Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

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

Categories
Intelligent Design
Share
Facebook
Twitter/X
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
VL claims that "I’m not claiming that time is infinite into the past, or not." and yet VL also claimed, "There is a difference between a potential and an actual (or completed) infinity. There is no mathematical problem in stating that every moment had a prior moment, and therefore there was no first moment. Assuming a causal connection between moments, that means there was also not a first cause. This is a statement about a potential infinity: there is always another turtle. This is different than saying there are, or has been, a completed infinity of caused moments." Oh well. if saying that "every moment had a prior moment, and therefore there was no first moment" is not claiming time is infinite into the past, then words are essentially meaningless for VL.bornagain77
April 19, 2021
April
04
Apr
19
19
2021
06:22 PM
6
06
22
PM
PDT
VL (and others), I'd be interested in your reaction to this: https://philarchive.org/archive/WATMDA-2EDTA
April 19, 2021
April
04
Apr
19
19
2021
06:19 PM
6
06
19
PM
PDT
BA writes, "Again, you are the one claiming that time is infinite into the past, not me." No, I'm not claiming that time is infinite into the past, or not. I'm not discussing that. What I am doing is I pointing out that the argument that you presented that it can't be infinite is faulty. BA, you wrote above,
Actually there is a fairly big mathematical/logical problem for you. If you say that we live in a potential infinity with time stretching infinitely into the past, then it would be impossible to ever traverse that infinity in order to get to ‘now’.
I am responding to you by pointing out that the "big mathematical/logical problem" that you mention doesn't actually exist.Viola Lee
April 19, 2021
April
04
Apr
19
19
2021
06:09 PM
6
06
09
PM
PDT
"But you are never infinitely far away" Again, you are the one claiming that time is infinite into the past, not me.bornagain77
April 19, 2021
April
04
Apr
19
19
2021
05:49 PM
5
05
49
PM
PDT
But you are never infinitely far away, so the problem you mention doesn't exist. No matter how far back you go in time, and you can always go back another moment from a mathematical point of view, you are still only a finite distance from now. There is no point in a potentially infinite past that is an infinite distance away.Viola Lee
April 19, 2021
April
04
Apr
19
19
2021
04:59 PM
4
04
59
PM
PDT
VL, you are the one claiming that time is infinite into the past, not me. You pointing out that it is only a 'potential' infinity, and not an 'actual' infinity, as far as the future traversal of time is concerned, does nothing at all to alleviate your irresolvable dilemma of having to traverse an infinite past in order to arrive at 'now'. As the old joke goes, 'you can't get there from here', or in your case, 'you can't get here from an infinitely far away there'! :)bornagain77
April 19, 2021
April
04
Apr
19
19
2021
04:42 PM
4
04
42
PM
PDT
JVL states
I think I’m far too Newtonian in my own head to contemplate there being no time.
Likewise, It took me a very long time for me to wrap my head around the fact that, in special relativity, and at the speed of light, time does not pass. What finally made me 'get it' was watching the following video about Einstein's 'thought experiment' that gave him his breakthrough insight into special relativity
“In the spring of 1905, Einstein was riding on a bus and he looked back at the famous clock tower that dominates Bern Switzerland. And then he imagined, “What happens if that bus were racing near the speed of light.”, (narrator: “In his imagination, Einstein looks back at the clock tower and what he sees is astonishing. As he reaches the speed of light, the hands of the clock appear frozen in time”), “Einstein would later write, “A storm broke in my mind. All of the sudden everything, everything, kept gushing forward.”, (narrator: “Einstein knows that, back at the clock tower, time is passing normally, but on Einstein’s light speed bus, as he reaches the speed of light, the light from the clock can no longer catch up to him. The faster he races through space, the slower he moves through time. This insight sparks the birth of Einstein’s Special Theory of relativity, which says that space and time are deeply connected. In fact, they are one and the same. A flexible fabric called spacetime.”) – Michio Kaku Einstein: Einstein’s Miracle Year (‘Insight into Eternity’ – Thought Experiment – 6:29 minute mark) – video https://youtu.be/QQ35opgrhNA?t=389
Yet, even after understanding that insight, there was still a problem for me. Namely, how is it possible for something to move from point A to point B in our universe if time is not passing for it? And the answer too that is that the only way it is possible for time not to pass for light, and yet for light to move from point A to point B in our universe, is if light is of a higher dimensional value of time than the temporal time we are currently living in. Otherwise light would simply be ‘frozen within time’ to our temporal frame of reference. And that higher dimensional nature of special relativity is exactly what Hermann Minkowski, one of Einstein's mathematics professor's, had found prior to Einstein's elucidation of the 4-D space-time of General Relativity. (In fact, in 1916 Einstein fully acknowledged his indebtedness to Minkowski)
Spacetime Excerpt: In 1908, Hermann Minkowski—once one of the math professors of a young Einstein in Zurich—presented a geometric interpretation of special relativity that fused time and the three spatial dimensions of space into a single four-dimensional continuum now known as Minkowski space. A key feature of this interpretation is the definition of a spacetime interval that combines distance and time. Although measurements of distance and time between events differ for measurements made in different reference frames, the spacetime interval is independent of the inertial frame of reference in which they are recorded. Minkowski’s geometric interpretation of relativity was to prove vital to Einstein’s development of his 1915 general theory of relativity, wherein he showed that spacetime becomes curved in the presence of mass or energy.,,, Einstein, for his part, was initially dismissive of Minkowski’s geometric interpretation of special relativity, regarding it as überflüssige Gelehrsamkeit (superfluous learnedness). However, in order to complete his search for general relativity that started in 1907, the geometric interpretation of relativity proved to be vital, and in 1916, Einstein fully acknowledged his indebtedness to Minkowski, whose interpretation greatly facilitated the transition to general relativity.[10]:151–152 Since there are other types of spacetime, such as the curved spacetime of general relativity, the spacetime of special relativity is today known as Minkowski spacetime. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spacetime
One way for us to more easily understand this higher dimensional framework for time that light exists in is to visualize what would happen if a hypothetical observer approached the speed of light. In the first part of the following video clip, which was made by two Australian University Physics Professors, we find that the 3-Dimensional world ‘folds and collapses’ into a tunnel shape as a ‘hypothetical’ observer approaches the ‘higher dimension’ of the speed of light.
Optical Effects of Special Relativity – video (full relativistic effects shown at 2:40 minute mark) https://youtu.be/JQnHTKZBTI4?t=160
To give us a better understanding as to what it would be like to exist in a higher dimension, this following video, Dr. Quantum in Flatland, also gives us a small insight as to what it would be like to exist in a higher dimension:
Dr. Quantum in Flatland – video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B5yxZ5I-zsE
Moreover, we actually have eye-witness testimony from Near Death Testimonies that corroborates what we know to be physically true from special relativity. In the following video clip, Mickey Robinson gives his Near Death testimony of what it felt like for him to experience a ‘timeless eternity’.
‘In the ‘spirit world,,, instantly, there was no sense of time. See, everything on earth is related to time. You got up this morning, you are going to go to bed tonight. Something is new, it will get old. Something is born, it’s going to die. Everything on the physical plane is relative to time, but everything in the spiritual plane is relative to eternity. Instantly I was in total consciousness and awareness of eternity, and you and I as we live in this earth cannot even comprehend it, because everything that we have here is filled within the veil of the temporal life. In the spirit life that is more real than anything else and it is awesome. Eternity as a concept is awesome. There is no such thing as time. I knew that whatever happened was going to go on and on.’ In The Presence Of Almighty God – The NDE of Mickey Robinson – video (testimony starts at 27:45 minute mark) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=voak1RM-pXo
And here are a few more quotes from people who have experienced Near Death, that speak of how their perception of time was radically altered as they were outside of their material body.
‘Earthly time has no meaning in the spirit realm. There is no concept of before or after. Everything – past, present, future – exists simultaneously.’ – Kimberly Clark Sharp – Near Death Experiencer ‘There is no way to tell whether minutes, hours or years go by. Existence is the only reality and it is inseparable from the eternal now.’ – John Star – NDE Experiencer
As well, Near Death Experiencers also frequently mention going through a tunnel to a higher heavenly dimension:
Ask the Experts: What Is a Near-Death Experience (NDE)? Excerpt: “Very often as they’re moving through the tunnel, there’s a very bright mystical light … not like a light we’re used to in our earthly lives. People call this mystical light, brilliant like a million times a million suns…” – Jeffrey Long M.D. – has studied NDE’s extensively – abcnews nightline The Tunnel and the Near-Death Experience Excerpt: One of the nine elements that generally occur during NDEs is the tunnel experience. This involves being drawn into darkness through a tunnel, at an extremely high speed, until reaching a realm of radiant golden-white light. – near death research
In the following video, Barbara Springer gives her testimony as to what it felt like for her to go through the tunnel to a higher dimension
“I started to move toward the light. The way I moved, the physics, was completely different than it is here on Earth. It was something I had never felt before and never felt since. It was a whole different sensation of motion. I obviously wasn’t walking or skipping or crawling. I was not floating. I was flowing. I was flowing toward the light. I was accelerating and I knew I was accelerating, but then again, I didn’t really feel the acceleration. I just knew I was accelerating toward the light. Again, the physics was different – the physics of motion of time, space, travel. It was completely different in that tunnel, than it is here on Earth. I came out into the light and when I came out into the light, I realized that I was in heaven.” Barbara Springer – Near Death Experience – The Tunnel – video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gv2jLeoAcMI
And in the following audio clip, Vicki Noratuk, who has been blind from birth, besides being able to see for the first time during in her life during her Near Death Experience, also gives testimony of going through a tunnel to a higher dimension
“I was in a body, and the only way that I can describe it was a body of energy, or of light. And this body had a form. It had a head, it had arms and it had legs. And it was like it was made out of light. And it was everything that was me. All of my memories, my consciousness, everything.”,,, “And then this vehicle formed itself around me. Vehicle is the only thing, or tube, or something, but it was a mode of transportation that’s for sure! And it formed around me. And there was no one in it with me. I was in it alone. But I knew there were other people ahead of me and behind me. What they were doing I don’t know, but there were people ahead of me and people behind me, but I was alone in my particular conveyance. And I could see out of it. And it went at a tremendously, horrifically, rapid rate of speed. But it wasn’t unpleasant. It was beautiful in fact.,, I was reclining in this thing, I wasn’t sitting straight up, but I wasn’t lying down either. I was sitting back. And it was just so fast. I can’t even begin to tell you where it went or whatever it was just fast!” – Vicki’s NDE – Blind since birth – https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e65KhcCS5-Y
And the following people who had a NDE both testify that they firmly believed that they were in a higher dimension that is above this three-dimensional world and that the primary reason that they have a very difficult time explaining what their Near Death Experiences felt like is because we simply don’t currently have the words to properly describe that higher dimension:
“Regardless, it is impossible for me to adequately describe what I saw and felt. When I try to recount my experiences now, the description feels very pale. I feel as though I’m trying to describe a three-dimensional experience while living in a two-dimensional world. The appropriate words, descriptions and concepts don’t even exist in our current language. I have subsequently read the accounts of other people’s near-death experiences and their portrayals of heaven and I able to see the same limitations in their descriptions and vocabulary that I see in my own.” Mary C. Neal, MD – To Heaven And Back pg. 71 “Well, when I was taking geometry, they always told me there were only three dimensions, and I always just accepted that. But they were wrong. There are more… And that is why so hard for me to tell you this. I have to describe with words that are three-dimensional. That’s as close as I can get to it, but it’s really not adequate.” John Burke – Imagine Heaven pg. 51 – quoting a Near Death Experiencer
That people who have had Near Death Experiences would corroborate what we know to be physically true from special relativity is nothing short of astonishing. Especially given the fact that these people, in all likelihood, no nothing about the intricacies of special relativity. Shoot, I would go so far to say that such corroboration, with what we know to be physically true from special relativity, completely validates the fact that their Near Death Experiences were indeed real testimonies of what they actually experienced and were not merely imaginary as atheists try to claim Near Death Experiences merely are. Verse:
2 Corinthians 12:2-4 I know a man in Christ who fourteen years ago was caught up to the third heaven. Whether it was in the body or out of it I do not know, but God knows. And I know that this man—whether in the body or out of it I do not know, but God knows— was caught up to Paradise. The things he heard were too sacred for words, things that man is not permitted to tell.
bornagain77
April 19, 2021
April
04
Apr
19
19
2021
04:32 PM
4
04
32
PM
PDT
We've had this discussion before, and I'm not going to re-traverse it. But I'll summarize: if the past is a potential infinity, than only a finite amount of steps have taken place. If it's ab actual infinity, then it's something that must be taken as a whole, a la Cantor, so the idea of traversal doesn't apply. The argument that the past can't be infinite because that implies an infinite amount of time until now conflates the two different meanings of infinity.Viola Lee
April 19, 2021
April
04
Apr
19
19
2021
04:13 PM
4
04
13
PM
PDT
As to the infinite regress argument as it is applied to the immaterial mind and its ability to know certain things, the results of the infinite regress argument, as applied to the immaterial mind, are quite different for the Theist than they were for the atheist and his fallacious belief that nature must have always existed. Dr. Winston Ewert and Dr. Robert Marks, (who have both more than earned their respect in the ID community), touched upon that argument to show that, "through application of Gödelian reasoning, there can be, at most, one being in the universe omniscient over all other beings. This Supreme Being must by necessity exist or have existed outside of time and space. The conclusion results simply from the requirement of a logical consistency of one being having the ability to answer questions about another. The existence of any question that generates a self refuting response is assumed to invalidate the ability of a being to be all-knowing about the being who was the subject of the question."
A Mono-Theism Theorem: Gödelian Consistency in the Hierarchy of Inference - Winston Ewert and Robert J. Marks II - June 2014 Abstract: Logic is foundational in the assessment of philosophy and the validation of theology. In 1931 Kurt Gödel derailed Russell and Whitehead’s Principia Mathematica by showing logically that any set of consistent axioms will eventually yield unknowable propositions. Gödel did so by showing that, otherwise, the formal system would be inconsistent. Turing, in the first celebrated application of Gödelian ideas, demonstrated the impossibility of writing a computer program capable of examining another arbitrary program and announcing whether or not that program would halt or run forever. He did so by showing that the existence of a halting program can lead to self-refuting propositions. We propose that, through application of Gödelian reasoning, there can be, at most, one being in the universe omniscient over all other beings. This Supreme Being must by necessity exist or have existed outside of time and space. The conclusion results simply from the requirement of a logical consistency of one being having the ability to answer questions about another. The existence of any question that generates a self refuting response is assumed to invalidate the ability of a being to be all-knowing about the being who was the subject of the question. http://robertmarks.org/REPRINTS/2014_AMonoTheismTheorem.pdf
bornagain77
April 19, 2021
April
04
Apr
19
19
2021
03:33 PM
3
03
33
PM
PDT
VL states,
There is a difference between a potential and an actual (or completed) infinity. There is no mathematical problem in stating that every moment had a prior moment, and therefore there was no first moment. Assuming a causal connection between moments, that means there was also not a first cause. This is a statement about a potential infinity: there is always another turtle. This is different than saying there are, or has been, a completed infinity of caused moments.
Actually there is a fairly big mathematical/logical problem for you. If you say that we live in a potential infinity with time stretching infinitely into the past, then it would be impossible to ever traverse that infinity in order to get to 'now'. The following video, and article with a graph, clearly explains the irresolvable dilemma with your 'infinite past' scenario.
Can We Have a 'Now' or a 'Today' if Time is Actually Infinite? https://youtu.be/Xg0pdUvQdi4?t=14 The dissolution of today - graph - May 21, 2014 Scenario A shows the actual situation of the arrow of time, running from left to right, from today to the future. If this arrow is infinite then we would have no last day. To scenario A we apply a shift according to a leftward vector of infinite length to get scenario B suggested by Carroll. Of course the arrow of time continues to run from left to right, but the shift produces a “little” problem: the “no last day” becomes “no today!”. Simply in Carroll’s wonderland the present disappears, and with the present ourselves disappear. https://uncommondescent.com/physics/the-dissolution-of-today/
Also of note, Consciousness does not suffer from the infinite regress argument, (at least as far as time itself is concerned), because it is always 'now' for the immaterial mind that is observing time as it is passing by. As Antoine Suarez states in the following video (paraphrase), “it is impossible for us to be 'persons' experiencing 'now' if we are nothing but particles flowing in space time. Moreover, for us to refer to ourselves as 'persons', we cannot refer to space-time as the ultimate substratum upon which everything exists, but must refer to a Person who is not bound by space time. (In other words) We must refer to God!”
Nothing: God's new Name - Antoine Suarez – video Paraphrased quote: (“it is impossible for us to be 'persons' experiencing 'now' if we are nothing but particles flowing in space time. Moreover, for us to refer to ourselves as 'persons', we cannot refer to space-time as the ultimate substratum upon which everything exists, but must refer to a Person who is not bound by space time. i.e. We must refer to God!”) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SOr9QqyaLlA
And as Stanley Jaki stated in the following article, “There can be no active mind without its sensing its existence in the moment called now.,,, ,,,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
Moreover, ‘the experience of ‘the now” also happens to be exactly where Albert Einstein got into trouble with leading philosophers of his day and also happens to be exactly where Einstein eventually got into trouble with quantum mechanics itself. Around 1935, Einstein was asked by Rudolf Carnap (who was a philosopher):
“Can physics demonstrate the existence of ‘the now’ in order to make the notion of ‘now’ into a scientifically valid term?” Rudolf Carnap - Philosopher
Einstein’s answer was ‘categorical’, he said:
“The experience of ‘the now’ cannot be turned into an object of physical measurement, it can never be a part of physics.” Einstein
That was a very interesting comment for Einstein to have made since we know now, via Wheeler's Delayed Choice and Leggett's Inequality, that 'the now' is very much a part of physical measurement. As Scott Aaronson of MIT stated "if we accept the usual picture of quantum mechanics,,,, the world (as you experience it) might as well not have existed 10^-43 seconds ago!”
Lecture 11: Decoherence and Hidden Variables – Scott Aaronson Excerpt: “Look, we all have fun ridiculing the creationists who think the world sprang into existence on October 23, 4004 BC at 9AM (presumably Babylonian time), with the fossils already in the ground, light from distant stars heading toward us, etc. But if we accept the usual picture of quantum mechanics, then in a certain sense the situation is far worse: the world (as you experience it) might as well not have existed 10^-43 seconds ago!”
Prior to that encounter with Rudolf Carnap, Einstein also had another disagreement with another famous philosopher, Henri Bergson, over what the proper definition of time should be (Bergson was also very well versed in the specific mental attribute of the ‘experience of the now’). In fact, that disagreement with Henri Bergson over what the proper definition of time should actually be was one of the primary reasons that Einstein failed to ever receive a Nobel prize for his work on relativity:
Einstein vs Bergson, science vs philosophy and the meaning of time – Wednesday 24 June 2015 Excerpt: The meeting of April 6 was supposed to be a cordial affair, though it ended up being anything but. ‘I have to say that day exploded and it was referenced over and over again in the 20th century,’ says Canales. ‘The key sentence was something that Einstein said: “The time of the philosophers did not exist.”’ It’s hard to know whether Bergson was expecting such a sharp jab. In just one sentence, Bergson’s notion of duration—a major part of his thesis on time—was dealt a mortal blow. As Canales reads it, the line was carefully crafted for maximum impact. ‘What he meant was that philosophers frequently based their stories on a psychological approach and [new] physical knowledge showed that these philosophical approaches were nothing more than errors of the mind.’ The night would only get worse. ‘This was extremely scandalous,’ says Canales. ‘Einstein had been invited by philosophers to speak at their society, and you had this physicist say very clearly that their time did not exist.’ Bergson was outraged, but the philosopher did not take it lying down. A few months later Einstein was awarded the Nobel Prize for the discovery of the law of photoelectric effect, an area of science that Canales noted, ‘hardly jolted the public’s imagination’. In truth, Einstein coveted recognition for his work on relativity. Bergson inflicted some return humiliation of his own. By casting doubt on Einstein’s theoretical trajectory, Bergson dissuaded the committee from awarding the prize for relativity. In 1922, the jury was still out on the correct interpretation of time. So began a dispute that festered for years and played into the larger rift between physics and philosophy, science and the humanities. Bergson was fond of saying that time was the experience of waiting for a lump of sugar to dissolve in a glass of water. It was a declaration that one could not talk about time without reference to human consciousness and human perception. Einstein would say that time is what clocks measure. Bergson would no doubt ask why we build clocks in the first place. ‘He argued that if we didn’t have a prior sense of time we wouldn’t have been led to build clocks and we wouldn’t even use them … unless we wanted to go places and to events that mattered,’ says Canales. ‘You can see that their points of view were very different.’ In a theoretical nutshell this expressed perfectly the division between lived time and spacetime: subjective experience versus objective reality.,,, Just when Einstein thought he had it worked out, along came the discovery of quantum theory and with it the possibility of a Bergsonian universe of indeterminacy and change. God did, it seems, play dice with the universe, contra to Einstein’s famous aphorism. Some supporters went as far as to say that Bergson’s earlier work anticipated the quantum revolution of Niels Bohr and Werner Heisenberg by four decades or more. Canales quotes the literary critic Andre Rousseaux, writing at the time of Bergson’s death. ‘The Bergson revolution will be doubled by a scientific revolution that, on its own, would have demanded the philosophical revolution that Bergson led, even if he had not done it.’ Was Bergson right after all? Time will tell. http://www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/philosopherszone/science-vs-philosophy-and-the-meaning-of-time/6539568
Perhaps Einstein should have taken these leading philosophers's advice about the proper definition of time more seriously?bornagain77
April 19, 2021
April
04
Apr
19
19
2021
03:10 PM
3
03
10
PM
PDT
AND HERES A KICKER!... these virtual particles that are said to just POOF into being.... are they being POOFED into being because they are simple objects/particles? would more complex arrangement's be prohibitive by probability? if there is no quantum bar too high for quantum fields/foams/energy to create "stuff", then nothing would prohibit intelligence either from POOFING INTO BEING FROM NOTHING (OR ALMOST NOTHING) as do those particles/energy/matterpan dimensional
April 19, 2021
April
04
Apr
19
19
2021
10:43 AM
10
10
43
AM
PDT
it is amazing how scared atheists are of intelligence! but here is food for thought for the atheist. 1-if abiogenesis and evolution are true, then even BEFORE our universe intelligence could have arose by said process. 2-if the eternal multiverse is true, then you would have an infinity of intelligence arising for all infinity!..giving rise to infinity complex intelligence's as well!!! 3-even that pesky judeo christian god would eventually arise within that infinity and tons of other intelligence as well! 4-so infinity is a catch 22 for the atheist here... on one hand, it allows them to escape first causations, on the other hand, infinity means eventually an infinite intelligence would arise within that infinity too. 5-and if particles/energy/matter can just "POOF"..into existence from nothing or almost nothing, then a boltzman brain or god could too, just POOF into being from nothing..NOTHING (PUN INTENDED) WOULD EXCLUDE IT THENpan dimensional
April 19, 2021
April
04
Apr
19
19
2021
10:35 AM
10
10
35
AM
PDT
KF @20:
WJM, thermodynamics and energy flow. That’s why our world is temporal-causal, there is an arrow to time and things happen, at cumulative or macro scale, at rates with upper speed limits. KF
Unfortunately, quantum experimentation has disproved that theory.William J Murray
April 19, 2021
April
04
Apr
19
19
2021
09:39 AM
9
09
39
AM
PDT
WLM, the general scientific consensus is that our physical universe began about 15 billion years ago. What perspective are you referring to?
Perspectives that do not see it that way, such as mine.William J Murray
April 19, 2021
April
04
Apr
19
19
2021
09:38 AM
9
09
38
AM
PDT
VL, 14 is more like it, it keeps bouncing 13.7 to 13.8 or so. KFkairosfocus
April 19, 2021
April
04
Apr
19
19
2021
09:37 AM
9
09
37
AM
PDT
WJM, thermodynamics and energy flow. That's why our world is temporal-causal, there is an arrow to time and things happen, at cumulative or macro scale, at rates with upper speed limits. KFkairosfocus
April 19, 2021
April
04
Apr
19
19
2021
09:34 AM
9
09
34
AM
PDT
WLM, the general scientific consensus is that our physical universe began about 15 billion years ago. What perspective are you referring to?Viola Lee
April 19, 2021
April
04
Apr
19
19
2021
09:26 AM
9
09
26
AM
PDT
VL said:
We all know it had a beginning.
No, we do not all know that.William J Murray
April 19, 2021
April
04
Apr
19
19
2021
09:13 AM
9
09
13
AM
PDT
re 13: I, and the general philosophical question, is not just about the physical universe we live in. We all know it had a beginning.Viola Lee
April 19, 2021
April
04
Apr
19
19
2021
09:12 AM
9
09
12
AM
PDT
Mr Arrington said:
They most certainly have not. This statement is based on a fundamental misunderstanding of the first cause argument. The quantum foam is not “nothing.” And it is not “necessary.” Add those two things up William.
I didn't say anything about "quantum foam." Now try responding to something I actually said. Or, perhaps try asking questions so you can better understand what I said.William J Murray
April 19, 2021
April
04
Apr
19
19
2021
09:02 AM
9
09
02
AM
PDT
WJM
The quantum eraser and delayed choice experiments have rendered the philosophical arguments about a linear-time “first cause” obsolete and irrelevant. There is no “first cause” in that sense.
They most certainly have not. This statement is based on a fundamental misunderstanding of the first cause argument. The quantum foam is not "nothing." And it is not "necessary." Add those two things up William.Barry Arrington
April 19, 2021
April
04
Apr
19
19
2021
08:52 AM
8
08
52
AM
PDT
ET: If you can’t measure it, does it exist, scientifically? Excellent question! I have no answer. I think I'm far too Newtonian in my own head to contemplate there being no time. I always want there to be some great clock in the sky ticking away at regular beats. I don't get the idea that it makes no sense to ask what was around before the Big Bang. Good thing I'm not a cosmologist. To get rid of those turtles all Viola or anyone has to do is come up with a coherent theory of how blind and mindless processes did it. And only that which had a beginning requires a cause. Science says that this universe had a beginning. Therefore it had a cause. It's hard to get away from that notion. I can't quite do it myself. The closest I get is imagining our pre-space-time (if that makes sense) like a still pond and then someone throws a rock into it and that's the Big Bang. So the 'cause' was outside our universe but not necessarily intelligent. (But, someone had to throw the rock . . . hmm . . ) That is probably completely wrong but, like I said, I don't really get it.JVL
April 19, 2021
April
04
Apr
19
19
2021
08:25 AM
8
08
25
AM
PDT
To get rid of those turtles all Viola or anyone has to do is come up with a coherent theory of how blind and mindless processes did it. And only that which had a beginning requires a cause. Science says that this universe had a beginning. Therefore it had a cause.ET
April 19, 2021
April
04
Apr
19
19
2021
08:09 AM
8
08
09
AM
PDT
The classical concept of "causal chains" has been disproved by quantum physics. What we are left with are two different working concepts of "cause;" the "ground of being" cause, which provides for all existence, experiences and being; and a form of proximate cause which is entirely about and occurs according to the state of the observer and not any "prior state" of some "thing" independent of the experience of the observer. The quantum eraser and delayed choice experiments have rendered the philosophical arguments about a linear-time "first cause" obsolete and irrelevant. There is no "first cause" in that sense. It's interesting how many of these ancient philosophical arguments have been rendered irrelevant due to the results of quantum physics experiments.William J Murray
April 19, 2021
April
04
Apr
19
19
2021
08:07 AM
8
08
07
AM
PDT
VL W
hat is the nature of whatever next level of reality out of which our universe has arisen” We don’t know.
I agree that we do not know its nature completely. We do in fact, however, know something about its nature, to wit, it is a necessary being.Barry Arrington
April 19, 2021
April
04
Apr
19
19
2021
08:03 AM
8
08
03
AM
PDT
VL
But if there has “always” been something beyond nature, that just introduces another stack of turtles.
No, it points to the existence of a necessary being. And since everything in the cosmos is contingent, the cosmos is not a candidate for "necessary being."Barry Arrington
April 19, 2021
April
04
Apr
19
19
2021
08:02 AM
8
08
02
AM
PDT
VL
there is always another turtle
Well OK then. Not just Coyne.Barry Arrington
April 19, 2021
April
04
Apr
19
19
2021
07:58 AM
7
07
58
AM
PDT
BA, attn Sev: I would not use the negative, UN-caused, suggesting something ad hoc. Instead, look to logic of being. There are possible worlds, at least one being actualised. A Poss World, W is a sufficiently complete description of how a or this world is or could be. Where, worlds have associated entities. Beings. In that context, say a square circle is impossible of being as its required core characteristics are contradictory. Thus, we contrast possible beings, in two classes. Contingent ones exist in some but not all worlds, and if some A is in W but not near neighbour W' we can identify some switching condition S in W enabling A but in W' it is off, locking out A. A fire and its causes is a typical study. Contingent beings are caused, S is a cause. But also, there are other things that are in all worlds, like two-ness, they are not caused as no switch S can turn them off, that is pointless. Instead, if something N is present in any possible world that is part of the framework necessary for a world to be, A necessary being. If you doubt try to imagine what would turn off twoness, the number 2. Or a world in which a switch was flipped and it now began. The point is, the ultimate cause of worlds is necessary being. Where, once we use R* to see the point it is obvious that finite stage temporal causal succession through the actual past to now cannot have been infinite. We need a finitely remote necessary being world root. The real issue is, of what nature. KFkairosfocus
April 19, 2021
April
04
Apr
19
19
2021
07:58 AM
7
07
58
AM
PDT
We've been over this before, but not with Barry, I think. There is a difference between a potential and an actual (or completed) infinity. There is no mathematical problem in stating that every moment had a prior moment, and therefore there was no first moment. Assuming a causal connection between moments, that means there was also not a first cause. This is a statement about a potential infinity: there is always another turtle. This is different than saying there are, or has been, a completed infinity of caused moments. Along these lines, Sev points out a similar problem: "if we assume there is no way to get something from nothing, since there is something now, there must always have been something, in other words, another infinity." Barry attempts to solve this problem by restating the situation thusly, "If we assume there is no way to get a nature from nature, since there is nature now, there must always have been something beyond nature." But if there has "always" been something beyond nature, that just introduces another stack of turtles. What is the nature of whatever next level of reality out of which our universe has arisen" We don't know. However, either it has always existed, or it arose from some other level of reality. So you can never really escape the stack of turtles problem except by positing a completed infinity: something that just always has been. But whatever we posit is just a speculation: there is no reason not to accept the level of reality out of which our universe arose as the ultimate forever-existing state of things. Sure, you can ask, "But where did that come from?", but once you do you are committed to the problem of potential infinity: there could always be the state that preceded this state, no matter how far down (or up, depending on your metaphor) you go.Viola Lee
April 19, 2021
April
04
Apr
19
19
2021
07:55 AM
7
07
55
AM
PDT
If you can't measure it, does it exist, scientifically?ET
April 19, 2021
April
04
Apr
19
19
2021
07:53 AM
7
07
53
AM
PDT
1 3 4 5 6

Leave a Reply