question on existence

well im only 16 and i can manage to comprehend the terms and conclusions drawn from those terms. it all makes sense. however i cannot begin to comprehend the universe as it is so immense and perhaps unlike anything we have assumed it is so i (hesitantly) agree with all of the theories. all are logically true.

Originally posted by trent17
well im only 16 and i can manage to comprehend the terms and conclusions drawn from those terms. it all makes sense. however i cannot begin to comprehend the universe as it is so immense and perhaps unlike anything we have assumed it is so i (hesitantly) agree with all of the theories. all are logically true.

They are not theories, they are premises or statements.

Originally posted by UmbrageOfSnow
They are not theories, they are premises or statements.

Just a quick note mate. It got light again. Probably, this must be anti-light, from an anti-sun.

Originally posted by scottishinnz
Just a quick note mate. It got light again. Probably, this must be anti-light, from an anti-sun.

Maybe God created another sun last night (or yesterday depending on your location) to replace ours after it collapsed into a dwarf star. Either it is a miracle or Satan is testing our faith with false light.

Originally posted by knightmeister
Ok let's say finite equals finite amount of time , if you like . Existence = everything that exists (I think I said this) . Infinite means a non-bounded or amount of time with no beginning or end. Anything else?

Why would you want to equivocate on the notion of 'existence' like that? Why not just use the term 'universe' or 'world' to denote all there is?

I don't really care for your use of 'finite' and 'infinite' or the entire structure of your argument. Whatever...I think I know at the end of the day what you are trying to say. One objection that comes to my mind is the following:

You take it to be that case that if X is 'infinite' (that's according to your own usage of that word -- so here, it means that X is temporally without beginning or end), then it follows that X is 'uncaused' or otherwise not reliant on causation. That's false. Consider a Hume-like objection where X is an infinite set of contingent entities, in which each contingent entity is explained by other contingent entities, and collective explanation of all the parts constitutes explanation of the whole. That's an example of some thing that is both 'infinite' (in your sense of the word) and yet "reliant on causation".

Do you understand my objection?

Note here that I am not saying that such an explanation would satisfy all strong versions of the principle of sufficient reason because I don't think it would: it would fail to explain one brute fact, namely that there are and always have been contingent entities. But what I am saying is that there is definitely something wrong with your move from 3) to 5) (your 4) makes no sense, and even if it did it would be extraneous).

yes true i was too tired to think of the right word but my argument remains the same. however upon re-reading i am not sure i agree with no.5. everything that exists in the universe must have some cause except perhaps the creation of the universe itself. it may have either been created by some entity (not necessarily spiuritual) or just been a spontanious event. we will never truly know.

Originally posted by trent17
yes true i was too tired to think of the right word but my argument remains the same. however upon re-reading i am not sure i agree with no.5. everything that exists in the universe must have some cause except perhaps the creation of the universe itself. it may have either been created by some entity (not necessarily spiuritual) or just been a spontanious event. we will never truly know.

Good thinking.

Originally posted by knightmeister
Purely out of interest (no hidden agendas) which of you would broadly subscribe to the following logic....

1) Existence (universe, everything etc) has to logically either be finite or not finite(infinite).

As mentioned by other posters, unless you specify a dimension then your statement is not specific enough.

Do you agree that the big bang theory necessarily implies that the spacial dimensions are finite?

2) If it is finite then logically existence must have existed "from" (term used advisedly) nothing or stop existing at some point (become nothing) or both.
Again, unless you are talking about time, your 'from' word is a bit difficult. If you are talking about time it is just as difficult without instantiating an external time dimension. Basically you are attempting to place a 'nothing' in a dimension whilst simultaneously defining nothing as dimensionless.


3) If not finite then existence must be infinite and possibly without beginning or end or both.

4) Logic dictates that we are forced to consider 2) or 3) as highly likely because it's an either/or situation.

5) The conclusion we can logically reach from this is that existence on some level or other is uncaused in some way and not reliant on another cause.
3, 4, 5, are invalidated by the flaws in 1 and 2.

You haven't addressed causation, but it my claim that not everything within the universe is caused by anything more than the laws of physics.

Originally posted by trent17
it may have either been created by some entity (not necessarily spiuritual) or just been a spontanious event. we will never truly know.

You are assuming that time is not a property of the universe. That is a big assumption.

Originally posted by twhitehead
You are assuming that time is not a property of the universe. That is a big assumption.

True, but it's very hard to talk about events without respect to time. I think his thinking is sound (esp. for a 16 year old who hasn't had the time to read that us older ones have - I used to marvel at a Prof I did a project under - thought he was amazing. Woke up one day and realised he had 40 years of reading on me. We can all be that smart, if we're that committed, but he was nicer than most guys too - still a big fan!) within the realms of his experience.

Originally posted by scottishinnz
True, but it's very hard to talk about events without respect to time. I think his thinking is sound (esp. for a 16 year old who hasn't had the time to read that us older ones have - I used to marvel at a Prof I did a project under - thought he was amazing. Woke up one day and realised he had 40 years of reading on me. We can all be that smart, if we but he was nicer than most guys too - still a big fan!) within the realms of his experience.

Its just that so many people don't seem to understand the concept of a finite dimension. (knightmeister for example).
For example, if one of the spacial dimensions is finite then there is no such thing as "beyond the edge" as such a concept requires there to be a continuation of the dimension to that point. knightmeister insists that such a place exists, then suggests that there is a dimensionless nothingness in that place, then realizes that he is talking nonsense but instead of realizing that the cause is his initial suggestion that the place exists he instead claims that the dimension is necessarily infinite. But this conflicts with the known fact (if you accept the big bang theory) that spacial dimensions are finite.

Its not that its 'hard' to talk about events without respect to time, its that it is wrong to talk about events without respect to time as an event is a time dependent concept.

You are assuming that time is not a property of the universe.

Im not sure what you mean. If the creation of the universe was spontanious or "helped" then the instant that the universe came into existance with all of its dimentions would also be the instant that time was creasted in a sense so therfore the creation of the universe would be Time 0 however then we face the problem of what was there before the universe to "help" or what was happeining in this dimentionless nothingness before the universe spontaniously generated? I have no answwer for that question

is that what you were getting at?

Originally posted by LemonJello
Why would you want to equivocate on the notion of 'existence' like that? Why not just use the term 'universe' or 'world' to denote all there is?

I don't really care for your use of 'finite' and 'infinite' or the entire structure of your argument. Whatever...I think I know at the end of the day what you are trying to say. One objection that comes to ...[text shortened]... o 5) (your 4) makes no sense, and even if it did it would be extraneous).

That's false. Consider a Hume-like objection where X is an infinite set of contingent entities, in which each contingent entity is explained by other contingent entities, and collective explanation of all the parts constitutes explanation of the whole. That's an example of some thing that is both 'infinite' (in your sense of the word) and yet "reliant on causation".

Do you understand my objection?
LEMONJELLO

I understand this objection but my understanding is that it leads to infinite regress. So instead of the buck stopping with an uncaused cause you have infinite causes. However , this does leads to eternal existence because existence in this case has no beginning (which I have no problem with) . What you are saying is that there is no "first mover" because there is always one more mover preceeding it , infinitely. This process did not "start" it just has always been , forever.

Originally posted by LemonJello
Why would you want to equivocate on the notion of 'existence' like that? Why not just use the term 'universe' or 'world' to denote all there is?

I don't really care for your use of 'finite' and 'infinite' or the entire structure of your argument. Whatever...I think I know at the end of the day what you are trying to say. One objection that comes to ...[text shortened]... o 5) (your 4) makes no sense, and even if it did it would be extraneous).

Why would you want to equivocate on the notion of 'existence' like that? Why not just use the term 'universe' or 'world' to denote all there is? LEMON

I would have thought this obvious!! We do not know that the world or universe is all that there is so existence is a far more inclusive term. If it exists then it's included. Existence = all that exists. Universe or world would be a very poor term to use because universe may or may not be all that exists.

Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
Knightmeister seems to have in mind something along the lines of Aristotle's unmoved mover.

Is that so, knightmeister? Here's a link for you to check:
http://www.abu.nb.ca/Courses/GrPhil/PhilRel/Aristotle.htm

pretty much , yes , i think all lines of thought to lead to an unmoved mover or uncaused cause of soem description