Are Actual Infinities Possible?

[Immanuel Can]

I'm still interested to know if you have a response to this part of the conversation:

DAM wrote: IC...what do you have to say about the idea that there are effects which seemingly are evidence of a causer, and yet there is no evidence of a causer in the actual effects?

IC responded: An example of what you are suggesting would be...what?

If you mean just something with "no (currently-known) evidence of a causer" then it's unproblematic. Until we knew the causes of the tides, the tides still kept rolling: the cause of the tides didn't need to be "evident" for that to happen, and eventually we learned the causes. The tides were, indeed, the products of cause-and-effect relations, just of rather extraordinary ones, like the gravitational activity of the moon and various other features of hydrodynamics.

It's not our (present) lack of evidence that would be a problem: it would be if you could name something that actually was an "effect" but verifiably had no cause.

So that's what I would like to see you example, if you suppose such exists.

Do you have an example of such a thing?

[Dontaskme]

I'm still interested to know if you have a response to this part of the conversation:

DAM wrote: IC...what do you have to say about the idea that there are effects which seemingly are evidence of a causer, and yet there is no evidence of a causer in the actual effects?

IC responded: An example of what you are suggesting would be...what?

If you mean just something with "no (currently-known) evidence of a causer" then it's unproblematic. Until we knew the causes of the tides, the tides still kept rolling: the cause of the tides didn't need to be "evident" for that to happen, and eventually we learned the causes. The tides were, indeed, the products of cause-and-effect relations, just of rather extraordinary ones, like the gravitational activity of the moon and various other features of hydrodynamics.

It's not our (present) lack of evidence that would be a problem: it would be if you could name something that actually was an "effect" but verifiably had no cause.

So that's what I would like to see you example, if you suppose such exists.

Do you have an example of such a thing?

I suppose what I was trying to say was that we can see an effect, like we can see images which appear to be the causer of a seer...in turn the seer is the causer of the objects...here there is no separation between seer and seen, the seeing and what is seen are the same no thing...in that cause and effect are two sides of the same coin that can never meet or see each other.

So cause and effect are illusory creations of the dual mind. An appearance of the totality of all that is.The universe as the sum total of reality, would not have a cause because there is nothing outside of all that is.

.


.

[Immanuel Can]

I'm still interested to know if you have a response to this part of the conversation:

IC responded: An example of what you are suggesting would be...what?

If you mean just something with "no (currently-known) evidence of a causer" then it's unproblematic. Until we knew the causes of the tides, the tides still kept rolling: the cause of the tides didn't need to be "evident" for that to happen, and eventually we learned the causes. The tides were, indeed, the products of cause-and-effect relations, just of rather extraordinary ones, like the gravitational activity of the moon and various other features of hydrodynamics.

It's not our (present) lack of evidence that would be a problem: it would be if you could name something that actually was an "effect" but verifiably had no cause.

So that's what I would like to see you example, if you suppose such exists.

Do you have an example of such a thing?

I suppose what I was trying to say was that we can see an effect, like we can see images which appear to be the causer of a seer...in turn the seer is the causer of the objects...here there is no separation between seer and seen, the seeing and what is seen are the same no thing...in that cause and effect are two sides of the same coin that can never meet or see each other.

So cause and effect are illusory creations of the dual mind. An appearance of the totality of all that is.The universe as the sum total of reality, would not have a cause because there is nothing outside of all that is.

A "no" would have been just fine.

[Dontaskme]

I'm still interested to know if you have a response to this part of the conversation:



Do you have an example of such a thing?

I suppose what I was trying to say was that we can see an effect, like we can see images which appear to be the causer of a seer...in turn the seer is the causer of the objects...here there is no separation between seer and seen, the seeing and what is seen are the same no thing...in that cause and effect are two sides of the same coin that can never meet or see each other.

So cause and effect are illusory creations of the dual mind. An appearance of the totality of all that is.The universe as the sum total of reality, would not have a cause because there is nothing outside of all that is.

A "no" would have been just fine.

I’m still interested to know why you think there is causer, and why you ask what it is?

.

[Immanuel Can]

I’m still interested to know why you think there is causer, and why you ask what it is?

Simple: because I can personally observe that causality exists, and moreover, can see or think of not one case of an effect that has no cause.

So if you had had a counterexample, I would have had some rethinking to do. But it seems there's none on hand.

[Erk]

Your view seems to take for granted that existence just spontaneously burst out to defy the possibility of nothingness. I know of no scientist or philosopher of note who has ever thought that.

I'm going to use this one false characterization of "my view" to once again and finally say you keep twisting my words and I don't know why you are.

I NEVER SAID something defies the possibility of nothingness. I DID SAY that nothingness is impossible and its impossibility doesn't have anything to do with the something.

The difference between the two should be plain as day.

[Immanuel Can]

I DID SAY that nothingness is impossible...

And yet, you surely can't expect anyone to believe you without evidence, can you? There is no evidence for the claim that "nothingness" is "unstable," or even unlikely. In fact, all the evidence says that it's exactly what we should expect to exist -- and we all ought to be completely astonished to be here at all, and have lots of question about how that got started.

But I have no desire to make you angry. So we can pause on that thought, if you like.

[Erk]

Yes. Let's pause on that thought.