Coyne Believes a Version of “Turtles all the Way Down”

_{Barry Arrington

April 19, 2021

Intelligent Design}

Share: Facebook; Twitter; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

As our News Desk has noted, over at Mind Matters Michael Egnor engages with Jerry Coyne on whether, as a matter of logic, the cosmos can be self-existent. Egnor says no, and one reason he gives is the logical principle that any causal chain points to a first cause. He writes:

Imagine a chain hanging from the sky supporting a weight suspended in the air. Each link in the chain is a cause for the continued suspension of the links and the weight they hold up. However, the chain could not hold itself up alone. It can’t be “links all the way up.” Something at the beginning must be holding the chain up. And whatever holds the whole causal series up cannot just be another link in the chain. To be a “first cause,” whatever is holding up the chain must be something different from the chain itself.

Most of us are familiar with the amusing “turtles all the way down” story:

The following anecdote is told of William James. […] After a lecture on cosmology and the structure of the solar system, James was accosted by a little old lady.
“Your theory that the sun is the centre of the solar system, and the earth is a ball which rotates around it has a very convincing ring to it, Mr. James, but it’s wrong. I’ve got a better theory,” said the little old lady.
“And what is that, madam?” inquired James politely.
“That we live on a crust of earth which is on the back of a giant turtle.”
Not wishing to demolish this absurd little theory by bringing to bear the masses of scientific evidence he had at his command, James decided to gently dissuade his opponent by making her see some of the inadequacies of her position.
“If your theory is correct, madam,” he asked, “what does this turtle stand on?”
“You’re a very clever man, Mr. James, and that’s a very good question,” replied the little old lady, “but I have an answer to it. And it’s this: The first turtle stands on the back of a second, far larger, turtle, who stands directly under him.”
“But what does this second turtle stand on?” persisted James patiently.
To this, the little old lady crowed triumphantly,
“It’s no use, Mr. James—it’s turtles all the way down.”— J. R. Ross, Constraints on Variables in Syntax, 1967

Coyne would certainly howl in disdain and ridicule at the rube who believed in turtles all the way down. Isn’t it ironic, then, that he himself believes in a similar story except instead of “turtles all the way down” he believes in “links all the way up.”

Comments

Kairosfocus: we can readily enough see that the core point is made, given the backing away. The setting up of D as past time and aligning it with Z- has failed, a set that is clearly infinite so that D would be an infinite past by definition. The inability to traverse such stepwise exhaustively again settles the matter. A temporal causal world and quantum foam antecedents with fluctuations etc will require a beginning. I'm not sure anyone was disputing this but . . . So, we must reckon with the logic of being. Utter non-being, were it ever the case would have no causal power so that would forever obtain. A contingent world implies a necessary being root with adequate causal capability. Where, necessary beings transcend the temporal-causal order, they are framework for any world to be and so always are. We see eternality as a different mode of existence from the inherently contingent order of a thermodynamically governed, temporal-causal world such as ours. For example, two never began nor can it cease. Which ties directly to distinct identity at the core of logic. That immediately makes mind as plausible candidate, mind capable of sourcing worlds, such as ours. I'm not sure what any of this means or what question of mine you are trying to address. Can anyone clear this up for me? As for mathematical entities, they are real, as two is real, embedded in the entities of our world. Try an apple on a table, bright green — Granny Smith. Call it A. It is distinct from not that apple, ~A. W = {A|~A}. Eat said apple, never mind its sourness. Has twoness disappeared? No, other things up to this particular world hold distinct identity. Indeed, at macro level the apple is simple unity, ~A is complex. Different things can have unit property, and onward we can see N,Z,Q,R,C etc. Twoness is also contemplated in mind and can be eternally so contemplated. Without beginning, without end, fabric to any possible world. Again, what question of mine are you trying to address? So, Math as the logic of being addressing structure and quantity is real, as obviously is the study. This is not just a game with labels and symbols that by some magic of coincidence happen to fit with physics. I keep reading but I keep not understanding. Surely it's possible for you to be a bit clearer in your responses? In the sort of physics that suggests quantum foams with expanding fluctuations etc, a sort of quasi physics and quasi time extends beyond the singularity. All quite speculative. It is that speculative possible world that cannot escape logic of being addressed to thermodynamically controlled causal-temporal succession. It is also why stage counts are more relevant that “years.” I'm losing the will to live now. Since you apparently want to do analysis before arithmetic basics, I give you this much. The enabling source and sustainer of worlds as necessary being would be antecedent to timelines [on a foam subverse, many disparate timelines for different fluctuations are possible]. So, you're saying God doesn't recognise a constant and solid timeline? Getting to more specific claims requires particular views. For example in Hinduism Atman is Brahman. In ethical theism in the Judaeo-Christian tradition, worlds are initiated, sustained and powered by the Creator, who is therefore actively present everywhere and everywhen. If that antecedent presence is absent, there is only non being in the imagined locale. We imagine from a where and when. Other views contemplate gods in the flow of time as superhuman figures not strictly ground of being with a name, I AM that reflects that character. Whatever all of that means. Does such a view vitiate freedom? Some imagine so but err. To enable possibilities and to be simultaneously aware of the before and the after does not determine the choice made, it simply accurately reflects what use or misuse is made of borrowed powers. And more, but again, that would open up vast tangential domains. I didn't ask about freedom? Are you even trying to respond to my queries? It feels like you're just blowing smoke to put me off. The fundamental point at the core of thread and op alike is that it’s turtles all the way down without beginning fails. NO ONE supported that. I cannot believe that you are so indifferent to what people are actually asking you and telling you. Look, go back and reread my posts and actually try and answer my questions. Okay?JVL_{April 21, 2021
April
04
Apr
21
21
2021
01:03 PM
1
01
03
PM
PDT}

JVL, we can readily enough see that the core point is made, given the backing away. The setting up of D as past time and aligning it with Z- has failed, a set that is clearly infinite so that D would be an infinite past by definition. The inability to traverse such stepwise exhaustively again settles the matter. A temporal causal world and quantum foam antecedents with fluctuations etc will require a beginning. So, we must reckon with the logic of being. Utter non-being, were it ever the case would have no causal power so that would forever obtain. A contingent world implies a necessary being root with adequate causal capability. Where, necessary beings transcend the temporal-causal order, they are framework for any world to be and so always are. We see eternality as a different mode of existence from the inherently contingent order of a thermodynamically governed, temporal-causal world such as ours. For example, two never began nor can it cease. Which ties directly to distinct identity at the core of logic. That immediately makes mind as plausible candidate, mind capable of sourcing worlds, such as ours. As for mathematical entities, they are real, as two is real, embedded in the entities of our world. Try an apple on a table, bright green -- Granny Smith. Call it A. It is distinct from not that apple, ~A. W = {A|~A}. Eat said apple, never mind its sourness. Has twoness disappeared? No, other things up to this particular world hold distinct identity. Indeed, at macro level the apple is simple unity, ~A is complex. Different things can have unit property, and onward we can see N,Z,Q,R,C etc. Twoness is also contemplated in mind and can be eternally so contemplated. Without beginning, without end, fabric to any possible world. So, Math as the logic of being addressing structure and quantity is real, as obviously is the study. This is not just a game with labels and symbols that by some magic of coincidence happen to fit with physics. In the sort of physics that suggests quantum foams with expanding fluctuations etc, a sort of quasi physics and quasi time extends beyond the singularity. All quite speculative. It is that speculative possible world that cannot escape logic of being addressed to thermodynamically controlled causal-temporal succession. It is also why stage counts are more relevant that "years." Since you apparently want to do analysis before arithmetic basics, I give you this much. The enabling source and sustainer of worlds as necessary being would be antecedent to timelines [on a foam subverse, many disparate timelines for different fluctuations are possible]. Getting to more specific claims requires particular views. For example in Hinduism Atman is Brahman. In ethical theism in the Judaeo-Christian tradition, worlds are initiated, sustained and powered by the Creator, who is therefore actively present everywhere and everywhen. If that antecedent presence is absent, there is only non being in the imagined locale. We imagine from a where and when. Other views contemplate gods in the flow of time as superhuman figures not strictly ground of being with a name, I AM that reflects that character. Does such a view vitiate freedom? Some imagine so but err. To enable possibilities and to be simultaneously aware of the before and the after does not determine the choice made, it simply accurately reflects what use or misuse is made of borrowed powers. And more, but again, that would open up vast tangential domains. The fundamental point at the core of thread and op alike is that it's turtles all the way down without beginning fails. KFkairosfocus_{April 21, 2021
April
04
Apr
21
21
2021
12:00 PM
12
12
00
PM
PDT}

Marfin @117: What do you mean by "real?"William J Murray_{April 21, 2021
April
04
Apr
21
21
2021
11:02 AM
11
11
02
AM
PDT}

Kairosfocus: things you have previously ignored or set aside without due warrant, you continue to do the same. Really? When have I claimed there is an infinite past? Thanks for letting us know why the matter cannot be resolved. Depends on how much you want to try and explain I think. Nor has VL used the case with D as embracing Z-. Again, why not just ask Viola if they meant to imply an infinite past? Easy, conversational, non-confrontational . . . Thus, my correction that the question of transfinite traverse stepwise has been begged, vitiating the onward argument. Why not just ask if that's what Viola meant? You take offence at the least suggestion of a disagreement. A claimed transfinite number of actual past points traversed stepwise to reach now collapses as such a traverse is not feasible. Fine. I'm not claiming an infinite human-detectable past. I don't think Viola is either despite that one statement which you have now spent a lot of verbiage railing against instead of just asking a polite question. That is there is a finitely remote past limit, a beginning; even beyond the big bang. Okay, okay . . . so, even outside our universe the past is finite? Correct? As to the exploration of Eternity and how it intersects with our time etc, our concepts of succession and change etc, if something comparatively simple as stepwise traversal of the transfinite is a stumbling block, then there is no basis for profitable discussion on matters of philosophical or systematic theology. I never said there was an infinite human-detectable past!! Mathematics is NOT reality!! Do you understand why some things cannot be in any possible world? I'm trying to understand your cosmic view which is why I'm asking questions. That others might, some being contingent and caused, some framework to any world existing and necessary? Again, I'm trying to understand which is why I'm asking questions. That actual worlds require a necessary root being of some nature? And I'd like to know: how does that being perceive the passage of time? Do they have their own clock?JVL_{April 21, 2021
April
04
Apr
21
21
2021
08:42 AM
8
08
42
AM
PDT}

JVL, things you have previously ignored or set aside without due warrant, you continue to do the same. Thanks for letting us know why the matter cannot be resolved. Besides, I have not previously addressed the Wikipedia summary against known interest on finitude and exhaustive countability. Nor has VL used the case with D as embracing Z-. Thus, my correction that the question of transfinite traverse stepwise has been begged, vitiating the onward argument. It remains that any actual past p must once have been the present then was succeeded stepwise to now. In context it implies the span to any actual past p is finite. A claimed transfinite number of actual past points traversed stepwise to reach now collapses as such a traverse is not feasible. That is there is a finitely remote past limit, a beginning; even beyond the big bang. KF PS: As to the exploration of Eternity and how it intersects with our time etc, our concepts of succession and change etc, if something comparatively simple as stepwise traversal of the transfinite is a stumbling block, then there is no basis for profitable discussion on matters of philosophical or systematic theology. What might be feasible is basic logic of being, possible worlds and cause, but whether that is to be profitably engaged remains to be seen. Do you understand why some things cannot be in any possible world? That others might, some being contingent and caused, some framework to any world existing and necessary? That actual worlds require a necessary root being of some nature?kairosfocus_{April 21, 2021
April
04
Apr
21
21
2021
08:32 AM
8
08
32
AM
PDT}

Kairosfocus: at this point the necessity of laying the matter out is underscored, and the need to roll the tape, to point to what is being sidestepped and buried under further exchanges. Fine, I'll just ignore the things I've already heard multiple times. In short, VL was asserting by assumption at outset, traversal of a transfinite to get to t, today. Why didn't you just ask Viola: oh, sorry, you seem to be saying this, is that what you meant? As to oh God is before time, it is sounder to say, he is the causal ground of our causal-temporal domain of being or world, which credibly had a definite beginning. You will observe that in the model of time I laid out, I used 0 as the singularity, taking in various multiverse and sub cosmos from fluctuations models. The grounding of worlds I speak to is beyond our big bang. So . . . some kind of time extends before our Big Bang? A supreme being 'above' all that would have their own clock? Further to such, you need to ponder causality, the logic of being, impossible of being vs possible, contingent vs necessary. Stuff gone through before in significant detail but again treated as if it is not there in the background or is irrelevant. Or worse. I'm just trying to understand how things work in your view. Does God have their own clock by which they measure progression of events? On the first day . . . on the second day . . .JVL_{April 21, 2021
April
04
Apr
21
21
2021
08:19 AM
8
08
19
AM
PDT}

JVL, at this point the necessity of laying the matter out is underscored, and the need to roll the tape, to point to what is being sidestepped and buried under further exchanges. VL, 75, again, to EDTA:
1. “Let t represent today, D the collection of all days prior to t”. D represents all the days in the past. If we assume, for convenience, that t = 0 represents now, D represents the set of negative integers. I assume collection is the same as set. Do you agree with these statements?
I remind, from Wikipedia:
In mathematics (particularly set theory), a finite set is a set that has a finite number of elements. Informally, a finite set is a set which one could in principle count and finish counting. For example, { 2 , 4 , 6 , 8 , 10 } is a finite set with five elements. The number of elements of a finite set is a natural number (a non-negative integer) and is called the cardinality of the set. A set that is not finite is called infinite. For example, the set of all positive integers is infinite: { 1 , 2 , 3 , … } . [–> do reflection in 0 to see what the set of negative integers therefore is and what VL’s suggestion on D implies]
In short, VL was asserting by assumption at outset, traversal of a transfinite to get to t, today. The pivotal matter is whether that can be done. Where, we can see from even Wiki testifying against ideological interest: "Informally, a finite set is a set which one could in principle count and finish counting . . . . A set that is not finite is called infinite. For example, the set of all positive integers is infinite: { 1 , 2 , 3 , … }" It is easy to see that the negative integers, Z- are the mirror image in 0, and are similarly infinite, of cardinality aleph-null. This confirms that assuming at outset that D is in effect Z- means claiming a completed transfinite, stepwise traverse. Where, as even Wiki is admitting, it is FINITE sets that can be exhaustively counted through. Which is the equivalent to saying that one cannot traverse the transfinite exhaustively in steps. I showed why above, which you dismiss as if it were empty repetition. My wider point stands. As to oh God is before time, it is sounder to say, he is the causal ground of our causal-temporal domain of being or world, which credibly had a definite beginning. You will observe that in the model of time I laid out, I used 0 as the singularity, taking in various multiverse and sub cosmos from fluctuations models. The grounding of worlds I speak to is beyond our big bang. Further to such, you need to ponder causality, the logic of being, impossible of being vs possible, contingent vs necessary. Stuff gone through before in significant detail but again treated as if it is not there in the background or is irrelevant. Or worse. That's not Cricket. KFkairosfocus_{April 21, 2021
April
04
Apr
21
21
2021
08:09 AM
8
08
09
AM
PDT}

Kairosfocus: It was necessary to show the implicitly transfinite traverse in the proposal of D. We've all read your reasons many times over. Viola made a statement that seemed to imply they were postulating an infinite set of past times. All you needed to do was to query that statement. God is necessary being, our world — and so, its contents — is contingent. Time is about contingent, changing reality. We need necessary being as root of reality in which at least one contingent world exists. The issue is, of what nature. The God of ethical theism is a serious candidate to be that necessary being. So . . . God existed 'before' time? If God brought our contingent reality into being then that seems correct. In mathematics (particularly set theory), a finite set is a set that has a finite number of elements. Informally, a finite set is a set which one could in principle count and finish counting. Please don't. I KNOW the mathematics. I don't need a lecture. do reflection in 0 to see what the set of negative integers therefore is and what VL’s suggestion on D implies I GOT IT! You can be incredibly patronising at times.JVL_{April 21, 2021
April
04
Apr
21
21
2021
06:22 AM
6
06
22
AM
PDT}

WJM- So are any experiences real ?, or are they real but just influenced by the state of the observer ? Are trees real ? , if not ,are science experiments real. ?Marfin_{April 21, 2021
April
04
Apr
21
21
2021
06:18 AM
6
06
18
AM
PDT}

JVL 1: It was necessary to show the implicitly transfinite traverse in the proposal of D. 2: God is necessary being, our world -- and so, its contents -- is contingent. Time is about contingent, changing reality. We need necessary being as root of reality in which at least one contingent world exists. The issue is, of what nature. The God of ethical theism is a serious candidate to be that necessary being. KF PS: Wikipedia:
In mathematics (particularly set theory), a finite set is a set that has a finite number of elements. Informally, a finite set is a set which one could in principle count and finish counting. For example, { 2 , 4 , 6 , 8 , 10 } is a finite set with five elements. The number of elements of a finite set is a natural number (a non-negative integer) and is called the cardinality of the set. A set that is not finite is called infinite. For example, the set of all positive integers is infinite: { 1 , 2 , 3 , … } . [--> do reflection in 0 to see what the set of negative integers therefore is and what VL's suggestion on D implies] Finite sets are particularly important in combinatorics, the mathematical study of counting. Many arguments involving finite sets rely on the pigeonhole principle, which states that there cannot exist an injective function from a larger finite set to a smaller finite set.
kairosfocus_{April 21, 2021
April
04
Apr
21
21
2021
06:16 AM
6
06
16
AM
PDT}

Kairosfocus: You sure spent a long time objecting to one phrase: D represents the set of negative integers. You don't need to take 25 paragraphs to point out that Viola did not explicitly say that D was a finite set. Also, you don't need to invoke anything but the integers to bring up that the past is finite. And since no one has objected to that notion I'm not sure why you thought you needed to reiterate things you've said many, many times in the (finite) past. I have a theological question: is there a time in the past before which God did not exist?JVL_{April 21, 2021
April
04
Apr
21
21
2021
06:00 AM
6
06
00
AM
PDT}

VL & JVL, in effect the question is what sufficient reason do you have to hold or suggest that the physical, causal-temporal past is without beginning, given the challenge of completing a stepwise traversal of the transfinite in finite scale steps. Absent very good reason -- not an assumption of completed traversal, there is reason to hold that we are only warranted to project a finite past for our physical cosmos. KFkairosfocus_{April 21, 2021
April
04
Apr
21
21
2021
04:34 AM
4
04
34
AM
PDT}

VL, 75: A first clip, to EDTA:
1. “Let t represent today, D the collection of all days prior to t”. D represents all the days in the past. If we assume, for convenience, that t = 0 represents now, D represents the set of negative integers. I assume collection is the same as set. Do you agree with these statements?
1: Question begged by assumption at the outset. 2: As I explored in a recent paper, N,Z,Q,R,C,R* etc are present as world framework, abstract entities in any distinct possible world. 3: That is utterly different from and tangential to the material question of traversing finite stage, causal-temporal, cumulative succession across the actual past to now. Where, 4: every actual past point p that actually happened [think years for convenience], it was once the present, then through causal-temporal stages of succession we had a chain of successors to now p –> p+1 –> p+2 –> k –> . . . –> n, the current now. Which, is receding into the past as we speak. 5: The claim, infinite or beginningless past (D = Z- in your argument at 75 above] means — per logic of temporal–causal, successive being as just outlined — that for any particular k in the past, there are unlimited further actual past stages beyond any particular onward p, i.e.: . . . . –> p-2 –> p-1 –> p. 6: That lead ellipsis
(notice, I now use a four dot ellipsis for a case where there is no finite terminus on the open side, i.e. for every q beyond p there is a q-1 etc)
. . . implies an actually transfinite, stepwise successive causal-temporal traverse. Which, 7: we know cannot be traversed as no suggested transfinitely remote K (observe the contrasted upper case) can succeed itself in finite, successive stages to a completed transfinite span. That is, 8: I am first capturing the integers in a wider context, the transfinite hyperreals, established through infinitesimal h --> 1/h --> H a transfinite integer [for convenience] greater than any finite n in N, where N mileposts R+. R- is the mirror image as is obvious. K is a negative transfinite, integer hyperreal, so we see: . . . . K, K+1, K+2 . . . . p-2, p-1, p, p+1, p+2 . . . k, k+1 . . . -2,-1,*0*,1,2 . . . n, n+1, n+2, . . . . H, H+1, . . . . 9: Notice, I have here shifted to number lines, we are not looking at causal temporal succession for the moment. I used *0* to note the cloud of infinitesimal hyperreals around 0 including h. Further, observe that from p-2 to n+2, all traversals are finite, so physically feasible. Any particular actual past p can traverse onward through 0 to n. I use 0 as the big bang singularity for convenience. 10: Again, with --> to represent immediate causal-temporal, thermodynamically constrained transition of finite stages, any actual past point p must be able to traverse to n: p –> p+1 –> p+2 –> . . . k –> . . . 0 --> 1 -->2 --> . . . –> n 11: What you assume is that D can have in it only finite values but is collectively such that any finite p is exceeded by an onward prior chain without limit. That begs the question, and further fails to recognise the implication of the open sided ellipsis. 12: That is why I have set the wider context of R* that helps us see what . . . . -2,-1,0 really entails, once issues of temporal-causal succession are brought in. D is implicitly transfinite and traversal of the supposed never having begun set of prior stages requires stepwise traversal of the transfinite. 13: yes, any particular p will be finite and exceeded, but that is the point, our symbolism of the open ended ellipsis shows that we can traverse the finite span but can only point to the onward open ended span, what a potential infinite is all about. 14: Counting in reverse 0, -1, -2, . . . p, on and on cannot be completed, precisely because of the impossibility of completing a transfinite span in steps. This is where we use 1/x and infinitesimals like h to connect to the onward hyperreals of transfinite scale. Obviously, we can go -1/h = -H, a negative transfinite hyperreal. 15: For some negative transfinite K, we can go K+1,K+2 etc validly but given the stepwise traverse problem we never get to p in any actual succession of steps. (Refer again to the hyperbolic catapult, 1/x, used to connect infinitesimals and transfinites on the hyperreals number line, with finite reals embraced and mileposted by n in N.) 16: As I have pointed out any number of times for four plus years now at UD, the ellipsis in the successor notation for exhibiting N is STRUCTURAL and carries a high significance. Let us go to the von Neumann construction, using ==> for assignment or interpretation: {} ==> 0 {0} ==> 1 {0,1} ==> 2 . . . {0,1,2, . . . (k-1)} ==> k {0,1,2 . . .k} ==> k+1 . . . . w, omega, the first transfinite ordinal, and onward 17: From this, N, we can construct Z,Q,R,C,R* etc. But obviously, we could not exhaustively complete the steps of construction of successors to w as for any specific finite k, it is bounded by equally finite specific successors from k+1. Equivalent, through shift left, to starting from 0 all over. Even without the explicit transfinite, the ellipsis cannot be completed in successive steps. 18: Now, observe that Z- is the mirror image of N, i.e. n + (-n) = 0, identity element for +. If traversal of the transfinite cannot be completed going upwards from 0 it cannot be completed going downwards across Z- from 0 either. 19: Magic step, recognise that exhausting the open, four dot ellipsis on the negative side before getting to any particular p is the same traverse only in the reversed direction of travel. 20: In mathematics, we can readily point to a potential infinite and accept the intuitions that yes we could go on and on without limit, but on logic of being for actual physical past stages p, we cannot do that. 21: Instead, we have to actually traverse every intervening stage from the once the-present, now succeeded to n, today's present stage, and that has to be done one step at a time constrained by thermodynamics, forces, motions etc. 22: In short, as others also did, you have begged the logic of physical being and causal temporal succession question. 23: That you seem to be forced to do that by inserting an assumption of already traversed transfinite succession to the accessible past p, speaks volumes. 24: What lurks in there is the need for eternal, necessary worlds framework being as adequate causal ground for this or any other possible world. For, infinite causal-temporal succession cannot be traversed, circular cause is the impossibility of self-causing prior to existence, and were there ever utter non being such would forever obtain . . . there would be no world. 25: A world, manifestly, is [and WJM there is no good reason to suggest or infer that our senses, experiences and memory that tell us about it are on the whole dubious or delusional]. It is not self explanatory. logic of being requires necessary being as root of this and other possible worlds. The issue is, of what character. KFkairosfocus_{April 21, 2021
April
04
Apr
21
21
2021
03:10 AM
3
03
10
AM
PDT}

EDTA: I just wanted to add, there are personal experiments one can conduct under IRT (formerly MRT) in order to explore the experiential potentials available, but like any theory, it requires a decent understanding of the model to know how to conduct and evaluate the results of the experiment. Informally (outside of quantum experiments,) what you're working with under my IRT is a set of subconscious programs, most of which people are usually unaware of. These programs select and process information into experience. At the very root of these programs is something like an operating system; I call it the reality operating system. It organizes the information gathering and processing according to its version of reality - what is real, and what is not. Multiple users have the same reality operating system, just like multiple users have the same computer or game platform operating system. Now, what were talking about here are two different operating systems operating at the deepest subconscious level: IRT (formerly MRT) and DRT (formerly ERT.) Using the analogy of a computer and operating systems, we have many other programs installed that are running on our particular operating system that do not run on other operating systems. There are many DRT programs that are incompatible with the IRT operating system. Now, how does one go about testing whether or not the IRT not only functions, but provides us access to programs we do not have available on the DRT platform? But, this analogy isn't correct, because I'm proposing, and the evidence indicates that IRT is not just another operating system; it represents the bit code (machine) language that allows any operating system or program to function. This is what these quantum experiments are about and why the results violated the DRT and "materialism" operating system expectations. So, this is the tall order you are requesting: an experiment that will conclusively violate what your current reality program is producing as your sets and sequences of experiences, including how you normally think about things as "reality" (results that will "convince" you.) That's virtually impossible under IRT because "state of the observer" (which includes all your current subconscious programming) is what causes experience; it is not caused by the experiences. So, you see the problem here. Undermining one's reality program is no small task and it has very uncomfortable experiential consequences. Yes, we can deprogram or reprogram our reality program, but you have to invest the time and effort to "learn to code" and be ready to manage what happens as a result.William J Murray_{April 21, 2021
April
04
Apr
21
21
2021
02:36 AM
2
02
36
AM
PDT}

Marfin @109 said:
WJM- Sorry last post reads like I am under them influence. The point I was trying to make is that if there is no cause and effect then science is null and void , as the proof of the quantum physics experiments being a cause and you forming a belief based on that cause being an effect , hence cause and effect. So if no cause and effect how can experimental science be of any value as it has no effect.
I didn't say there was no cause and effect; I said it doesn't exist in the way we normally (time-linear results of matter-energy state interactions) think about it. The state of the observer causes the observer's experiences. Currently, science is about modeling those patterns of experiences as theories about matter, energy and most recently under quantum theory, information and consciousness. Quantum experimental results in the past didn't cause me to believe in some form of IRT. My observational state located and translated that information into my experience and generated my experiential relationship with that information. I could just as easily have never accessed that information, not understood it, or rejected it, if my observational state had been different.William J Murray_{April 21, 2021
April
04
Apr
21
21
2021
01:53 AM
1
01
53
AM
PDT}

Seversky @99 asks a couple of the best questions about IRT (formerly MRT) I've ever come across.
The first is the source of the information of which we are aware. Information is usually held to be about something. If I am aware of a tree, the source of the information that becomes a tree in my conscious awareness is the actual tree itself. If there are no trees then why am I aware of something like a tree at all? What is the source of that awareness?
Bravo. What an insightful, intelligent, well-considered question. To begin answering this question, let me ask this: how is it a tree (or a rock, or a stream of water, or a turtle, etc.) came into existence in the first place? Does it matter if we look at the tree as information, matter, or energy? If we're thinking in DRT (dualism reality theory, formerly external reality theory) terms, if we go back in time far enough, none of those things existed back at or near the beginning, the "big bang." The potential for their eventual existence had to exist in some format - an arrangement or pattern that could physically, statistically, mathematically produce those things in the future. Without the potential that at least allowed for their eventual formation, they could not have come into existence. That "potential" is the same as information. The information for the tree necessarily existed as instantiated potential (instantiated in patterns, arrangement, qualities of matter or energy) at the beginning of the universe (under DRT.) IOW, the information for a thing necessarily preceded the coming into existence of the the thing, even under DRT. Thus, IRT again just dispenses with the unnecessary middle-man of material or energetic instantiation; our experience is our mind interacting with informational potentials.
The second question is under MRT is there any difference between fact and fiction?
Another truly meaningful question, one that needs to be asked and answered to acquire even a basic understanding of IRT. Under IRT, all possible things exist at least in the form of information potentials; if something did not, then they would be unimaginable as well as not available in physical experience (like square circles.) Under my particular version of IRT, all possible things are being experienced "somewhere" by "someone." But, does that mean there is no distinction between "fact" and "fiction?" It depends on how you look at it. "Fiction" would be things not known to have occurred (or known to have not occurred) in our common physical world experience. But, isn't that all fiction can possibly be anyway? How would we know if the events described in a book of fiction did not occur somewhere, at some time, in some possible world or dimension?
Following from that, is there actually any truth other than what we experience? On the correspondence theory of truth, for example, the truth-value of a claim about the nature of some aspect of external reality can be judged by observing how closely it corresponds to what it purports to describe. MRT would seem to exclude that version of truth.
This can be answered logically. You agree we have no access to any purported world existing outside of mind; the only truths we can possibly measure or validate are about our experiences, which are all mental in nature. Even if there was a non-mental world that information was coming from, we have no capacity, even in principle, to valid statements about that world as "true."William J Murray_{April 21, 2021
April
04
Apr
21
21
2021
01:42 AM
1
01
42
AM
PDT}

WJM- Sorry last post reads like I am under them influence. The point I was trying to make is that if there is no cause and effect then science is null and void , as the proof of the quantum physics experiments being a cause and you forming a belief based on that cause being an effect , hence cause and effect. So if no cause and effect how can experimental science be of any value as it has no effect.Marfin_{April 21, 2021
April
04
Apr
21
21
2021
01:33 AM
1
01
33
AM
PDT}

WJM- If what you now believe about what quantum physics proves , is that not a past action ( experimental evidence)making a future thing ( your belief about it)not causal then why then do you believe it to be so.Marfin_{April 20, 2021
April
04
Apr
20
20
2021
11:38 PM
11
11
38
PM
PDT}

ET writes, "Viola and JVL are talking about one thing and the rest are talking about something else." Yes, this is true. To EDTA: I appreciate the discussion we've had, and we could probably continue profitably, but I think I don't want to put in the time it would take. I just got my new camera and I want to spend time studying it, and I have various, as KF would say, real-world issues to deal with. So thanks for a civil and focussed conversation.Viola Lee_{April 20, 2021
April
04
Apr
20
20
2021
06:56 PM
6
06
56
PM
PDT}

We can count units of time from a point in time. In order for infinite past to have meaning, you'd have to be able to count from an infinite past, which is nonsense. We cannot start with an infinite quantity (such as an infinity number of seconds of time) and count down from it. Infinity minus one = infinity. It is not a number from which you can count. Thus, infinite time past is meaningless. You can say the words until you're blue in the face, but you're not saying anything meaningful. The thing to keep in mind about infinity is that it is not a number. It is an abstract set. Or rather "they", since there are infinite sets of infinite sets and so on. They are abstract sets with strange properties, which are not isomorphic to anything in the "real" universe, nor to each other.Karen McMannus_{April 20, 2021
April
04
Apr
20
20
2021
06:48 PM
6
06
48
PM
PDT}

EDTA said:
What I need is direct, personal evidence that only MRT could explain. That would be sufficient motivation to at least invest some time trying to understand more of QM. Is there anything you could do (over the internet, say) that only MRT could explain?
There's nothing I can do except what I'm doing. BTW, I'm calling it IRT now - idealism reality theory.William J Murray_{April 20, 2021
April
04
Apr
20
20
2021
05:50 PM
5
05
50
PM
PDT}

Isn't the point how can we get here, now if the past was infinite? And that we wouldn't be here now if the past was infinite? Starting here and now is cheating and doesn't get to the point. Viola and JVL are talking about one thing and the rest are talking about something else.ET_{April 20, 2021
April
04
Apr
20
20
2021
05:45 PM
5
05
45
PM
PDT}

I can assure you Viola Lee is a full-grown adult.Viola Lee_{April 20, 2021
April
04
Apr
20
20
2021
04:37 PM
4
04
37
PM
PDT}

BA77 I guess ViolaLee is a boy. Not that it would matter.Sandy_{April 20, 2021
April
04
Apr
20
20
2021
04:31 PM
4
04
31
PM
PDT}

VL claims that "No point in the past is an infinite distance from now." Why is she talking about distance when she is trying to explain time? I thought they were trying to be precise in their definitions and all that? Shouldn't she have claimed, "No point in the past is an infinite time from now" instead of claiming that "No point in the past is an infinite distance from now."??? But if she stated her claim as she should have stated it, without confusing time and distance, then it would have defeated her entire argument that time itself is infinite into the past. Moreover, when space and time are combined, as they are in general relativity, (and as VL inadvertently did in her claim), then there are mathematical proofs, as I already referenced in post 83, that space and time cannot be infinite into the past. Moreover, I also have a serious problem with them assuming "now", i.e. the present moment, in their attempt to count backwards from 'now' to an infinite past. "The experience of 'the Now", as I already referenced in post 26, is a property of the immaterial mind and is not physical property. To repeat Stanley Jaki, "There is no physical parallel to the mind’s ability to extend from its position in the momentary present to its past moments, or in its ability to imagine its future. The mind remains identical with itself while it lives through its momentary nows.”
The Mind and Its Now – Stanley L. Jaki, May 2008 Excerpts: There can be no active mind without its sensing its existence in the moment called now.,,, Three quarters of a century ago Charles Sherrington, the greatest modern student of the brain, spoke memorably on the mind’s baffling independence of the brain. The mind lives in a self-continued now or rather in the now continued in the self. This life involves the entire brain, some parts of which overlap, others do not. ,,,There is no physical parallel to the mind’s ability to extend from its position in the momentary present to its past moments, or in its ability to imagine its future. The mind remains identical with itself while it lives through its momentary nows. ,,, the now is immensely richer an experience than any marvelous set of numbers, even if science could give an account of the set of numbers, in terms of energy levels. The now is not a number. It is rather a word, the most decisive of all words. It is through experiencing that word that the mind comes alive and registers all existence around and well beyond. ,,, All our moments, all our nows, flow into a personal continuum, of which the supreme form is the NOW which is uncreated, because it simply IS. http://metanexus.net/essay/mind-and-its-now
Thus, they inadvertently are also assuming the reality of their immaterial mind in their argument for an infinite past which is, supposedly, strictly verboten for any self respecting materialist who wants to explain the existence of time without reference to the infinite Mind of God.bornagain77_{April 20, 2021
April
04
Apr
20
20
2021
02:43 PM
2
02
43
PM
PDT}

BA, observe how I discuss the current causal-temporal stage of the cosmos. That is the way cosmology looks at the cosmos using the General Theory of Relativity. KFkairosfocus_{April 20, 2021
April
04
Apr
20
20
2021
02:31 PM
2
02
31
PM
PDT}

Concerning WJM's MRT, I think we agree that the world we all inhabit is created in our minds. Where we differ is that I believe it is a model, an incomplete representation of an external reality, based on limited information gathered by our senses, which exists beyond our conscious awareness and whose existence does not depend on our awareness of it. However, as WJM has pointed out, there is no way that I can see for me to prove it. I cannot step outside myself to see if I and the external reality I assume is out there are indeed two separate entities. And, as WJM has said, his is the more parsimonious explanation. Why assume an external reality if it doesn't give us any greater explanatory purchase? That said, it does raise some interesting questions. The first is the source of the information of which we are aware. Information is usually held to be about something. If I am aware of a tree, the source of the information that becomes a tree in my conscious awareness is the actual tree itself. If there are no trees then why am I aware of something like a tree at all? What is the source of that awareness? The second question is under MRT is there any difference between fact and fiction? We distinguish fact and fiction broadly as the former being external reality and the latter being essentially a figment of our imagination based off what we know of external reality. But if there is no external reality, only the internal reality of our conscious minds, does that mean that under MRT there is no ontological difference between fact and fiction? In other words, for example, the Shire from Lord of the Rings or the galaxy long ago and far, far away in Star Wars are actually out there to be experienced since they have been imagined, for want of a better word? Following from that, is there actually any truth other than what we experience? On the correspondence theory of truth, for example, the truth-value of a claim about the nature of some aspect of external reality can be judged by observing how closely it corresponds to what it purports to describe. MRT would seem to exclude that version of truth. Basically, it seems to me that while MRT is arguably a more parsimonious theory, it raises question of origins that are every bit as intractable as those of other versions of the nature of reality.Seversky_{April 20, 2021
April
04
Apr
20
20
2021
02:08 PM
2
02
08
PM
PDT}

Kairosfocus: See the finitude of what we can count to, k, and the onward traverse in the ellipsis we CANNOT traverse in +1 steps (or +1,000,000,000,000 etc steps for that matter)? Every number in the succession we can explicitly count to is finite, every onward number we can specifically represent as k is also finite, and there is onwardness. The ellipsis of onwardness — if necessary I can use four dots — is where the transfinite comes in and it cannot be traversed in finite stage steps. Sigh. I have never said you can get to the infinite. You can't. No one is saying that. Bornagain77: If I may take liberty to explain your argument to you, “in order to explain how the present moment can possibly come from some infinitely past moment, all you need to do is first assume the present moment came from an infinitely past moment.” No one is making that argument. Sigh. Jerry: In the real world there will be one number that will not have a predecessor. Use positive integers to make your case. (prefer not to use negative integers). There will be a positive integer for which there is no bigger integer because there is nothing for it to point to. How many times do we have to say: we are talking about mathematics here, NOT the real world. I give up. You people are clearly not even trying to understand. This is how a group of people ostracise themselves from intellectual discourse. They deny, deny, deny without having taken the time to fully understand the topic and then get upset because no one is listening to them. You bring it upon yourselves.JVL_{April 20, 2021
April
04
Apr
20
20
2021
01:54 PM
1
01
54
PM
PDT}

Yes, that's the point. No point in the past is an infinite distance from now.Viola Lee_{April 20, 2021
April
04
Apr
20
20
2021
01:40 PM
1
01
40
PM
PDT}

@Bornagain77:
If I may take liberty to explain your argument to you, “in order to explain how the present moment can possibly come from some infinitely past moment, all you need to do is first assume the present moment came from an infinitely past moment.”
Isn't the whole point, that there is NO infinitely past moment?AndyClue_{April 20, 2021
April
04
Apr
20
20
2021
01:38 PM
1
01
38
PM
PDT}

Prev 1 2 3 4 … 6 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply