Kant: "The Universe Has a Beginning is False"

[bahman]

• 1. Time [Space] are inter-twined with the human conditions - Kant.
  2. "Moment" and "before" are time related elements.
  3. "There was a moment before" is inter-twined with the human conditions.
  4. Your idea of 'beginning' [moment before] is time related
  5. Therefore your idea of "beginning' is not an independent thing but a human-conditioned thing.

Thus my point, the idea of 'beginning' is merely a convenience made up by humans for the purpose of communicating certain other ideas and concepts.
There is no beginning-in-itself or activated by a God.

There are two type of time, psychological and physical. He is talking about psychological time.

Nope, it is just "time".

Suggest you read this OP and give your views.
What is Really Real?
viewtopic.php?f=5&t=28996

It is the same argument, that there is no real independent beginning-in-itself.
Whatever is 'beginning' is conditional to the circumstances and entangled with the human conditions.

The reality exists without the need for human consciousness. There are changes in reality. Therefore, there is physical time.

[Veritas Aequitas]

There are two type of time, psychological and physical. He is talking about psychological time.

Nope, it is just "time".

Suggest you read this OP and give your views.
What is Really Real?
viewtopic.php?f=5&t=28996

It is the same argument, that there is no real independent beginning-in-itself.
Whatever is 'beginning' is conditional to the circumstances and entangled with the human conditions.

The reality exists without the need for human consciousness.
There are changes in reality. Therefore, there is physical time.

You are making unsubstantiated claims based on your 'feel' else where is your rational justification to support your point.

The most reliable knowledge of reality is from Science e.g. Physics.

Are you familiar with Relativistic Quantum Mechanics [RQM], which is the latest acceptable theory of Quantum Mechanics;

In classical mechanics and non-relativistic QM, time is an absolute quantity all observers and particles can always agree on, "ticking away" in the background independent of space. Thus in non-relativistic QM one has for a many particle system ψ(r1, r2, r3, ..., t, σ1, σ2, σ3...).

In relativistic mechanics RQM, the spatial coordinates and coordinate time are not absolute; any two observers moving relative to each other can measure different locations and times of events.

In RQM, reality is not independent of the observer and human collectively, but rather is relative to the human systems and all other systems.

[bahman]

Nope, it is just "time".

Suggest you read this OP and give your views.
What is Really Real?
viewtopic.php?f=5&t=28996

It is the same argument, that there is no real independent beginning-in-itself.
Whatever is 'beginning' is conditional to the circumstances and entangled with the human conditions.

The reality exists without the need for human consciousness.
There are changes in reality. Therefore, there is physical time.

You are making unsubstantiated claims based on your 'feel' else where is your rational justification to support your point.

The most reliable knowledge of reality is from Science e.g. Physics.

Are you familiar with Relativistic Quantum Mechanics [RQM], which is the latest acceptable theory of Quantum Mechanics;

In classical mechanics and non-relativistic QM, time is an absolute quantity all observers and particles can always agree on, "ticking away" in the background independent of space. Thus in non-relativistic QM one has for a many particle system ψ(r1, r2, r3, ..., t, σ1, σ2, σ3...).

In relativistic mechanics RQM, the spatial coordinates and coordinate time are not absolute; any two observers moving relative to each other can measure different locations and times of events.

In RQM, reality is not independent of the observer and human collectively, but rather is relative to the human systems and all other systems.

Are you saying that there are other sorts of minds except human and animals?

[Veritas Aequitas]

The reality exists without the need for human consciousness.
There are changes in reality. Therefore, there is physical time.

You are making unsubstantiated claims based on your 'feel' else where is your rational justification to support your point.

The most reliable knowledge of reality is from Science e.g. Physics.

Are you familiar with Relativistic Quantum Mechanics [RQM], which is the latest acceptable theory of Quantum Mechanics;

In classical mechanics and non-relativistic QM, time is an absolute quantity all observers and particles can always agree on, "ticking away" in the background independent of space. Thus in non-relativistic QM one has for a many particle system ψ(r1, r2, r3, ..., t, σ1, σ2, σ3...).

In relativistic mechanics RQM, the spatial coordinates and coordinate time are not absolute; any two observers moving relative to each other can measure different locations and times of events.

In RQM, reality is not independent of the observer and human collectively, but rather is relative to the human systems and all other systems.

Are you saying that there are other sorts of minds except human and animals?

Where did you get the idea of 'mind' from the above.
I mentioned all other systems, e.g. solar system, the universe is a system without a mind.

When I refer to "mind" the default is always human minds.
There are no other sorts of minds except human and certain higher animals.

[bahman]

You are making unsubstantiated claims based on your 'feel' else where is your rational justification to support your point.

The most reliable knowledge of reality is from Science e.g. Physics.

Are you familiar with Relativistic Quantum Mechanics [RQM], which is the latest acceptable theory of Quantum Mechanics;



In RQM, reality is not independent of the observer and human collectively, but rather is relative to the human systems and all other systems.

Are you saying that there are other sorts of minds except human and animals?

Where did you get the idea of 'mind' from the above.
I mentioned all other systems, e.g. solar system, the universe is a system without a mind.

When I refer to "mind" the default is always human minds.
There are no other sorts of minds except human and certain higher animals.

But there was a moment that there was no human mind but things were subjected to change. Please don't forget that change requires time.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Are you saying that there are other sorts of minds except human and animals?

Where did you get the idea of 'mind' from the above.
I mentioned all other systems, e.g. solar system, the universe is a system without a mind.

When I refer to "mind" the default is always human minds.
There are no other sorts of minds except human and certain higher animals.

But there was a moment that there was no human mind but things were subjected to change. Please don't forget that change requires time.

If you were to think deeply into your statement;

• A - But there was a moment that there was no human mind but things were subjected to change

You ought to question, how can the above statement-A and its speculative expectations be made without a human mind amidst human minds in the first place?

It is like the which comes first, the chicken or egg scenario.

Point is;
if there was no human mind amidst human minds, your statement-A and its expectations cannot be valid - there is simply NOTHING.

As Wittgenstein stated;
'That whereof we cannot speak, thereof we must remain silent'

Thus as far at the likes of your statement-A, humans should remain silent and just SHUT-UP about it.

But psychologically, all human cannot keep quiet and shut-up but is compelled to raise the statement-A, i.e.

• A - But there was a moment that there was no human mind but things were subjected to change

Note statement-A is merely a statement with its speculations, there is no possibility of a real referent to it.

As I had stated, the ultimate reason for the compulsion to make statement-A is psychological [not realistic] because such a psychological compulsion has survival values.
Whilst such a a psychological compulsion has survival values, there are serious and heavy cons to it, i.e. it lead ultimately to theism who claim without humans, God exists as real in creating a Universe.

The illusory belief in a God then leads to a wide range to terrible evils [genocides, murders, rapes, suppression, etc.] committed by believers upon non-believers as commanded and condone by God as fixed within eternal holy texts. This is so evident.

[bahman]

Where did you get the idea of 'mind' from the above.
I mentioned all other systems, e.g. solar system, the universe is a system without a mind.

When I refer to "mind" the default is always human minds.
There are no other sorts of minds except human and certain higher animals.

But there was a moment that there was no human mind but things were subjected to change. Please don't forget that change requires time.

If you were to think deeply into your statement;

• A - But there was a moment that there was no human mind but things were subjected to change

You ought to question, how can the above statement-A and its speculative expectations be made without a human mind amidst human minds in the first place?

It is like the which comes first, the chicken or egg scenario.

Point is;
if there was no human mind amidst human minds, your statement-A and its expectations cannot be valid - there is simply NOTHING.

As Wittgenstein stated;
'That whereof we cannot speak, thereof we must remain silent'

Thus as far at the likes of your statement-A, humans should remain silent and just SHUT-UP about it.

But psychologically, all human cannot keep quiet and shut-up but is compelled to raise the statement-A, i.e.

• A - But there was a moment that there was no human mind but things were subjected to change

Note statement-A is merely a statement with its speculations, there is no possibility of a real referent to it.

As I had stated, the ultimate reason for the compulsion to make statement-A is psychological [not realistic] because such a psychological compulsion has survival values.
Whilst such a a psychological compulsion has survival values, there are serious and heavy cons to it, i.e. it lead ultimately to theism who claim without humans, God exists as real in creating a Universe.

The illusory belief in a God then leads to a wide range to terrible evils [genocides, murders, rapes, suppression, etc.] committed by believers upon non-believers as commanded and condone by God as fixed within eternal holy texts. This is so evident.

So you deny that there was a moment that there was no human?

[Veritas Aequitas]

But there was a moment that there was no human mind but things were subjected to change. Please don't forget that change requires time.

If you were to think deeply into your statement;

• A - But there was a moment that there was no human mind but things were subjected to change

You ought to question, how can the above statement-A and its speculative expectations be made without a human mind amidst human minds in the first place?

It is like the which comes first, the chicken or egg scenario.

Point is;
if there was no human mind amidst human minds, your statement-A and its expectations cannot be valid - there is simply NOTHING.

As Wittgenstein stated;
'That whereof we cannot speak, thereof we must remain silent'

Thus as far at the likes of your statement-A, humans should remain silent and just SHUT-UP about it.

But psychologically, all human cannot keep quiet and shut-up but is compelled to raise the statement-A, i.e.

• A - But there was a moment that there was no human mind but things were subjected to change

Note statement-A is merely a statement with its speculations, there is no possibility of a real referent to it.

As I had stated, the ultimate reason for the compulsion to make statement-A is psychological [not realistic] because such a psychological compulsion has survival values.
Whilst such a a psychological compulsion has survival values, there are serious and heavy cons to it, i.e. it lead ultimately to theism who claim without humans, God exists as real in creating a Universe.

The illusory belief in a God then leads to a wide range to terrible evils [genocides, murders, rapes, suppression, etc.] committed by believers upon non-believers as commanded and condone by God as fixed within eternal holy texts. This is so evident.

So you deny that there was a moment that there was no human?

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]

[bahman]

If you were to think deeply into your statement;

• A - But there was a moment that there was no human mind but things were subjected to change

You ought to question, how can the above statement-A and its speculative expectations be made without a human mind amidst human minds in the first place?

It is like the which comes first, the chicken or egg scenario.

Point is;
if there was no human mind amidst human minds, your statement-A and its expectations cannot be valid - there is simply NOTHING.

As Wittgenstein stated;
'That whereof we cannot speak, thereof we must remain silent'

Thus as far at the likes of your statement-A, humans should remain silent and just SHUT-UP about it.

But psychologically, all human cannot keep quiet and shut-up but is compelled to raise the statement-A, i.e.

• A - But there was a moment that there was no human mind but things were subjected to change

Note statement-A is merely a statement with its speculations, there is no possibility of a real referent to it.

As I had stated, the ultimate reason for the compulsion to make statement-A is psychological [not realistic] because such a psychological compulsion has survival values.
Whilst such a a psychological compulsion has survival values, there are serious and heavy cons to it, i.e. it lead ultimately to theism who claim without humans, God exists as real in creating a Universe.

The illusory belief in a God then leads to a wide range to terrible evils [genocides, murders, rapes, suppression, etc.] committed by believers upon non-believers as commanded and condone by God as fixed within eternal holy texts. This is so evident.

So you deny that there was a moment that there was no human?

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.

[RCSaunders]

Please don't forget that change requires time.

ALMOST! It's actually the other way around. Time only exists if there is change. In a hypothetical static universe there would be 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.

[bahman]

Please don't forget that change requires time.

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.

[Veritas Aequitas]

So you deny that there was a moment that there was no human?

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.

[Skepdick]

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

That's exactly the same story creationists tell.

6000 years ago God put us here on Earth. And he put those dinosaur bones there to test our faith.

[RCSaunders]

Please don't forget that change requires time.

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?

[Skepdick]

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.