question on existence

Originally posted by twhitehead
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?

[b]2) If it is finite then logically existence must have existed "from" (term used advisedly) nothing or stop existing at some point (become nothin not everything within the universe is caused by anything more than the laws of physics.

Basically you are attempting to place a 'nothing' in a dimension whilst simultaneously defining nothing as dimensionless. WHITEY

However , unless you are able to offer me a framework and language that would enable me to express this concept adequately then your objection is meaningless. You criticise whilst offering no alternative. Because of this I can only assume that there probably is no adequate way of expressing the something from nothing idea because language itself breaks down.
This makes your objection nothing more than a simple truism because whatever phrase I used would be inadequate.

You already know by now that I do not see nothing as having any dimension at all or any substance and yet you continue to object to any phrase I use on these grounds. I'm a bit bored of your " you don't want to do it like that " mantra. How should I do it!?! Go on tell me.

EDIT I have no idea why this has gone bold

Originally posted by knightmeister
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 eding it , infinitely. This process did not "start" it just has always been , forever.

However , this does leads to eternal existence because existence in this case has no beginning

Yeah, there would be no beginning. So? That's not what you were arguing for. What you were arguing for is that 'existence' (as you sloppily use the term) is on some level uncaused. Well, that's not necessarily true. Anyway, your conclusion certainly doesn't follow from your premises. So, your initial argument is pretty bad -- that's all I was trying to say.

Originally posted by knightmeister
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 exis ...[text shortened]... orld would be a very poor term to use because universe may or may not be all that exists.

Whatever, KM. You equivocate and use words idiosyncratically quite a bit. Makes it difficult to have any sort of meaningful discussion with you. I recall one thread in which you used 'life' in such a context as well. Your terminology certainly leaves something to be desired.

Originally posted by LemonJello
Whatever, KM. You equivocate and use words idiosyncratically quite a bit. Makes it difficult to have any sort of meaningful discussion with you. I recall one thread in which you used 'life' in such a context as well. Your terminology certainly leaves something to be desired.

I would argue that it is quite difficult to be specific about defining all of existence since ...erhem....we don't know all of what's out there and may only know a tiny fraction. To me existence is a fairly rational word to use in this context since I have defined it as "all that exists". I also note that whilst knocking this term you have been unable to come up with a better alternative . Isn't it time to put up or shut up?

Originally posted by LemonJello
[b]However , this does leads to eternal existence because existence in this case has no beginning

Yeah, there would be no beginning. So? That's not what you were arguing for. What you were arguing for is that 'existence' (as you sloppily use the term) is on some level uncaused. Well, that's not necessarily true. Anyway, your conclusion certai your premises. So, your initial argument is pretty bad -- that's all I was trying to say.[/b]

Yeah, there would be no beginning. So? That's not what you were arguing for. What you were arguing for is that 'existence' (as you sloppily use the term) is on some level uncaused. Well, that's not necessarily true. LEMONJELLO

However , if existence (all that is) has no beginning then it cannot have been brought into existence by anything else or caused to exist by anything else because it has ALWAYS existed. Therefore it's quite logical to state that an eternal (without beginning) existence is an uncaused existence because it does not rely on anything to enable it to come into existence (due to having always existed). If existence is without beginning then it is not contingent on anything prior to it existing in order for it to exist. Existence just IS and has always existed. There would be no prior reason or cause for it to exist apart from the fact that it just IS. How is it then (in your mind) not uncaused and non-dependent? I really don't think that pushing the causality problem back into infinite regress solves anything. Infact I think it is you that is being sloppy if you really think this.

Originally posted by knightmeister
I would argue that it is quite difficult to be specific about defining all of existence since ...erhem....we don't know all of what's out there and may only know a tiny fraction. To me existence is a fairly rational word to use in this context since I have defined it as "all that exists". I also note that whilst knocking this term you have been unable to come up with a better alternative . Isn't it time to put up or shut up?

I gave you two better alternatives, but just use whatever you want. I'll play along with your idiosyncrasies.

Originally posted by knightmeister
Yeah, there would be no beginning. So? That's not what you were arguing for. What you were arguing for is that 'existence' (as you sloppily use the term) is on some level uncaused. Well, that's not necessarily true. LEMONJELLO

However , if existence (all that is) has no beginning then it cannot have been brought into existence by anything else or ca s solves anything. Infact I think it is you that is being sloppy if you really think this.

I already stated earlier that the Hume objection does not satisfy just any strong version of the principle of sufficient reason because it does not explain a brute fact that goes along with the example: namely that there have always been contingent entities. So on that, we're agreed.

So what? I'd say you're being unreasonable if you continue to call the set itself uncaused when you have already been given a cause for each and every member of the set. So I still think the example is still very much a problem for your argument.

Originally posted by knightmeister
Yeah, there would be no beginning. So? That's not what you were arguing for. What you were arguing for is that 'existence' (as you sloppily use the term) is on some level uncaused. Well, that's not necessarily true. LEMONJELLO

However , if existence (all that is) has no beginning then it cannot have been brought into existence by anything else or ca s solves anything. Infact I think it is you that is being sloppy if you really think this.

EDIT: Nevermind this, not entirely relevant.

Originally posted by LemonJello
I already stated earlier that the Hume objection does not satisfy just any strong version of the principle of sufficient reason because it does not explain a brute fact that goes along with the example: namely that there have always been contingent entities. So on that, we're agreed.

So what? I'd say you're being unreasonable if you continue to call ...[text shortened]... ber of the set. So I still think the example is still very much a problem for your argument.

So what? I'd say you're being unreasonable if you continue to call the set itself uncaused when you have already been given a cause for each and every member of the set. So I still think the example is still very much a problem for your argument.LEMON

Not so I'm afraid . Notice that in order to say this you need to have a finite number of members of the set . You cannot say "each and every" member of the set has a cause because you cannot count them all because they are infinite in number.

Imagine the universe resting on a stack of turtles. If you say that you can count all the turtles (each and every one) then you must have one at the bottom on which they all rest. This would be the uncaused turtle . To get round this you have said that there maybe an infinite regress of turtles , in which case they cannot be counted. It only makes sense then to count the set of infinite turtles as a set and ask "is the infinite tower of turtles (without beginning) caused or uncaused? ". The tower of turtles cannot be caused because that would imply a final turtle which has caused all the others or on which all the others rest. Therefore the only logical alternative is an uncaused tower of turtles.

Originally posted by knightmeister
So what? I'd say you're being unreasonable if you continue to call the set itself uncaused when you have already been given a cause for each and every member of the set. So I still think the example is still very much a problem for your argument.LEMON

Not so I'm afraid . Notice that in order to say this you need to have a finite number of members of he others rest. Therefore the only logical alternative is an uncaused tower of turtles.

Are you familiar with cardinality? The infinite set in question is presumably countably infinite. If you're denying my assertion that each and every member is caused, then present a counterexample -- name a member that is uncaused.

EDIT: and if each member is caused, on what grounds are you still calling the set uncaused?

Originally posted by LemonJello
Are you familiar with cardinality? The infinite set in question is presumably countably infinite. If you're denying my assertion that each and every member is caused, then present a counterexample -- name a member that is uncaused.

EDIT: and if each member is caused, on what grounds are you still calling the set uncaused?

How do you count infinity?

The question is not are there any turtles that are uncaused/caused but what caused the tower of turtles? One cannot point to any cause for the tower of turtles because the buck never stops with any one turtle. There can be no turtle on which the tower rests because if there was then one would have to add yet another turtle (add infinitum) , therefore there is no ultimate cause for the tower , therefore the tower is uncaused.

Originally posted by knightmeister
How do you count infinity?

The question is not are there any turtles that are uncaused/caused but what caused the tower of turtles? One cannot point to any cause for the tower of turtles because the buck never stops with any one turtle. There can be no turtle on which the tower rests because if there was then one would have to add yet another turtl ...[text shortened]... finitum) , therefore there is no ultimate cause for the tower , therefore the tower is uncaused.

How do you count infinity?

If there exists a bijective function between the set in question and the set of natural numbers, then the set in question is denumerable. That is the case here, so what more could you want?

The question is not are there any turtles that are uncaused/caused but what caused the tower of turtles?

And I'll just continue to say that you are confused on this matter, mostly in regard to terminology. We have a countably infinite set in which each and every member is caused. I think your subsequent use of 'uncaused' is therefore sloppy and confused. Your problem in this setting is just that, based on a strong version of the principle of sufficient reason (PSR), we require explanation for one more otherwise brute fact. As I've stated repeatedly, on that I agree. We actually largely agree here, but I'm just going to continue to deny your terminology, which I consider to be sloppy on multiple fronts. Of course, at bottom it seems we will always just be brought back to an examination of the PSR. If we cannot defend it, then don't expect there to be any answers that are "satisfactory". People have wasted immense amounts of time on this sort of argument -- an argument that just fails to be compelling in any direction.

Originally posted by LemonJello
[b]How do you count infinity?

If there exists a bijective function between the set in question and the set of natural numbers, then the set in question is denumerable. That is the case here, so what more could you want?

The question is not are there any turtles that are uncaused/caused but what caused the tower of turtles?

And I'll j this sort of argument -- an argument that just fails to be compelling in any direction.[/b]

We have a countably infinite set in which each and every member is caused. I think your subsequent use of 'uncaused' is therefore sloppy and confused.LEMON

Now come on lemon , have you REALLY understood the problem of an infinite regress of causal events?? I may not be a mathematician but I do understand this. If each and every member of the set is caused and you say there is a countable number of members (which I don't understand how there can be with infinite regress) then the first mover in this chain of events (or bottom turtle in the tower) cannot be caused because one must keep placing another member of the set before (or another turtle under the tower). As soon as one says that the turtles are countable then this implies that there must be a "first" turtle (or finite number of turtles) , as soon as you do this then the question remains " what caused the first turtle?". One is unable to find a causal explanation for "all" the turtles because if you claim you are able to count the turtles the question then arises regarding the bottom turtle.

Think of it this way , what difference does it make if you have a 1 turtle tower or an infinite number of turtles in your tower? We can deduce that saying "every turtle is caused" to be contradictory with the concept of infinite regress. This leaves only an uncaused tower of turtles by process of elimination.

In reality what we have is a chain of caused events that is of infinite length and has no beginning. The question is "what caused the chain to start ?" The answer must be "nothing caused the chain to start , it has no start or cause to start , it has always been , therefore it is not caused , the chain just IS"

Originally posted by LemonJello
Are you familiar with cardinality? The infinite set in question is presumably countably infinite. If you're denying my assertion that each and every member is caused, then present a counterexample -- name a member that is uncaused.

EDIT: and if each member is caused, on what grounds are you still calling the set uncaused?

If you're denying my assertion that each and every member is caused, then present a counterexample -- name a member that is uncaused. LEMON

I've just realised this is where you are stuck. It's not about individual members , this thread is about existence remember. It's existence that is uncaused. A chain , or set , or tower of turtles would be existence in this case. There is no way that one can ever say what caused existence based on the model of an infinite regress of causality. By definition the buck can never stop. Just as one is never able to say existence is caused using the something from nothing model because as soon as you point to a cause you deny the concept of nothingness.

I understand that embracing the idea that logically and ultimately existence (all that there is) is uncaused must be uncomfortable for you and I sense a great resistence to the idea. Does it threaten your world view?

Originally posted by knightmeister
I understand that embracing the idea that logically and ultimately existence (all that there is) is uncaused must be uncomfortable for you and I sense a great resistence to the idea. Does it threaten your world view?

No, your presentation doesn't "threaten" my worldview in any sense of that word because you've presented nothing I haven't already seen in much more articulate form and because, until I see some evidence otherwise, I hold that there are simply no warranted positive beliefs concerning cosmological origins.

Your talk about the infinite is just plain goo. I want to actually drive to the heart of this matter because I feel like I'm wasting my time otherwise. Your discontent with the Hume objection should not lie with considerations of causality of the particular entities, or any set of the entities, because each and every entity's proximate cause is provided in a way that should satisfy you; rather, your discontent is with a positive fact within the objection (that there are and have always been contingent entities).

Now here's the point:

If one were to say that this fact is simply brute, that doesn't commit one to your conclusion that 'existence is uncaused' (unless you are trying to say that the existence of the fact itself is left unexplained -- that's clear enough).

And, if you want to say that there is some problem with someone's taking that fact as simply brute, then defend whatever underlying PSR assumption you're just taking for granted.*

And, if your point is simply that such a fact is pertinent to the objection, then I agree (and how many ways can I make that clear?) That's not saying much beyond the obvious. And that's irrelevant, anyway, to the reason why I brought up the objection, which was to discredit your claim that if X is 'infinite', then X is uncaused (or at least, that seemed to be something your initial argument was hinging on).

-------------
*Maybe it would be something like this two-part formulation of Rowe: 'there must be an explanation (a) of the existence of any being AND (b) of any positive fact whatever'.

[OK, sorry -- done editing]