Kant: "The Universe Has a Beginning is False"

[bahman]

Not absolutely,
one cannot insist on,
"there was a moment that there was no human - period!"

• Example,
  Relatively within the timeline of Science of Evolution,
  humans emerged later than other living things.
  therefore there there was a moment there was no human.
  But this statement has to be qualified to the Science of Evolution [human based] and not absolute by itself.

Note the condition of time;

• 1. Time is conditioned upon the human condition
  2. A moment is an element of time.
  3. A moment that there was no human is an element of time.
  4. Therefore 'a moment that there was no human is an element of time' is conditioned upon the human condition [1]

So if you accept that there were no human but other things long time ago then one can deduce there were changes in only physical things at that period. One can deduce that change is not possible without time.

Things emerged spontaneously with humans collectively.
So, there is no other things long time ago if there are no humans.

So earth was formed with human, so Big Bang.

[bahman]

ALMOST!

No, exactly.

It's actually the other way around.

No.

Time only exists if there is change.

Time is needed for any change.

In a hypothetical static universe there would be no time.

Static means no change not no time.

Motion is change of position, but if only one thing moves there is no time. Two or more things must be moving before there can be a time relationship. Time and velocity are only ways of measuring the relationships between motions.

Time is fundamental variable for any dynamical theory. I have an argument for that. Think of a change, X to Y. X and Y must lay at different two points and one must come after another one. There must be a duration between two points otherwise change never takes place. These two points belong to a variable so-called time.

You think time is a thing? Some kind of entity?

Yes, time is a substance. It bends according to the theory of general relativity.

[RCSaunders]

You think time is a thing? Some kind of entity?

You can't even tell us what a thing is, let alone "two things" without admitting the concept of "time" into your reference frame.

Sure I can. I do it all the time. In fact I almost never let the concept of time into my frame of reference, it makes too much of a mess and I like to keep my frame of reference clean.

[Skepdick]

Sure I can. I do it all the time. In fact I almost never let the concept of time into my frame of reference, it makes too much of a mess and I like to keep my frame of reference clean.

So, if you "never let the concept of time into your frame of reference" should I read your sentence left-to-right or right-to-left?

But really, do go ahead and define "thingness" in a reference frame without time and all the things which depend on time. Which is basically - everything relativistic. Motion. Speed. Change.

[Veritas Aequitas]

So if you accept that there were no human but other things long time ago then one can deduce there were changes in only physical things at that period. One can deduce that change is not possible without time.

Things emerged spontaneously with humans collectively.
So, there is no other things long time ago if there are no humans.

So earth was formed with human, so Big Bang.

Nope, humans was not formed by any entity with humans.

I stated, the Big Bang occurred and Earth had emerged with humans collectively, not by any individual human beings.
Note the critical word is 'emergence' not formation nor creation.

Note the experiment demonstrating emergence analogically in this thread.
Reality is an Emergence
viewtopic.php?f=5&t=28671


Note how the "3D solid" Mask of Einstein's face only emerged with the human conditions [perception] is activated with the hollow-mask.
When the human brain and mind do not interact with the hollow mask, there is no emergence of a "3D solid" Mask of Einstein's face.

This is the same with how reality emerged only with the entanglement of the human conditions.
Whatever reality emerged from is subject to the same emergence process toward infinite regression.

[bahman]

Things emerged spontaneously with humans collectively.
So, there is no other things long time ago if there are no humans.

So earth was formed with human, so Big Bang.

Nope, humans was not formed by any entity with humans.

I stated, the Big Bang occurred and Earth had emerged with humans collectively, not by any individual human beings.
Note the critical word is 'emergence' not formation nor creation.

Note the experiment demonstrating emergence analogically in this thread.
Reality is an Emergence
viewtopic.php?f=5&t=28671


Note how the "3D solid" Mask of Einstein's face only emerged with the human conditions [perception] is activated with the hollow-mask.
When the human brain and mind do not interact with the hollow mask, there is no emergence of a "3D solid" Mask of Einstein's face.

This is the same with how reality emerged only with the entanglement of the human conditions.
Whatever reality emerged from is subject to the same emergence process toward infinite regression.

I already discussed emergence with you in-depth. There is no emergence.

[Veritas Aequitas]

So earth was formed with human, so Big Bang.

Nope, humans was not formed by any entity with humans.

I stated, the Big Bang occurred and Earth had emerged with humans collectively, not by any individual human beings.
Note the critical word is 'emergence' not formation nor creation.

Note the experiment demonstrating emergence analogically in this thread.
Reality is an Emergence
viewtopic.php?f=5&t=28671


Note how the "3D solid" Mask of Einstein's face only emerged with the human conditions [perception] is activated with the hollow-mask.
When the human brain and mind do not interact with the hollow mask, there is no emergence of a "3D solid" Mask of Einstein's face.

This is the same with how reality emerged only with the entanglement of the human conditions.
Whatever reality emerged from is subject to the same emergence process toward infinite regression.

I already discussed emergence with you in-depth. There is no emergence.

If you insist there is no 'emergence,' how did the 3D Einstein Face emerged [as an emergence] out of nowhere?
Whatever you deemed as 'emergence' is definitely not an emergent as generally defined and empirically verifiable.

Note the above is direct experience of an 'emergence' which any human will experience.
Surely you would have experienced that 'emergence' of a 3D Einstein Face in the above self experiment.
As such how could you ignore the truth of emergence so blatantly?

Btw, do you understand the mechanics [in your brain/mind, etc.] of the above real events that enable the emergence?

Note, whilst the above emergence is an illusion, my point the same mechanics is applied when you actualize that real-apple you have eaten or whatever thing that is actualized or is an illusion.

[bahman]

Nope, humans was not formed by any entity with humans.

I stated, the Big Bang occurred and Earth had emerged with humans collectively, not by any individual human beings.
Note the critical word is 'emergence' not formation nor creation.

Note the experiment demonstrating emergence analogically in this thread.
Reality is an Emergence
viewtopic.php?f=5&t=28671


Note how the "3D solid" Mask of Einstein's face only emerged with the human conditions [perception] is activated with the hollow-mask.
When the human brain and mind do not interact with the hollow mask, there is no emergence of a "3D solid" Mask of Einstein's face.

This is the same with how reality emerged only with the entanglement of the human conditions.
Whatever reality emerged from is subject to the same emergence process toward infinite regression.

I already discussed emergence with you in-depth. There is no emergence.

If you insist there is no 'emergence,' how did the 3D Einstein Face emerged [as an emergence] out of nowhere?
Whatever you deemed as 'emergence' is definitely not an emergent as generally defined and empirically verifiable.

Note the above is direct experience of an 'emergence' which any human will experience.
Surely you would have experienced that 'emergence' of a 3D Einstein Face in the above self experiment.
As such how could you ignore the truth of emergence so blatantly?

Btw, do you understand the mechanics [in your brain/mind, etc.] of the above real events that enable the emergence?

Note, whilst the above emergence is an illusion, my point the same mechanics is applied when you actualize that real-apple you have eaten or whatever thing that is actualized or is an illusion.

Our experience is based on matter conditions. Matter has a set of properties some of them get magnified for experience depending on matter condition.

[Veritas Aequitas]

I already discussed emergence with you in-depth. There is no emergence.

If you insist there is no 'emergence,' how did the 3D Einstein Face emerged [as an emergence] out of nowhere?
Whatever you deemed as 'emergence' is definitely not an emergent as generally defined and empirically verifiable.

Note the above is direct experience of an 'emergence' which any human will experience.
Surely you would have experienced that 'emergence' of a 3D Einstein Face in the above self experiment.
As such how could you ignore the truth of emergence so blatantly?

Btw, do you understand the mechanics [in your brain/mind, etc.] of the above real events that enable the emergence?

Note, whilst the above emergence is an illusion, my point the same mechanics is applied when you actualize that real-apple you have eaten or whatever thing that is actualized or is an illusion.

Our experience is based on matter conditions.
Matter has a set of properties some of them get magnified for experience depending on matter condition.

What is matter-conditions?

I don't agree with materialism, thus no ' ontological-matter' in that sense.

What I believe is there are given objects and things which has properties and exists within conditions but these are ultimately intra-dependent with the intra-dependent mind [not your ontological mind].

Our experience is primarily based on our own human conditions interacting with the given objects and things.
It is the human conditions upon the same concave object that generate the emergence of the illusion of 'Convex_ness' from 'Concave_ness.'

What you are doing here is keep on avoiding the role of your human conditions within your physical and mental system.
You are avoiding to 'Know Thyself' and never consider the critical elements in your brain and physical body that enable the emergence of reality.

[bahman]

If you insist there is no 'emergence,' how did the 3D Einstein Face emerged [as an emergence] out of nowhere?
Whatever you deemed as 'emergence' is definitely not an emergent as generally defined and empirically verifiable.

Note the above is direct experience of an 'emergence' which any human will experience.
Surely you would have experienced that 'emergence' of a 3D Einstein Face in the above self experiment.
As such how could you ignore the truth of emergence so blatantly?

Btw, do you understand the mechanics [in your brain/mind, etc.] of the above real events that enable the emergence?

Note, whilst the above emergence is an illusion, my point the same mechanics is applied when you actualize that real-apple you have eaten or whatever thing that is actualized or is an illusion.

Our experience is based on matter conditions.
Matter has a set of properties some of them get magnified for experience depending on matter condition.

What is matter-conditions?

It is internal and external properties, such as mass, charge, temperature, pressure, etc.

I don't agree with materialism, thus no ' ontological-matter' in that sense.

What I believe is there are given objects and things which has properties and exists within conditions but these are ultimately intra-dependent with the intra-dependent mind [not your ontological mind].

Our experience is primarily based on our own human conditions interacting with the given objects and things.
It is the human conditions upon the same concave object that generate the emergence of the illusion of 'Convex_ness' from 'Concave_ness.'

What you are doing here is keep on avoiding the role of your human conditions within your physical and mental system.
You are avoiding to 'Know Thyself' and never consider the critical elements in your brain and physical body that enable the emergence of reality.

Yes, I know what do you think, if the matter is not real then it is an illusion, there is illusion of mind you believe also because since it is emergent. The illusion of mind then causes the illusion of matter.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Our experience is based on matter conditions.
Matter has a set of properties some of them get magnified for experience depending on matter condition.

What is matter-conditions?

It is internal and external properties, such as mass, charge, temperature, pressure, etc.

I don't agree with materialism, thus no ' ontological-matter' in that sense.

What I believe is there are given objects and things which has properties and exists within conditions but these are ultimately intra-dependent with the intra-dependent mind [not your ontological mind].

Our experience is primarily based on our own human conditions interacting with the given objects and things.
It is the human conditions upon the same concave object that generate the emergence of the illusion of 'Convex_ness' from 'Concave_ness.'

What you are doing here is keep on avoiding the role of your human conditions within your physical and mental system.
You are avoiding to 'Know Thyself' and never consider the critical elements in your brain and physical body that enable the emergence of reality.

Yes, I know what do you think, if the matter is not real then it is an illusion, there is illusion of mind you believe also because since it is emergent. The illusion of mind then causes the illusion of matter.

Nope I did not say, the illusion of mind causes the illusion of matter.

What you failed to take into account is the relevant contexts and perspective.
Matter and mind are real in one perspective, i.e. in the empirical perspective that they can be verified empirically.

At the same time matter and mind are illusory in another perspective, i.e. at a higher philosophical deliberation like how we understand the convex 3D-Mask is an illusion from
the empirical concave mask.

Your problem is due to a shallow, narrow and one-track mind that see things only in one perspective which is no different from what a child will experience by default.

[bahman]

What is matter-conditions?

It is internal and external properties, such as mass, charge, temperature, pressure, etc.

I don't agree with materialism, thus no ' ontological-matter' in that sense.

What I believe is there are given objects and things which has properties and exists within conditions but these are ultimately intra-dependent with the intra-dependent mind [not your ontological mind].

Our experience is primarily based on our own human conditions interacting with the given objects and things.
It is the human conditions upon the same concave object that generate the emergence of the illusion of 'Convex_ness' from 'Concave_ness.'

What you are doing here is keep on avoiding the role of your human conditions within your physical and mental system.
You are avoiding to 'Know Thyself' and never consider the critical elements in your brain and physical body that enable the emergence of reality.

Yes, I know what do you think, if the matter is not real then it is an illusion, there is illusion of mind you believe also because since it is emergent. The illusion of mind then causes the illusion of matter.

Nope I did not say, the illusion of mind causes the illusion of matter.

What you failed to take into account is the relevant contexts and perspective.
Matter and mind are real in one perspective, i.e. in the empirical perspective that they can be verified empirically.

At the same time matter and mind are illusory in another perspective, i.e. at a higher philosophical deliberation like how we understand the convex 3D-Mask is an illusion from
the empirical concave mask.

Your problem is due to a shallow, narrow and one-track mind that see things only in one perspective which is no different from what a child will experience by default.

Isn't the face of Einstein an illusion?

[Veritas Aequitas]

It is internal and external properties, such as mass, charge, temperature, pressure, etc.


Yes, I know what do you think, if the matter is not real then it is an illusion, there is illusion of mind you believe also because since it is emergent. The illusion of mind then causes the illusion of matter.

Nope I did not say, the illusion of mind causes the illusion of matter.

What you failed to take into account is the relevant contexts and perspective.
Matter and mind are real in one perspective, i.e. in the empirical perspective that they can be verified empirically.

At the same time matter and mind are illusory in another perspective, i.e. at a higher philosophical deliberation like how we understand the convex 3D-Mask is an illusion from
the empirical concave mask.

Your problem is due to a shallow, narrow and one-track mind that see things only in one perspective which is no different from what a child will experience by default.

Isn't the face of Einstein an illusion?

Not in this case.

The illusion is seeing/perceiving and realizing a convex-3D face of Einstein when what is presented is a concave-hollow mask.

You have to observe the experiment in the link.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BaofyuCXZ_0
Click the link and follow the experiment.

In a normal mask, there is the convex-3D side and thus the other side is concave and hollow.
But when the mask is turned to the hollow side, what is perceived is always a convex-3D mask.
In this case whenever the mask is turned continuously the person cannot see the hollow side of the mask but what is always perceived is a convex 3D mask of Einstein.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Bahman, note this picture,



Say this is picture-A
The above is an emergent upon human conditions.
Is what you see really what is it in pictorial terms?

If you are familiar with such an experiment, you would have known the real picture of the above when turned upside down is an ugly face of Obama.
Go to this link to turn the picture upside down and see what it really is - Picture-B.
http://thatchereffect.com/

Despite seeing the real picture after turning it upside down,
you will never see the actual picture-B when presented with the above picture-A.

Picture-A as seen above is the emergent that spontaneously emerge upon human conditions interacting within an existing environment.

Now the 'mind' that you think is real as an independent thing is the same as what you see in Picture-A, i.e. an illusion.
What is mind is actually an emergent out of the human conditions.

[bahman]

Nope I did not say, the illusion of mind causes the illusion of matter.

What you failed to take into account is the relevant contexts and perspective.
Matter and mind are real in one perspective, i.e. in the empirical perspective that they can be verified empirically.

At the same time matter and mind are illusory in another perspective, i.e. at a higher philosophical deliberation like how we understand the convex 3D-Mask is an illusion from
the empirical concave mask.

Your problem is due to a shallow, narrow and one-track mind that see things only in one perspective which is no different from what a child will experience by default.

Isn't the face of Einstein an illusion?

Not in this case.

The illusion is seeing/perceiving and realizing a convex-3D face of Einstein when what is presented is a concave-hollow mask.

You have to observe the experiment in the link.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BaofyuCXZ_0
Click the link and follow the experiment.

In a normal mask, there is the convex-3D side and thus the other side is concave and hollow.
But when the mask is turned to the hollow side, what is perceived is always a convex-3D mask.
In this case whenever the mask is turned continuously the person cannot see the hollow side of the mask but what is always perceived is a convex 3D mask of Einstein.

There is no concave or convex things there. It is flat. Your computer screen.