conditions. That does NOT mean that the uncertainty is caused by randomness. It just means that it isn’t possible to build a tape measure that can measure certain things.

For me to believe that it was indeed random, I would need to see evidence of any randomness anywhere, but there is none. [/quote]

^this

Now… why can’t you be so logical about politics?

[DoubleDuce]

[quote]swoleupinya wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]forlife wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]forlife wrote:
What comprises space if there is no matter, antimatter, or energy present?

Isn’t it possible the unpredictability of the double slit experiment is caused by randomness rather than ignorance?[/quote]

What’s unpredictable about the double slit experiment? If you shoot enough electrons at it the slits you will get a interference pattern every time with out fail…That’s pretty damn predictable.[/quote]

The pattern is predictable, but the fate of each individual electron is completely unpredictable.[/quote]

Not true. You know the electron will go through one of the two slits and will hit the background somewhere. Again, the fact that it makes an interference patter ever time with out fail only tells we don’t know why the electrons do what they do, but what ever they do they do it reliably. Not understanding something and random are not the same things. We don’t understand the behaviour of electrons, but shoot enough and you will have an interference pattern. This tell us something about their behaviour.
Eventually, we should be able to predict where an electron will land in the double-slit experiment…I have faith in our quantum physicists.[/quote]

The reason you cannot predict the individual electron is because initial conditions are not exactly measurable, Not because there is randomness.

And according to verified theory, particles like electrons in the dual slit experiment cannot be predicted. The uncertainty principal would have to be violated.

You are having faith that quantum is wrong, not that it will learn. Uncertainty Prevents observation of conditions. That does NOT mean that the uncertainty is caused by randomness. It just means that it isn’t possible to build a tape measure that can measure certain things.

For me to believe that it was indeed random, I would need to see evidence of any randomness anywhere, but there is none. [/quote]

^this

Now… why can’t you be so logical about politics?

[/quote]

Sometimes I’m a devil’s advocate, sometimes I’m a devil.

[forlife]

[quote]swoleupinya wrote:
Zeb,

You just gave a none-too-subtle insult to my ability to father my sons and be a positive example for them.

Some things you don’t joke about, and this is one of them.

This is not a “you pushed me, so I get to push you situation.” This is you being inappropriate. [/quote]

In my experience, Zeb will dish out some of the most personal, mean spirited attacks I’ve seen in the 5 years I’ve followed these boards. For example, several times he has accused me of abandoning my wife and children to “pursue the gay lifestyle”’ despite knowing that I never cheated on my wife, that it was a mutual decision after a full year of therapy, research, and heartfelt discussion, and that we are still on good terms today. Don’t take it personally, and consider the source.

[forlife]

Pat, I’m still not getting why you are so willing to accept the eternal existence of a hypothetical supernatural being, but deny the possibility that matter and energy have always existed. Can you explain?

[forlife]

Swole and Duce, I agree that the double slit experiment doesn’t prove randomness exists. I never said it did, only that it suggests the possibility of randomness.

And Duce, I’m still curious on your take about free will. In my mind, anyone believing in an entirely deterministic universe, in which randomness is impossible, can’t logically believe that free will exists.

[swoleupinya]

[quote]forlife wrote:
Swole and Duce, I agree that the double slit experiment doesn’t prove randomness exists. I never said it did, only that it suggests the possibility of randomness.

And Duce, I’m still curious on your take about free will. In my mind, anyone believing in an entirely deterministic universe, in which randomness is impossible, can’t logically believe that free will exists.[/quote]

It actually becomes more an issue of degrees of free will.

[forlife]

[quote]swoleupinya wrote:

[quote]forlife wrote:
Swole and Duce, I agree that the double slit experiment doesn’t prove randomness exists. I never said it did, only that it suggests the possibility of randomness.

And Duce, I’m still curious on your take about free will. In my mind, anyone believing in an entirely deterministic universe, in which randomness is impossible, can’t logically believe that free will exists.[/quote]

It actually becomes more an issue of degrees of free will. [/quote]

For any degree of free will to exist, wouldn’t that contradict an entirely deterministic universe? Or are you suggesting the universe isn’t entirely deterministic?

[swoleupinya]

[quote]forlife wrote:

[quote]swoleupinya wrote:

[quote]forlife wrote:
Swole and Duce, I agree that the double slit experiment doesn’t prove randomness exists. I never said it did, only that it suggests the possibility of randomness.

And Duce, I’m still curious on your take about free will. In my mind, anyone believing in an entirely deterministic universe, in which randomness is impossible, can’t logically believe that free will exists.[/quote]

It actually becomes more an issue of degrees of free will. [/quote]

For any degree of free will to exist, wouldn’t that contradict an entirely deterministic universe? Or are you suggesting the universe isn’t entirely deterministic?
[/quote]

Well, I’m not really a hard determinist… There are varying schools of determinism as it relates to cosmology, and at least one of them includes a functional free will.

I’m not sure where I fall on the issue of determinism or indeterminism. I’m not wedded to the traditional cause & effect model, though, so I guess I’m more of an indeterminist.

[forlife]

I’m a little unsure about the whole thing myself. I lean toward determinism because I don’t see much evidence otherwise, but I’m open to the possibility of free will and randomness.

[ZEB]

[quote]forlife wrote:

[quote]swoleupinya wrote:
Zeb,

You just gave a none-too-subtle insult to my ability to father my sons and be a positive example for them.

Some things you don’t joke about, and this is one of them.

This is not a “you pushed me, so I get to push you situation.” This is you being inappropriate. [/quote]

In my experience, Zeb will dish out some of the most personal, mean spirited attacks I’ve seen in the 5 years I’ve followed these boards. For example, several times he has accused me of abandoning my wife and children to “pursue the gay lifestyle”’ despite knowing that I never cheated on my wife, that it was a mutual decision after a full year of therapy, research, and heartfelt discussion, and that we are still on good terms today. Don’t take it personally, and consider the source.[/quote]

forlife, you are without question the biggest scoundrel on this site. No one even comes close. You were caught in a lie in the previous thread you were on and fled. Now you’re attacking me on this thread without provocation. More cowardly acts by a cowardly person.

[pat]

[quote]swoleupinya wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]swoleupinya wrote:
A lack of causality does not “violate science.”

Nor has science told us that the “universe cannot have been created.”
[/quote]

A lack of causality does violate the scientific method. You cannot perform an experiment and trust the results if the cause and effect relationship does not exist.[/quote]

Then, how would you observe a reverse of causality, such as a unit of space in which time moves backwards?

I’m afraid you are wrong here, and someone like Hawkings would probably agree with me… at least his work does. It is possible to observe the effects of reverse causality and infer its existence from them. [/quote]

Causation is not dependent on time. Things happening in reverse order does not negate causation. Reversal of roles, maybe, but there is still a cause and a resultant effect, time be damned.

[pat]

[quote]ephrem wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

It doesn’t. Ephrem claims this not I.

Starting over from a formally collapsed universe is not what I am talking about. I am talking about infinite regress in logic. It is not possible to ever come to a conclusion if your argument starts over all the time.[/quote]

Everything in nature starts over all the time. All that has form ends at some point in time, but as you and i know, while the form ends the building blocks the form was made-up from are used in some other form.

Nothing really ends.[/quote]

We don’t know whether something ends or not. Certainly, according to the laws of thermal dynamics and such that shit only changes states, that nothing is created or destroyed. Then there are black holes, where it is very possible that information does get destroyed and it is a common theory. But nobody can see beyond the event horizon.

Here’s the problem with the singularity theory, other than the creative property what other properties does it posses or must it posses to create an entire universe?