Physics of the Afterlife

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
221

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]forlife wrote:

[quote]Think tank fish wrote:

[quote]Cortes wrote:
What is so hard to understand about the difference between contingency and time?

[/quote]

Nothing.

If something is contingent then it relies on something else for its existence.
If something is not contingent then it doesn’t rely on anything else for its existence.

The cosmology argument says ‘the uncaused cause’ is not contingent.
The infinity argument says ‘the infinite series’ as a whole is not contingent.

Do you agree with that?

But where I think the infinity argument carries more weight is that the concept of infinity means it never ends so there is nothing outside of the infinite series.

The problem is the wording. A series sounds like something that is seperate from everything else.

People view an infinite series as something that can be packaged into something. Because that is how the human mind likes to deal with things. In concepts. Infinity isn’t like this, you cannot package something that has no boundaries.
[/quote]

Exactly. I think people are confusing the infinite series with time when the argument is that the series itself is non contingent.[/quote]

Oh? Explain how said series is non-contingent? You cannot logically reduce an infinite series to a non-contingency. It impossible to to with out using it self as the argument. An infinite series, is not non-contingent.

You made the claim so back it up with an argument…You’ll find you cannot, it been tried by other smart people with credentials. You cannot logically drill down to an infinite series as a conclusion, it’s a premise.
For instance, An infinate series of numbers as in pi exist because the equation 22/7 demands it. Pi isn’t pi for no reason.[/quote]

Of course it’s a premise, just like god being noncontingent is a premise. Both are logically possible, and neither can be disproved.

222

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]forlife wrote:

[quote]Cortes wrote:

[quote]forlife wrote:

[quote]Think tank fish wrote:

[quote]Cortes wrote:
What is so hard to understand about the difference between contingency and time?

[/quote]

Nothing.

If something is contingent then it relies on something else for its existence.
If something is not contingent then it doesn’t rely on anything else for its existence.

The cosmology argument says ‘the uncaused cause’ is not contingent.
The infinity argument says ‘the infinite series’ as a whole is not contingent.

Do you agree with that?

But where I think the infinity argument carries more weight is that the concept of infinity means it never ends so there is nothing outside of the infinite series.

The problem is the wording. A series sounds like something that is seperate from everything else.

People view an infinite series as something that can be packaged into something. Because that is how the human mind likes to deal with things. In concepts. Infinity isn’t like this, you cannot package something that has no boundaries.
[/quote]

Exactly. I think people are confusing the infinite series with time when the argument is that the series itself is non contingent.[/quote]

I’m sorry why is the series non-contingent? I’m genuinely not understanding how you got here. [/quote]

It’s definitionally noncontingent in the same way god is definitionally noncontingent. If the infinite series was never created, and if by existing it could not cease to exist, then it is noncontingent.

It’s really the same cosmological argument, only positing that the uncaused, necessary being is the infinite causal series rather than god.[/quote]

The Uncaused-cause is the only solution to the cosmological problem. You can’t change the answer just cause you don’t like it.
You cannot have an infinite regress, it’s circular, it begs the question, there is no way around the problem you cannot have a non-answer to the problem. You cannot make an argument that ends up in an infinite series, especially with the premises in the argument. Especially since the series is a finite number of repeating variables.

You can loop the tape to play over and over, but it’s infinitely repeating because you looped the tape. The infinite loop is contingent on the tape, there is not enough info on the tape to beable to deduce that it’s a repeating series on the tape…The recording can’t know it’s in a loop with out knowing it;s on a tape that was looped.[/quote]

I’m not disagreeing with your first sentence. I’m saying that the uncaused cause is the infinite series, rather than a god.

An infinite series is not circular. Why do you keep saying that, when I’ve specified that it is a linear series extending infinitely in both directions? It is NOT a finite number of repeating variables. It is an infinite number of variables. There is no looping, except the incidental replication one would expect when a series of variables is sampled an infinite number of times. Furthermore, the variables themselves can change over time, so it’s not a limited set of variables to begin with.

223

[quote]JoabSonOfZeruiah wrote:

[quote]forlife wrote:

[quote]JoabSonOfZeruiah wrote:
First lets review the definitions.

Contingent being - a being that if it exists can not-exist.

Necessary being - a being that if it exists cannot not-exist.

Any being is either a contingent or necessary in its existence, there is no third option since one is the negation of the other due to the law of excluded middle. So a non-contingent being would be a necessary in his existence while a unnecessary being would be contingent in its existence.

In the argument I posted it follows from 5 and 6 therefore 7 a necessary being exists.

The argument

  1. A necessary being (a being that if it exists cannot not-exist) exists.
  2. The existing necessary being could not-exist.

Results in a contradiction.[/quote]

Agreed.

My point is that the necessary being is the infinite series. Definitionally, if it exists, it cannot not-exist.
[/quote]
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/cosmological-argument/
The deductive argument from contingency.

  1. A contingent being (a being that if it exists can not-exist) exists.
  2. This contingent being has a cause of or explanation for its existence.
  3. The cause of or explanation for its existence is something other than the contingent being itself.
  4. What causes or explains the existence of this contingent being must either be solely other contingent beings or include a non-contingent (necessary) being.
  5. Contingent beings alone cannot provide an adequate causal account or explanation for the existence of a contingent being.
  6. Therefore, what causes or explains the existence of this contingent being must include a non-contingent (necessary) being.
  7. Therefore, a necessary being (a being that if it exists cannot not-exist) exists.

Alright I just posted this for reference again since I don’t think its on this page.

Now I know the argument I just referenced is from Aquinas but I want to talk about Leibniz a bit. To him one of the most important questions is why is there something rather than nothing at all. As he pondered this question he reasoned that the answer why there is something rather than nothing is not found in the world of contingent beings but rather in a necessary being.

Now the argument beings with a fact about the world mainly that its contingent. In fact we have come to agree that there is a set whose members are all contingent whether or not there is a finite or as I will concede for sake of argument even thought its absurd an actual infinite of contingent members. Now I hope I illustrate the reason why the set of all contingents is contingent irrespective of the members it contains. If a set is made up of all contingent members all the members could have failed to exist even simultaneously at once which makes the set contingent. Saying a contingent(a contingent in the set) exists because a contingent (the contingent set of an actual infinite of contingencies) is circular reasoning.

Now varying the number of contingents in a set still doesn’t answer why is there something rather than nothing because the set is contingent. A possible response is that there is no reason for why the set exist, it just exist inexplicably which one is arguing against the second premise. This is fine but then one would have to admit to being arbitrary in their use of the principle of sufficient reason taxicabing when one arrives at their destination whether at the set itself or the universe also know as the taxicab fallacy. Otherwise people use PSR everyday in life and is foundational in science without science would be unable to progress. The question is one willing to pay this price tag for avoiding the conclusion?

The only answer to “why is there something rather than nothing” is grounded in a necessary being which sits outside the contingent set of contingents and cannot be the contingent set of contingents as this is mutually exclusive. This being we call God.

I am on board with pat here that we can start talking about God once this has been settled otherwise discussion will go nowhere.[/quote]

Premise 7 violates PSR, but the argument requires it, so the exception is allowed.

The question here is not whether something can violate PSR, but what that something is.

You say it is a god.

I say it is a noncontingent infinite series.

The series is qualitatively different than the sum of its effects, just like god is qualitatively different from the sum of his effects. Both are uncaused causes.

224

[quote]Think tank fish wrote:

[quote]JoabSonOfZeruiah wrote:

[quote]ephrem wrote:

[quote]JoabSonOfZeruiah wrote:

[quote]ephrem wrote:
What evidence do you have that suggests that human awareness/consciousness is not [totally] contingent on physical attributes?[/quote]
Being serious Hard problem of consciousness - Wikipedia [/quote]

The question of “why does consciousness exists?” is answered when we discover how it comes into existence.

I’ve no doubt that, in the near future, we will find out how the brain gives rise to consciousness. For the moment though, i can only answer the “why?” question with, “because it does.”[/quote]
Aw common the “because it does” answer is never acceptable when the theist uses it =).

Anyways I have an argument from impossibility you may find interesting.

  1. A material object cannot have phenomenal experiences.
  2. Humans have phenomenal experiences.
  3. Therefore humans are not a material object.

I will quantify by what I mean by phenomenal experience by giving examples. Experiencing blueness, feeling empathy, love, pain or in actuality think.

Even if we know so much about the brain that we are able to make computers with the computational ability of our brains I still maintain that they cannot experience anything just as the same reason as a loaf of bread can’t object to me eating it.

A few objections are that either everything including rocks have phenomenal experiences, or that the working of our parts causes an epiphenomenon(massive delusion where we think we experience phenomenal experiences when we really don’t and there is no such thing). I think both are highly unlikely.[/quote]

Yeah, we’re never all going to agree on cosmology/infinity.
[/quote]
Agreement is irrelevant. The argument is right or wrong. You cannot deduce infinite anything from the cosmological argument. So you have to prove it wrong. Or you have to come up with an argument that where the premises support an never ending chain of events with out cause for it.

Considering it’s a theory currently frowned upon and there is not a shred of evidence to support it, how in the hell is that more concurrent with modern scientific under standing. According theory has been debunked partially due to it’s lack of evidence and the problem of entropy.
The current theory is that the universe will use up all available energy and lay dormant and dead for the rest of eternity. That we’re are still in the early throws of an explosion.

That’d because consciousnesses and emotion are already, not physical, they are metaphysical. A elctro-chemical reaction may produce a thought or an emotion, but ‘it’ is not itself the thought or emotion.
You deal with non-physical entities everyday, you just aren’t realizing it.

225

[quote]forlife wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]forlife wrote:

[quote]Cortes wrote:

[quote]forlife wrote:

[quote]Think tank fish wrote:

[quote]Cortes wrote:
What is so hard to understand about the difference between contingency and time?

[/quote]

Nothing.

If something is contingent then it relies on something else for its existence.
If something is not contingent then it doesn’t rely on anything else for its existence.

The cosmology argument says ‘the uncaused cause’ is not contingent.
The infinity argument says ‘the infinite series’ as a whole is not contingent.

Do you agree with that?

But where I think the infinity argument carries more weight is that the concept of infinity means it never ends so there is nothing outside of the infinite series.

The problem is the wording. A series sounds like something that is seperate from everything else.

People view an infinite series as something that can be packaged into something. Because that is how the human mind likes to deal with things. In concepts. Infinity isn’t like this, you cannot package something that has no boundaries.
[/quote]

Exactly. I think people are confusing the infinite series with time when the argument is that the series itself is non contingent.[/quote]

I’m sorry why is the series non-contingent? I’m genuinely not understanding how you got here. [/quote]

It’s definitionally noncontingent in the same way god is definitionally noncontingent. If the infinite series was never created, and if by existing it could not cease to exist, then it is noncontingent.

It’s really the same cosmological argument, only positing that the uncaused, necessary being is the infinite causal series rather than god.[/quote]

The Uncaused-cause is the only solution to the cosmological problem. You can’t change the answer just cause you don’t like it.
You cannot have an infinite regress, it’s circular, it begs the question, there is no way around the problem you cannot have a non-answer to the problem. You cannot make an argument that ends up in an infinite series, especially with the premises in the argument. Especially since the series is a finite number of repeating variables.

You can loop the tape to play over and over, but it’s infinitely repeating because you looped the tape. The infinite loop is contingent on the tape, there is not enough info on the tape to beable to deduce that it’s a repeating series on the tape…The recording can’t know it’s in a loop with out knowing it;s on a tape that was looped.[/quote]

I’m not disagreeing with your first sentence. I’m saying that the uncaused cause is the infinite series, rather than a god.
[/quote]
An infinate series is not a causal factor, it’s a property. All you have is another premise…How are you not seeing this? There is nothing to suggest an infinite series, if it were to exist, would exist uncaused. And you damn sure can reduce to that in the cosmological form…'tis impossible. Just try it and you’ll see.

[quote]
An infinite series is not circular. Why do you keep saying that, when I’ve specified that it is a linear series extending infinitely in both directions? It is NOT a finite number of repeating variables. It is an infinite number of variables. There is no looping, except the incidental replication one would expect when a series of variables is sampled an infinite number of times. Furthermore, the variables themselves can change over time, so it’s not a limited set of variables to begin with.[/quote]
Then is not a series, it’s a infinite sequence of events. You got tripped up on terminology. It’s still does not solve the problem. It does not match the premises. You still end up in a logical fallacy where the essence of the thing is the thing itself, which is circular…

Perhaps you should try to construct an argument that ends in an infinite regress. Part of the problem there, as you would find out, is you can never reach a conclusion because you’ll need an infinite amount or premises.

226

[quote]forlife wrote:

Of course it’s a premise, just like god being noncontingent is a premise. Both are logically possible, and neither can be disproved.[/quote]

Uncaused-cause is logically possible, infinte series is not logically possible.

227

[quote]JoabSonOfZeruiah wrote:

[quote]ephrem wrote:

[quote]JoabSonOfZeruiah wrote:

[quote]ephrem wrote:
What evidence do you have that suggests that human awareness/consciousness is not [totally] contingent on physical attributes?[/quote]
Being serious Hard problem of consciousness - Wikipedia [/quote]

The question of “why does consciousness exists?” is answered when we discover how it comes into existence.

I’ve no doubt that, in the near future, we will find out how the brain gives rise to consciousness. For the moment though, i can only answer the “why?” question with, “because it does.”[/quote]
Aw common the “because it does” answer is never acceptable when the theist uses it =).

Anyways I have an argument from impossibility you may find interesting.

  1. A material object cannot have phenomenal experiences.
  2. Humans have phenomenal experiences.
  3. Therefore humans are not a material object.

I will quantify by what I mean by phenomenal experience by giving examples. Experiencing blueness, feeling empathy, love, pain or in actuality think.

Even if we know so much about the brain that we are able to make computers with the computational ability of our brains I still maintain that they cannot experience anything just as the same reason as a loaf of bread can’t object to me eating it.

A few objections are that either everything including rocks have phenomenal experiences, or that the working of our parts causes an epiphenomenon(massive delusion where we think we experience phenomenal experiences when we really don’t and there is no such thing). I think both are highly unlikely.[/quote]

Nice:) ^ This is how logic functions.

228

[quote]JoabSonOfZeruiah wrote:

[quote]forlife wrote:

[quote]JoabSonOfZeruiah wrote:
First lets review the definitions.

Contingent being - a being that if it exists can not-exist.

Necessary being - a being that if it exists cannot not-exist.

Any being is either a contingent or necessary in its existence, there is no third option since one is the negation of the other due to the law of excluded middle. So a non-contingent being would be a necessary in his existence while a unnecessary being would be contingent in its existence.

In the argument I posted it follows from 5 and 6 therefore 7 a necessary being exists.

The argument

  1. A necessary being (a being that if it exists cannot not-exist) exists.
  2. The existing necessary being could not-exist.

Results in a contradiction.[/quote]

Agreed.

My point is that the necessary being is the infinite series. Definitionally, if it exists, it cannot not-exist.
[/quote]
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/cosmological-argument/
The deductive argument from contingency.

  1. A contingent being (a being that if it exists can not-exist) exists.
  2. This contingent being has a cause of or explanation for its existence.
  3. The cause of or explanation for its existence is something other than the contingent being itself.
  4. What causes or explains the existence of this contingent being must either be solely other contingent beings or include a non-contingent (necessary) being.
  5. Contingent beings alone cannot provide an adequate causal account or explanation for the existence of a contingent being.
  6. Therefore, what causes or explains the existence of this contingent being must include a non-contingent (necessary) being.
  7. Therefore, a necessary being (a being that if it exists cannot not-exist) exists.

Alright I just posted this for reference again since I don’t think its on this page.

Now I know the argument I just referenced is from Aquinas but I want to talk about Leibniz a bit. To him one of the most important questions is why is there something rather than nothing at all. As he pondered this question he reasoned that the answer why there is something rather than nothing is not found in the world of contingent beings but rather in a necessary being.

Now the argument beings with a fact about the world mainly that its contingent. In fact we have come to agree that there is a set whose members are all contingent whether or not there is a finite or as I will concede for sake of argument even thought its absurd an actual infinite of contingent members. Now I hope I illustrate the reason why the set of all contingents is contingent irrespective of the members it contains. If a set is made up of all contingent members all the members could have failed to exist even simultaneously at once which makes the set contingent. Saying a contingent(a contingent in the set) exists because a contingent (the contingent set of an actual infinite of contingencies) is circular reasoning.

Now varying the number of contingents in a set still doesn’t answer why is there something rather than nothing because the set is contingent. A possible response is that there is no reason for why the set exist, it just exist inexplicably which one is arguing against the second premise. This is fine but then one would have to admit to being arbitrary in their use of the principle of sufficient reason taxicabing when one arrives at their destination whether at the set itself or the universe also know as the taxicab fallacy. Otherwise people use PSR everyday in life and is foundational in science without science would be unable to progress. The question is one willing to pay this price tag for avoiding the conclusion?

The only answer to “why is there something rather than nothing” is grounded in a necessary being which sits outside the contingent set of contingents and cannot be the contingent set of contingents as this is mutually exclusive. This being we call God.

I am on board with pat here that we can start talking about God once this has been settled otherwise discussion will go nowhere.[/quote]

Word…
And like I said you cannot make an argument that ends in an infinite conclusion because you need an infinite amount of premises, and hence cannot reach a conclusion.

229

One more thing about infinite, there is no evidence of an infinite anything in the physical universe. Infinity is only true in concept. We don’t know that it isn’t infinite per se, but being able to measure it’s size and mass in total throws a huge rock into the combine of infinity.
Just sayin’ the best scientific guesses is the the physical universe is finite.

230

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]forlife wrote:

Of course it’s a premise, just like god being noncontingent is a premise. Both are logically possible, and neither can be disproved.[/quote]

Uncaused-cause is logically possible, infinte series is not logically possible.[/quote]

The infinite series IS an uncaused cause. You can call it logically impossible, but you have offered no proof to support this.

231

[quote]pat wrote:
One more thing about infinite, there is no evidence of an infinite anything in the physical universe. Infinity is only true in concept. We don’t know that it isn’t infinite per se, but being able to measure it’s size and mass in total throws a huge rock into the combine of infinity.
Just sayin’ the best scientific guesses is the the physical universe is finite. [/quote]

The infinity is in the series of causes and effects, not in the size and mass of the universe.

232

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[quote]Think tank fish wrote:
I’m not really religious or particularly spiritual but I like some Buddhist principles such as applying logic to the afterlife.

I’m curious about fellow T-Nationers thoughts on the following statement:

“The physical laws of this life cannot possibly exist in any afterlife. Because the physical laws of this reality disable all your senses and perception after death.”

Deep,obvious or nonsense…
[/quote]

Nonsense. Because whoever made that statement hasn’t defined what they mean by the ‘physical laws of this life’ or explained what they mean by those laws ‘disabl(ing) all your senses and perceptions after death’ nor provided a cogent argument to back up whatever they’re trying to say. Yes, utter nonsense. Here’s some more:

‘The sensory perceptions of this reality cannot possibly be transmigrated with the soul whilst fasting due to the total and utter disproportionate distribution of non-integrationalists in comparison to organic vestibules of the interior.’
[/quote]

Well now is certainly the time for a discussion of … gibberish. Gibberish is a statement whose meaning is unchanged if it is negated. In effect, meaning is completely suspended. Let’s try it out here:

‘The sensory perceptions of this reality can be transmigrated with the soul whilst fasting due to the total and utter disproportionate distribution of non-integrationalists in comparison to organic vestibules of the interior.’

Works for me. Obviously these are opposite, but if I handed you the second statement initially, the effect would be the same – you’d be no wiser in any capacity. First test I give to goofy statements is the gibberish test, btw. You’d be amazed at how many of them simply fail to pass. (Works very well, btw with a lot of more modern heavyweight authors like Focault or Heidigger and proves there really are just hot air. Fails badly with folks like Newton or Laplace.)

For the OP’s statement, anything which cannot be tested empirically (no physical senses means you have no way of determining anything) is effectively just BS - since we can’t discuss the topic objectively, all that is left is to chat about our feelings. People, this is why we have internet fori.

Chat on. We can also wonder if we are having this argument as a bunch of brains in vats while we are at it. That is another thought experiment where if we were brains in vats with virtualized input of the “real” world then since our senses can give us no other forms of input, how would we really be able to tell? (The easy refutation is that you can’t but anyone capable of making such a perfect rendition of the world has control that borders on divine, so this puts all those nagging questions about religion to bed: If you are brain in a vat, you have just found God…)

And as always, I might just be full of shit…

– jj

233

[quote]pat wrote:
One more thing about infinite, there is no evidence of an infinite anything in the physical universe. Infinity is only true in concept. We don’t know that it isn’t infinite per se, but being able to measure it’s size and mass in total throws a huge rock into the combine of infinity.
Just sayin’ the best scientific guesses is the the physical universe is finite. [/quote]

Ha, Pat is there any scientific evidence of an uncaused cause then?

234

[quote]jj-dude wrote:

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[quote]Think tank fish wrote:
I’m not really religious or particularly spiritual but I like some Buddhist principles such as applying logic to the afterlife.

I’m curious about fellow T-Nationers thoughts on the following statement:

“The physical laws of this life cannot possibly exist in any afterlife. Because the physical laws of this reality disable all your senses and perception after death.”

Deep,obvious or nonsense…
[/quote]

Nonsense. Because whoever made that statement hasn’t defined what they mean by the ‘physical laws of this life’ or explained what they mean by those laws ‘disabl(ing) all your senses and perceptions after death’ nor provided a cogent argument to back up whatever they’re trying to say. Yes, utter nonsense. Here’s some more:

‘The sensory perceptions of this reality cannot possibly be transmigrated with the soul whilst fasting due to the total and utter disproportionate distribution of non-integrationalists in comparison to organic vestibules of the interior.’
[/quote]

Well now is certainly the time for a discussion of … gibberish. Gibberish is a statement whose meaning is unchanged if it is negated. In effect, meaning is completely suspended. Let’s try it out here:

‘The sensory perceptions of this reality can be transmigrated with the soul whilst fasting due to the total and utter disproportionate distribution of non-integrationalists in comparison to organic vestibules of the interior.’

Works for me. Obviously these are opposite, but if I handed you the second statement initially, the effect would be the same – you’d be no wiser in any capacity. First test I give to goofy statements is the gibberish test, btw. You’d be amazed at how many of them simply fail to pass. (Works very well, btw with a lot of more modern heavyweight authors like Focault or Heidigger and proves there really are just hot air. Fails badly with folks like Newton or Laplace.)

For the OP’s statement, anything which cannot be tested empirically (no physical senses means you have no way of determining anything) is effectively just BS - since we can’t discuss the topic objectively, all that is left is to chat about our feelings. People, this is why we have internet fori.

Chat on. We can also wonder if we are having this argument as a bunch of brains in vats while we are at it. That is another thought experiment where if we were brains in vats with virtualized input of the “real” world then since our senses can give us no other forms of input, how would we really be able to tell? (The easy refutation is that you can’t but anyone capable of making such a perfect rendition of the world has control that borders on divine, so this puts all those nagging questions about religion to bed: If you are brain in a vat, you have just found God…)

And as always, I might just be full of shit…

– jj[/quote]

Maybe I should have put the statement into deductive reasoning form:

  1. All our perception of reality is based on senses. (an assumption i’ll admit)
  2. Those senses rely on physical laws to function. (eg. sounds waves to hear etc…)
  3. Those senses are disabled upon death.(your ears will rot)
  4. If any anything is to be percieved after death. It would be without those senses.
  5. Any perception after death would rely on either physical laws we do not understand or completely different physical laws.

Because 1 is an assumption this obviously is not proof.

Which is why I think a discussion about phenomenal experience is a good idea.

235

[quote]pat wrote:
That’d because consciousnesses and emotion are already, not physical, they are metaphysical. A elctro-chemical reaction may produce a thought or an emotion, but ‘it’ is not itself the thought or emotion.[/quote]

Can you elaborate? I cannot deduce any logic that proves that the electro-chemical reaction is not the emotion.

236

[quote]forlife wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]forlife wrote:

Of course it’s a premise, just like god being noncontingent is a premise. Both are logically possible, and neither can be disproved.[/quote]

Uncaused-cause is logically possible, infinte series is not logically possible.[/quote]

The infinite series IS an uncaused cause. You can call it logically impossible, but you have offered no proof to support this.[/quote]

You woefully misunderstood somthing. First of all, a ‘series’ Well here is the definition:

“a group or a number of related or similar things, events, etc., arranged or occurring in
temporal, spatial, or other order or succession; sequence.”

So what you are saying isn’t a series. Even if it were, there is a reason for it’s existence, it isn’t cause it just is. That is a fallacy…
No, an infinte series being incontinent is not logically possible. Repeating the same thing a number of different ways is not going to make it suddenly true.
This objection was debunked hundreds of years ago. That’s why scientists and philosphers don’t fuck with it, save for Russell who made the same mistake, knew it was one and just didn’t give a shit.

237

[quote]forlife wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:
One more thing about infinite, there is no evidence of an infinite anything in the physical universe. Infinity is only true in concept. We don’t know that it isn’t infinite per se, but being able to measure it’s size and mass in total throws a huge rock into the combine of infinity.
Just sayin’ the best scientific guesses is the the physical universe is finite. [/quote]

The infinity is in the series of causes and effects, not in the size and mass of the universe.[/quote]

I was making a different point, but reduction still prove you cannot have an infinite “series” of cause and effects. Your dying on terminology.

238

[quote]Think tank fish wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:
One more thing about infinite, there is no evidence of an infinite anything in the physical universe. Infinity is only true in concept. We don’t know that it isn’t infinite per se, but being able to measure it’s size and mass in total throws a huge rock into the combine of infinity.
Just sayin’ the best scientific guesses is the the physical universe is finite. [/quote]

Ha, Pat is there any scientific evidence of an uncaused cause then?[/quote]

No, it’s impossible to measure. Science measures and makes predictions, hence is limited in scope and cannot ‘deduce’ anything. Science is the land of empiricism. Drawing inferred conclusions based on a limited info set. Your dealing with something that sits outside the causal chain. This is firmly in the realm metaphysics…
Now what I do find interesting is in String Theory and it’s variant flavors, one dimentional singularities and what they do seem to bump up damn close to the border between the physical and non-physical. That what lies beyond that is metaphysical…But, unfortunately String theory or it’s various flavors are still a ways off from being able to be ‘proven’ as the likely case. Of course, it’s not likely that it will ever be proven, proven as in becoming the ‘Law of Strings’. But hey, who knows maybe they will nail it. It just takes one brilliant mind to see what everybody else is missing.

239

[quote]Think tank fish wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:
That’d because consciousnesses and emotion are already, not physical, they are metaphysical. A elctro-chemical reaction may produce a thought or an emotion, but ‘it’ is not itself the thought or emotion.[/quote]

Can you elaborate? I cannot deduce any logic that proves that the electro-chemical reaction is not the emotion.
[/quote]

I think this may help…

Basically, say you think of something in your childhood an image or event. And we were able to take an exact replica of all the electro-chemical activity in your brain and then replicate it in my brain exactly…Would we have the same thought?
I don’t have the same experience as you, so how could I have the same recollection, even with the exact same electro-chemical activity replicated? I may think of a squirrel fucking a coconut for all we know.

240

[quote]Think tank fish wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:
That’d because consciousnesses and emotion are already, not physical, they are metaphysical. A elctro-chemical reaction may produce a thought or an emotion, but ‘it’ is not itself the thought or emotion.[/quote]

Can you elaborate? I cannot deduce any logic that proves that the electro-chemical reaction is not the emotion.
[/quote]

BTW, logic is a metaphyscal construct. :wink: