Principle of causality does not apply to nothing

So what's really going on?

Moderators: AMod, iMod

Scott Mayers
Posts: 2446
Joined: Wed Jul 08, 2015 1:53 am

Re: Principle of causality does not apply to nothing

Post by Scott Mayers »

surreptitious57 wrote: Sat Nov 28, 2020 5:00 pm
Age wrote:
I am NOT attempting to be understood here in this forum

You would have to wait till I write somewhere else and relate it back to what I post here to best understand the ME
You may very well not be attempting to be understood here in the forum but that does not mean I should not try to understand you based upon the words you post here . I see no point in not attempting to understand you even if that is your intention . The whole point of actually asking clarifying questions is to understand you better and you say that you are always happy to see them being asked even if they are not asked as often as you would like them to be

I do not know how long it will take you to write somewhere else but in the meantime all I have are the words you post here
And so though it is not YOUR intention to be understood it most certainly is MY intention to understand YOU as best as I can
I concur. Although I don't have a personal dislike for Age as a person, her approach requires reflection on what (s)he* says as an equal participant in these debates. I get the sense that she is believing she has a neutral observer's perspective and is trying to be 'Socratic'. But she's coming across as though this is a game whereby she wants to just defeat others, not participate. And while I appreciate depth, her long posts are repetitive and disconnected. If you think you've gained ground with some agreement and respect, she'd find some means to dislodge that illusion quickly. I am opting to stay away from responding because I don't have the time nor patience to have to delve into her mindset to determine why she's behaving this way. I just know that it is not productive and exhausting. And I am owning my choice to not respond to her without prejudice.

* I don't know Age's sex and am adopting the 'feminine' pronouns here given his or her process of thought appears to come from an emotional priority rather than a logical one. The stereotype of the feminine is not intended to presume sexual distinction but rather 'gender' by the cultural standards of most of time. I asked once but got the same kind of confusing rhetoric she uses normally without willing to answer questions.

[*][I recalled it as something like,
... What I am is not relevant. I first used the name Bob when I first came...
I am not sure what she said specifically, and this name probably wasn't this, but it lacked clarifying whether the name she choose was sufficiently reflective of her sex or just the label she opted for.]
Advocate
Posts: 3470
Joined: Tue Sep 12, 2017 9:27 am
Contact:

Re: Principle of causality does not apply to nothing

Post by Advocate »

[quote=Age post_id=482185 time=1606612039 user_id=16237]
[quote=Advocate post_id=482183 time=1606611666 user_id=15238]
[quote=Age post_id=482173 time=1606607683 user_id=16237]


"Can only be a stand-in" for 'what', EXACTLY?

Can you SEE the predicament here?

1. There are actually only two words that reference 'ultimate actuality' and those two words should be very recognizable by now.
2. The whole point of EACH and EVERY word is to just reference, 'things'. Therefore, words, themselves, are just a 'stand-in'.
3. The words 'ultimate actuality' are just 'stand-ins', referencing some 'thing'.

But as long as ALL in a discussion agree upon and accept what the 'stand-in' words are ACTUALLY referencing, then that is all that Truly matters.

So, it does NOT matter one iota if "Any word that references ultimate actuality can only be a stand-in". As long as agreement and acceptance is reached, then all is well, and good.



LOL

This is a typical response from one who LOOKS AT and SEES things from the brain only.

SEE, if one LOOKS FROM thee Mind, which is ALWAYS Truly OPEN, then that one does NOT form these VERY LIMITED views.

Understanding 'infinity', itself, FULLY is an EXTREMELY VERY SIMPLE and EASY process.

And, considering that 'you' were ACTUALLY created within, and ACTUALLY exist within, thee one and only infinite Universe you can only NOT SEE thee ACTUAL Truth only because 'you' are just limiting thy 'self'.

This will become far better understood when how the Mind and the brain ACTUALLY work becomes more widely taught, and known.

Perfection would require ultimate knowledge that cannot fit in our tiny brains, and so forth.
[/quote]

This is a PRIME EXAMPLE of WHY to NOT solely use those individual tiny little brains, within those human bodies.

There exists a Truly OPEN Mind, which is the very Thing that has been allowing 'you', human beings, to be able to obtain and ascertain MORE and MORE knowledge ALL OF THE TIME. I suggest using this Thing far more and far more often, and using far less those tiny human brains when LOOKING AT and SEEING 'things'.

ALL of this will become BLATANTLY OBVIOUS and CRYSTAL CLEAR, as well, when, and if, 'you' ever discover and/or learn just how thee Mind and the brain ACTUALLY WORKS also.

May I suggest that LOOKING AT 'things' collectively, instead of individually, helps tremendously in LEARNING and SEEING what thee ACTUAL Truth of 'things' [i]ACTUALLY IS[/i].

By the way, if you BELIEVE those last two little sentences you wrote are true, right, and correct, then you can not and you will NOT proceed any further past those claims.
[/quote]

All words are a stand-in. Some words are Only a stand-in, because there's nothing verifiable about them in an empirical sense.
[/quote]

Will you provide any examples of words that you think or believe there is nothing verifiable about them in any empirical sense?

Until you bring those words into a discussion, so that we can LOOK AT them and discuss them OPENLY, then what you say and allege here is just a claim of YOURS ONLY, which you may or may not believe is true. Do you BELIEVE your claim here is true?

Until you can PROVE your claim irrefutably true, then it just stands as an individual claim, which may or may not be true.
[/quote]

I offer an answer; a framework for understanding, for which sufficiency is the benchmark, not completeness. You can use any understanding of the words you want but mine will answer the most possible questions in the last possible space.

Words such as perfect, infinity, certainty, all reference the transcendent and therefore cannot be understood or tested Except as placeholders. They're only distinguishable from fiction to the extent we agree on their sufficiency for a particular purpose.

The proof of my claim is in testing it by looking for exceptions, not in requiring more and more clarifying answers until it encompasses all possible questions in the universe.
Advocate
Posts: 3470
Joined: Tue Sep 12, 2017 9:27 am
Contact:

Re: Principle of causality does not apply to nothing

Post by Advocate »

[quote=Age post_id=482185 time=1606612039 user_id=16237]
[quote=Advocate post_id=482183 time=1606611666 user_id=15238]
[quote=Age post_id=482173 time=1606607683 user_id=16237]


"Can only be a stand-in" for 'what', EXACTLY?

Can you SEE the predicament here?

1. There are actually only two words that reference 'ultimate actuality' and those two words should be very recognizable by now.
2. The whole point of EACH and EVERY word is to just reference, 'things'. Therefore, words, themselves, are just a 'stand-in'.
3. The words 'ultimate actuality' are just 'stand-ins', referencing some 'thing'.

But as long as ALL in a discussion agree upon and accept what the 'stand-in' words are ACTUALLY referencing, then that is all that Truly matters.

So, it does NOT matter one iota if "Any word that references ultimate actuality can only be a stand-in". As long as agreement and acceptance is reached, then all is well, and good.



LOL

This is a typical response from one who LOOKS AT and SEES things from the brain only.

SEE, if one LOOKS FROM thee Mind, which is ALWAYS Truly OPEN, then that one does NOT form these VERY LIMITED views.

Understanding 'infinity', itself, FULLY is an EXTREMELY VERY SIMPLE and EASY process.

And, considering that 'you' were ACTUALLY created within, and ACTUALLY exist within, thee one and only infinite Universe you can only NOT SEE thee ACTUAL Truth only because 'you' are just limiting thy 'self'.

This will become far better understood when how the Mind and the brain ACTUALLY work becomes more widely taught, and known.

Perfection would require ultimate knowledge that cannot fit in our tiny brains, and so forth.
[/quote]

This is a PRIME EXAMPLE of WHY to NOT solely use those individual tiny little brains, within those human bodies.

There exists a Truly OPEN Mind, which is the very Thing that has been allowing 'you', human beings, to be able to obtain and ascertain MORE and MORE knowledge ALL OF THE TIME. I suggest using this Thing far more and far more often, and using far less those tiny human brains when LOOKING AT and SEEING 'things'.

ALL of this will become BLATANTLY OBVIOUS and CRYSTAL CLEAR, as well, when, and if, 'you' ever discover and/or learn just how thee Mind and the brain ACTUALLY WORKS also.

May I suggest that LOOKING AT 'things' collectively, instead of individually, helps tremendously in LEARNING and SEEING what thee ACTUAL Truth of 'things' [i]ACTUALLY IS[/i].

By the way, if you BELIEVE those last two little sentences you wrote are true, right, and correct, then you can not and you will NOT proceed any further past those claims.
[/quote]

All words are a stand-in. Some words are Only a stand-in, because there's nothing verifiable about them in an empirical sense.
[/quote]

Will you provide any examples of words that you think or believe there is nothing verifiable about them in any empirical sense?

Until you bring those words into a discussion, so that we can LOOK AT them and discuss them OPENLY, then what you say and allege here is just a claim of YOURS ONLY, which you may or may not believe is true. Do you BELIEVE your claim here is true?

Until you can PROVE your claim irrefutably true, then it just stands as an individual claim, which may or may not be true.
[/quote]

I have done, many times before. God is that kind of word, as in infinity, certainty, truth.. each references an absolute of some kind. My answers are perfect, for example, in the sense of complete, but not in the sense of exhaustive, which is what you seem to require from every answer, and is neither possible nor desirable.
User avatar
bahman
Posts: 8791
Joined: Fri Aug 05, 2016 3:52 pm

Re: Principle of causality does not apply to nothing

Post by bahman »

Age wrote: Sat Nov 28, 2020 12:15 am
bahman wrote: Wed Nov 25, 2020 7:37 pm
Age wrote: Sun Nov 22, 2020 4:23 am
'Nothing is absence of ANY thing' might make complete sense, but this 'nothing' exists in imagination only.
Not if we accept that there was a beginning.
For 'us' to accept that there was a beginning, then, for 'me' anyway, there would NEED TO BE a logical AND an empirical possibility for this to be able to occur.

From what I have observed and can see there is NO logical NOR empirical possibility that there could have been 'a beginning'.

Now, you are completely FREE to show me how 'a beginning' could even be a possibility. I await for you to do this.

You are also FREE to accept 'a beginning' if you like.
There are two arguments for that, one empirical and another one philosophical. The empirical one is related to the second law of thermodynamics which states that entropy in a closed system increases. This means that the universe will be in a state of heat death eventually. The universe is not in the state of heat death though which means that the universe has a beginning, otherwise, if there was no beginning the universe was in a state of heat death. The philosophical argument states that there is an eternal past if there was no beginning. Of course, we cannot reach from the eternal past to now, given the definition of eternal which means that it cannot be reached, therefore there was a beginning.
Age wrote: Sat Nov 28, 2020 12:15 am
bahman wrote: Wed Nov 25, 2020 7:37 pm There are two options for the beginning (let's call it beginning), (1) There was nothing in the beginning, and (2) There was something in the beginning. We achieved the conclusion in the first case. In the second case, one can always ask what was on the point before the beginning. It was either something or nothing. In both case, we reach the conclusion that there was nothing in the very starting point.
How can 'you', logically, conclude there was 'a nothing' if as you said, " 'it' was either something or nothing "?
I already rule out something by the argument.
Age wrote: Sat Nov 28, 2020 12:15 am Also, all of this is based on 'you' accepting 'a beginning' (in the first place). As I said, from what I have observed so far 'a beginning' is NOT logically NOR empirically even a possibility.

From what I observe; There is NO beginning. This, to me, makes PERFECT SENSE when combined with EVERY thing else.

To me, 'A beginning' is just illogical AND absurd. But as I say, you are FREE to see and believe whatever you like.
I already provide two arguments in favor of the existence of a beginning. Please see the first comment.
Age wrote: Sat Nov 28, 2020 12:15 am
bahman wrote: Wed Nov 25, 2020 7:37 pm
Age wrote: Sun Nov 22, 2020 4:23 am It is not logically possible nor is it empirically possible for there to be an absence of ANY thing, EVER.
That is a possibility as it is illustrated in the last comment.
What you wrote is NOT a possibility.

What you wrote is just an attempt at supporting, or justifying, your ALREADY HELD BELIEFS.

Your BELIEF that is illogical AND absurd, I will add. Causality - cause and effect - proves this fact.
It is not a belief once an argument supports it.
User avatar
bahman
Posts: 8791
Joined: Fri Aug 05, 2016 3:52 pm

Re: Principle of causality does not apply to nothing

Post by bahman »

Age wrote: Sat Nov 28, 2020 3:41 am
bahman wrote: Wed Nov 25, 2020 8:22 pm
Age wrote: Sun Nov 22, 2020 5:02 am
So, are you saying that to go from one state of affair to another then an agent is needed to cause this?
Yes.
Age wrote: Sun Nov 22, 2020 5:02 am If yes, then what do you propose is 'that agent'?
You can call it God.
I can call 'what' God? What is the 'it' here?

I asked you if there was, to you, 'an agent'. You said, "Yes". So, now 'what', to you, is this 'agent', EXACTLY?
Accepting that there was nothing but God at the beginning, then God creates something out of nothing.
Age wrote: Sat Nov 28, 2020 3:41 am
bahman wrote: Wed Nov 25, 2020 8:22 pm I, however, have an argument against God.
What IS 'God', which you, allegedly, have an argument against?

The obviously illogicality and absurdness when saying, There is an 'agent', which some might call 'God', but I have an argument against this 'thing' [agent/God] may not yet be CLEAR to you, but saying that is just pure illogical AND absurd.
I already defined God.
Age wrote: Sat Nov 28, 2020 3:41 am
bahman wrote: Wed Nov 25, 2020 8:22 pm Nothing is initial state as I discussed it in the previous post. Therefore, nothing to something is possible.
LOL

What EVIDENCE or PROOF do you have that there was some, so called, "initial state of nothing"?

In fact what EVIDENCE or PROOF do you have that there COULD EVEN BE some "initial state of nothing"?
I already provide two arguments in favor of the beginning. I also provide one argument in favor of that there was nothing at the beginning.
Age wrote: Sat Nov 28, 2020 3:41 am
bahman wrote: Wed Nov 25, 2020 8:22 pm
Age wrote: Sun Nov 22, 2020 5:02 am
Well how was 'nothing' caused, if not by an agent?

What has caused the 'nothing' to exist, which does exist?
Nothing is the initial state as I argued in the previous post so there is no need for something to cause it.
LOL

What do you think the word 'argue' actually means?

You have NEVER logically, soundly, nor validly argued any such thing as "Nothing is the initial state".

You just said there was an "initial state of nothing". You have to say and state this because you BELIEVE "nothing to something" is not just possible but what actually happened. This is because you BELIEVE that there was 'a beginning'.

See, when and if 'you', human beings, have and hold BELIEFS, then 'you' HAVE TO say and state "things", as though they are actually true, because if you did not, then what you BELIEVE is true would just crumble to pieces.

But, just saying, or stating, "things" does IN NO WAY mean that those "things" are true, right, NOR correct.

A lot of what you have been saying, and stating, here is OBVIOUSLY NOT true, NOT right, and NOT correct.
I already provide an argument for there was nothing in the beginning. It seems to me that you didn't understand theargument. Do you want me to repeat the argument?
Age wrote: Sat Nov 28, 2020 3:41 am
bahman wrote: Wed Nov 25, 2020 8:22 pm
Age wrote: Sun Nov 22, 2020 5:02 am
To me, you appear to make "conclusions", from the most illogical sense of reasoning.

You "argument" goes, and correct me if I am wrong here:

P1. To cause the action of going from one state of affair to another state of affair an agent is needed.
P2. Principle of causality does not apply to nothing.
C. Therefore, no agent is needed for going from nothing (in here) to something (in here).

Is this an "argument"?

If no, then what is your "argument".
Sort of. Let me change the argument a little

P1) PoC states that an agent is needed for going from one state of affair to another one
Does the causality principle REALLY state this?
Yes, at least we can agree with it in this discussion.
Age wrote: Sat Nov 28, 2020 3:41 am
bahman wrote: Wed Nov 25, 2020 8:22 pm P2) PoC does not apply to nothing
Based on 'what' EXACTLY, besides your OWN BELIEF?
It is based on two facts, 1) There was no God, and 2) There was nothing at the beginning.
Age wrote: Sat Nov 28, 2020 3:41 am
bahman wrote: Wed Nov 25, 2020 8:22 pm C1) Therefore, the process of nothing (the first state of the affair) to something (the second state of the affair) is possible
P3) There was nothing in the starting and there is something now
C2) From C1 and P3 one can conclude that there is no need for an agent, so call God.
What can be CLEARLY SEEN here is a PRIME EXAMPLE of how the brain works in that it will say just about ANY thing to back up and support the ALREADY HELD BELIEFS, within that brain.
That is not true if you pay attention to the argument.
Age wrote: Sat Nov 28, 2020 3:41 am What else that can be CLEARLY SEEN here is there is absolutely NO logical relationship in this argument.
What is not logical?
Age wrote: Sat Nov 28, 2020 3:41 am Also, and by the way, the VERY FIRST QUESTION I asked you in this post was;
So, are you saying that to go from one state of affair to another then an agent is needed to cause this?

You answered;
Yes. Which can be CLEARLY SEEN and EVIDENCED above.

Therefore, your CONTRADICTION now is BLATANTLY OBVIOUS.

To say that to transfer, or transform, from 'one state of affair' [the, so called, "first state of the affair of nothing"] to the next state of affair', [which you call, "the second state of affair of something] an "agent" is needed, but then, for you, to go on and conclude, and state, that there is NO need for an "agent", [whatever you want to call 'it'] is just to BLATANT a CONTRADICTION that I should NOT 'have to' point this out to you. Or, am I MISSING some thing here?

If yes, then 'what' EXACTLY is that?

By the way, of course If there was 'absolutely nothing', then any 'principle of causality' would not apply to 'it', absolutely nothing, but then, there would also be NO 'principle of causality' anyway. But none of this has any bearing on the fact that some 'thing' is needed to transfer, or transform, from 'nothing' to 'something'.
You are mixing things. Nothing is not something. That is the whole point. PoC applies to something not nothing.
Age wrote: Sat Nov 28, 2020 3:41 am
bahman wrote: Wed Nov 25, 2020 8:22 pm
Age wrote: Sun Nov 22, 2020 5:02 am But if yes, then:
Premise 1 makes sense to me.
Good to here that.
Does this mean you agree with me that an 'agent', or 'some thing' is needed to change from one state of affair to another, or the next, state of affair.
Yes, for when the state of affair refers to something rather than nothing.
Age wrote: Sat Nov 28, 2020 3:41 am
bahman wrote: Wed Nov 25, 2020 8:22 pm
Age wrote: Sun Nov 22, 2020 5:02 am Premise 2 is NOT based on ANY actual evidence, which I have been exposed to YET. So, if you have ANY evidence, then please bring it forward.
I have to show two things in here: A) An agent, so-called, God cannot bring something out of nothing, and B) There was nothing in the beginning.
But WHY do you 'have to' show these two things? What is the actual purpose in showing these two things? What is 'it' EXACTLY that you want to achieve here?
If we accept these two facts then nothing to something is possible. This is kind of obvious.
Age wrote: Sat Nov 28, 2020 3:41 am
bahman wrote: Wed Nov 25, 2020 8:22 pm A: Let assume that it is possible.
But WHY 'assume' ANY thing here?

WHY NOT just LOOK AT what thee ACTUAL Truth IS, instead?
You have to be patient with this assumption to see that it leads to a contradiction.
Age wrote: Sat Nov 28, 2020 3:41 am
bahman wrote: Wed Nov 25, 2020 8:22 pm There was however nothing including time but God at the starting point.
What are 'you' proposing this 'God' thing is exactly here?
God is the agent that creates something out of nothing.
Age wrote: Sat Nov 28, 2020 3:41 am
bahman wrote: Wed Nov 25, 2020 8:22 pm The process of nothing to something is a ghange. You need time for any change. This means that you need time for the creation of time. This is a regress. Regress is not acceptable. Therefore, God cannot create something out of nothing.
Do you REALLY BELIEVE that you are saying things in logically reasoned ways here?
Yes. What is wrong with that?
Age wrote: Sat Nov 28, 2020 3:41 am
bahman wrote: Wed Nov 25, 2020 8:22 pm B: This is shown in the previous post.
This is getting beyond a joke now.
No. For sake of clarity I repeat the argument again: There are two options for the beginning (let's call it beginning), (1) There was nothing in the beginning, and (2) There was something in the beginning. We achieved the conclusion in the first case. In the second case, one can always ask what was on the point before the beginning. It was either something or nothing. In both case, we reach the conclusion that there was nothing in the very starting point.
Age wrote: Sat Nov 28, 2020 3:41 am
bahman wrote: Wed Nov 25, 2020 8:22 pm
Age wrote: Sun Nov 22, 2020 5:02 am Your conclusion is based on some ASSUMPTION that something (some thing) was created from absolutely nothing [no thing], which again I NOT been privy to ANY such evidence.
Actually, there is evidence for this. Pair of electron and positron pop out of nothing all the time. My argument also supports this too.
But HOW could they, or ANY thing else, "pop out" of 'nothing'. Considering there is ALREADY some thing, that is; thee Universe, then this means that there is nothing that something could "pop out" of.

Remember, what APPEARS to be the case may not actually be the case.
But the universe cannot be the cause of the creation of something when it violates the law of conservation energy.
Age wrote: Sat Nov 28, 2020 3:41 am
bahman wrote: Wed Nov 25, 2020 8:22 pm
Age wrote: Sun Nov 22, 2020 5:02 am In fact from what I have 'observed', seen and experienced, the EXACT OPPOSITE is true.
Our experience is classical and does not apply to the quantum regime and also the beginning.
Speak for 'you' ONLY.

MY experience is of ALL, and NOT just of SOME.

The, so called, "classical" AND "quantum" are actually intertwined and consistent, with absolutely NO contradiction between them at all.
True. But you cannot see quantum fluctuation in the classical regime. That is what I am trying to say.
Age wrote: Sat Nov 28, 2020 3:41 am
bahman wrote: Wed Nov 25, 2020 8:22 pm
Age wrote: Sun Nov 22, 2020 5:02 am Was it REALLY?

From what I have observed in your comments is just you expressing your OWN BELIEFS in many different ways as though they are already true, right, and correct. From what I have seen in your comments you are just 'trying' absolutely any thing, which you think, or believe, backs up and supports your already held BELIEFS.
I hope that things are clear by now.
What is ACTUALLY CLEAR, to me, is obviously NOT YET CLEAR, to you.
How about now?
Age wrote: Sat Nov 28, 2020 3:41 am
bahman wrote: Wed Nov 25, 2020 8:22 pm
Age wrote: Sun Nov 22, 2020 5:02 am
In 'who's' "world" is 'regress' NOT acceptable?

If 'you' or "others" can not arrive at a useful conclusion, then so be it. But through 'regression' ALL the meaningful ANSWERS become REVEALED.

By the way, what does 'regress' actually mean, to you?
Regress means that you are dealing with an endless chain of things or in other words, there is always something before or after another thing in this endless set of things.
Which ALL leads backs on to Itself. This, after all, is HOW thee ACTUAL Truth of things is REVEALED, and thus becomes CLEAR and KNOWN.

If you can NOT find the end, and the resolution, of the chain of things, then I suggest LOOKING AT these things in another way, or from another perspective.

By the way, the KEY to unlocking ALL of the, so called, "mysteries of Life" will also ALLOW 'you' to SEE, CLEARLY, what IS thee Creator, and thus thee Cause, of ALL-OF-THIS.

Learning how to find that missing link, which exists in YOUR "endless chain", will provide 'you' with thee Answer to how to prevent the "chain" from becoming "endless".
No. You don't understand my argument.
Age wrote: Sat Nov 28, 2020 3:41 am
bahman wrote: Wed Nov 25, 2020 8:22 pm Well, if there was always something in the past then there is no way to reach from now to the ultimate past
Do you have ANY proof for this claim.

I will suggest to you that there IS always something in the past, and that reaching the, so called, 'ultimate past' (or Answer) is REALLY a VERY SIMPLE and EASY thing to do, which, by the way, has ALREADY been done.
bahman wrote: Wed Nov 25, 2020 8:22 pm so it is impossible to reach from the ultimate past to now too.
LOL

If only you already KNEW what the, so called, 'ultimate past' IS, then, you too, would SEE just how funny this REALLY IS.
Can you reach infinity by counting?
Age wrote: Sat Nov 28, 2020 3:41 am
bahman wrote: Wed Nov 25, 2020 8:22 pm That is way the regress is not acceptable.
The, so called, 'regress' is not acceptable to 'you', and some "others", only because of the distorted way you LOOK AT, USE, and SEE that word and its meaning.

By definition you LOOK AT, SEE, and USE that word as an 'impossibility', therefore, to you, that word, and the meaning that you give to it, HAS TO BE 'unacceptable'.
No, I argued against it.
Age wrote: Sat Nov 28, 2020 3:41 am
bahman wrote: Wed Nov 25, 2020 8:22 pm
Age wrote: Sun Nov 22, 2020 5:02 am

To me, what 'they' are, are:

1. You BELIEVE, without ANY actual PROOF, that causality only applies to material things.

2. So, EVERY thing else you write here, in this thread, is based solely on only 'THAT' what you ASSUME and BELIEVE is true, and NOT on what IS actually True.

3. Your ARGUMENTS end up being unsound and/or invalid because of 1 and 2, which can be CLEARLY SEEN in your opening post here, in this thread.

4. Your "CONCLUSION" in your opening post that your own first three sentences "also indicates that nothing to something is possible which means that there is no need for God", is completely and utterly absurd and irrational.

5. You have CONCLUDED that "nothing to something is possible" based on nothing but your own ALREADY GAINED BELIEFS.

6. And then to 'automatically' ARRIVE AT and CONCLUDE that this then MEANS there is no need for God is just illogical to the extreme.

So, what the flaws and faults are, in your thinking here, is;
The ASSUMPTIONS you make, and the CONCLUSIONS you arrive at, come from the BELIEFS you already have.
You then use your own BELIEFS, ONLY, to back up and support your own newly formed ASSUMPTIONS and CONCLUSIONS, which were obtained previously from ill-gotten BELIEFS in the first place.

The MAIN flaw and fault in your thinking here is;

You use your OWN ill-gotten BELIEFS to LOOK AT and SEE the "world' from, which is how you form your ASSUMPTIONS and CONCLUSIONS, which is a form of 'circular reasoning', or what could also be called and labeled as a form of 'regression', itself.
I hope that things are clear now.
MUCH CLEARER to the readers now, thanks.

YOUR VIEWS, ASSUMPTIONS, and CONCLUSIONS are so ill-gotten, so distorted, and so misinformed, that this is the reason WHY 'you' BELIEVE what you do here.
Hmmm.
Age
Posts: 20164
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: Principle of causality does not apply to nothing

Post by Age »

Advocate wrote: Mon Nov 30, 2020 2:11 am
Age wrote: Sun Nov 29, 2020 2:07 am
Advocate wrote: Sun Nov 29, 2020 2:01 am

All words are a stand-in. Some words are Only a stand-in, because there's nothing verifiable about them in an empirical sense.
Will you provide any examples of words that you think or believe there is nothing verifiable about them in any empirical sense?

Until you bring those words into a discussion, so that we can LOOK AT them and discuss them OPENLY, then what you say and allege here is just a claim of YOURS ONLY, which you may or may not believe is true. Do you BELIEVE your claim here is true?

Until you can PROVE your claim irrefutably true, then it just stands as an individual claim, which may or may not be true.
I have done, many times before. God is that kind of word, as in infinity, certainty, truth.. each references an absolute of some kind.
Each and EVERY one of these words is VERIFIABLE in the empirical, and in the logical, sense.
Advocate wrote: Mon Nov 30, 2020 2:11 am My answers are perfect, for example, in the sense of complete, but not in the sense of exhaustive, which is what you seem to require from every answer, and is neither possible nor desirable.
Your answers are NOT 'perfect' NOR 'complete'. Only when they have been 'exhausted' will they be, so called, 'complete. Your answers may, however, be "perfect" and "complete", to 'you'. But they are CERTAINLY NOT 'perfect' nor 'complete' in the actual and absolute perfect and complete sense.
Age
Posts: 20164
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: Principle of causality does not apply to nothing

Post by Age »

bahman wrote: Mon Nov 30, 2020 8:44 pm
Age wrote: Sat Nov 28, 2020 12:15 am
bahman wrote: Wed Nov 25, 2020 7:37 pm
Not if we accept that there was a beginning.
For 'us' to accept that there was a beginning, then, for 'me' anyway, there would NEED TO BE a logical AND an empirical possibility for this to be able to occur.

From what I have observed and can see there is NO logical NOR empirical possibility that there could have been 'a beginning'.

Now, you are completely FREE to show me how 'a beginning' could even be a possibility. I await for you to do this.

You are also FREE to accept 'a beginning' if you like.
There are two arguments for that,
What is 'that' here?

What are there, supposedly, two arguments for, exactly?

If 'that' is 'a beginning', then just be forewarned that there are MANY 'arguments', for many things, but thee only 'arguments' that are worth LOOKING AT, and discussing, are those arguments that are sound and valid, well to me anyway. So, if the "two arguments" here are NOT sound and/nor valid, then there is absolutely NO use in providing them to me.
bahman wrote: Mon Nov 30, 2020 8:44 pm one empirical and another one philosophical.
What is the difference between a, so called, "empirical argument" from a, so called, "philosophical argument"?
bahman wrote: Mon Nov 30, 2020 8:44 pm The empirical one is related to the second law of thermodynamics which states that entropy in a closed system increases.
And what PROOF is there that thee Universe, Itself, is a 'closed system'?
bahman wrote: Mon Nov 30, 2020 8:44 pm This means that the universe will be in a state of heat death eventually.
This ONLY means that the universe will be in a state of heat death eventually IF, and ONLY IF:
Thee Universe is a 'closed system'.
Thee Universe, Itself, acts/reacts in the EXACT SAME way as the human being called, 'second law of thermodynamics'.

If neither of these are True, then what you say here is nothing factually, but only what has arrived from your OWN ill-gotten assumptions and/or beliefs.
bahman wrote: Mon Nov 30, 2020 8:44 pm The universe is not in the state of heat death though which means that the universe has a beginning, otherwise, if there was no beginning the universe was in a state of heat death.
The ABSOLUTE DISTORTED THINKING, based on the ACTUAL BELIEFS, within that head is BLINDINGLY OBVIOUS.

This is just ANOTHER ONE of your COMPLETELY TWISTED "arguments".
bahman wrote: Mon Nov 30, 2020 8:44 pm The philosophical argument states that there is an eternal past if there was no beginning. Of course, we cannot reach from the eternal past to now, given the definition of eternal which means that it cannot be reached, therefore there was a beginning.
YOUR BELIEFS are ABSOLUTELY BLINDINGLY OBVIOUS, by now.

YOU BELIEVE that the Universe had 'a beginning', just like MOST adult human beings, in the days of when this is being written.

THIS BELIEF is like the one MOST adult human beings had, in those days when they BELIEVED that the earth was in the center of the Universe, and that the sun revolved around them.

'you', just like "them", will say just about ANY thing that you BELIEVE will back up and support YOUR BELIEFS.
bahman wrote: Mon Nov 30, 2020 8:44 pm
Age wrote: Sat Nov 28, 2020 12:15 am
bahman wrote: Wed Nov 25, 2020 7:37 pm There are two options for the beginning (let's call it beginning), (1) There was nothing in the beginning, and (2) There was something in the beginning. We achieved the conclusion in the first case. In the second case, one can always ask what was on the point before the beginning. It was either something or nothing. In both case, we reach the conclusion that there was nothing in the very starting point.
How can 'you', logically, conclude there was 'a nothing' if as you said, " 'it' was either something or nothing "?
I already rule out something by the argument.
Please do NOT forget that YOUR argument was NOT sound NOR valid. (Of course, unless proven otherwise).
bahman wrote: Mon Nov 30, 2020 8:44 pm
Age wrote: Sat Nov 28, 2020 12:15 am Also, all of this is based on 'you' accepting 'a beginning' (in the first place). As I said, from what I have observed so far 'a beginning' is NOT logically NOR empirically even a possibility.

From what I observe; There is NO beginning. This, to me, makes PERFECT SENSE when combined with EVERY thing else.

To me, 'A beginning' is just illogical AND absurd. But as I say, you are FREE to see and believe whatever you like.
I already provide two arguments in favor of the existence of a beginning. Please see the first comment.
Are you REALLY under the illusion that those two, so called, "arguments" are actually worthy of being called "arguments"?
bahman wrote: Mon Nov 30, 2020 8:44 pm
Age wrote: Sat Nov 28, 2020 12:15 am
bahman wrote: Wed Nov 25, 2020 7:37 pm
That is a possibility as it is illustrated in the last comment.
What you wrote is NOT a possibility.

What you wrote is just an attempt at supporting, or justifying, your ALREADY HELD BELIEFS.

Your BELIEF that is illogical AND absurd, I will add. Causality - cause and effect - proves this fact.
It is not a belief once an argument supports it.
LOL

A human being can still BELIEVE some thing, or not, even AFTER it has been supported, or not.

This is because you are ABSOLUTELY FREE to believe, or not believe, ABSOLUTELY ANY 'thing'.

Also, do NOT forget that a, so called, "argument" could be seen to support some 'thing'. BUT, if the "argument" is NOT sound NOR valid, then that "argument" does NOT actually support ANY thing worthwhile.

'Causality', itself, PROVES that there could NEVER be 'a beginning' to thee Universe.

If you agree that there is 'causality', that is; that there is 'cause and effect', and accept that causality exists, then you would also HAVE TO agree AND accept that there is NO 'beginning'.

But because this CONTRADICTS with YOUR BELIEFS that there is 'a beginning', and while you choose to continue with this BELIEF, you will remain in the state of confusion, which you are demonstrating and SHOWING us here, now.
Age
Posts: 20164
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: Principle of causality does not apply to nothing

Post by Age »

bahman wrote: Mon Nov 30, 2020 9:18 pm
Age wrote: Sat Nov 28, 2020 3:41 am
bahman wrote: Wed Nov 25, 2020 8:22 pm
Yes.


You can call it God.
I can call 'what' God? What is the 'it' here?

I asked you if there was, to you, 'an agent'. You said, "Yes". So, now 'what', to you, is this 'agent', EXACTLY?
Accepting that there was nothing but God at the beginning, then God creates something out of nothing.
If this is what you accept, then okay.
bahman wrote: Mon Nov 30, 2020 9:18 pm
Age wrote: Sat Nov 28, 2020 3:41 am
bahman wrote: Wed Nov 25, 2020 8:22 pm I, however, have an argument against God.
What IS 'God', which you, allegedly, have an argument against?

The obviously illogicality and absurdness when saying, There is an 'agent', which some might call 'God', but I have an argument against this 'thing' [agent/God] may not yet be CLEAR to you, but saying that is just pure illogical AND absurd.
I already defined God.
Yes you did. You defined 'God' as the 'agent', which you accept existed and caused the Universe, from nothing by the way, but then you also state that you have an argument against 'God', which is the agent that you also state and insist must exist.

Is there ANY thing here that you would like to correct?
bahman wrote: Mon Nov 30, 2020 9:18 pm
Age wrote: Sat Nov 28, 2020 3:41 am
bahman wrote: Wed Nov 25, 2020 8:22 pm Nothing is initial state as I discussed it in the previous post. Therefore, nothing to something is possible.
LOL

What EVIDENCE or PROOF do you have that there was some, so called, "initial state of nothing"?

In fact what EVIDENCE or PROOF do you have that there COULD EVEN BE some "initial state of nothing"?
I already provide two arguments in favor of the beginning. I also provide one argument in favor of that there was nothing at the beginning.
LOL Okay.
bahman wrote: Mon Nov 30, 2020 9:18 pm
Age wrote: Sat Nov 28, 2020 3:41 am
bahman wrote: Wed Nov 25, 2020 8:22 pm
Nothing is the initial state as I argued in the previous post so there is no need for something to cause it.
LOL

What do you think the word 'argue' actually means?

You have NEVER logically, soundly, nor validly argued any such thing as "Nothing is the initial state".

You just said there was an "initial state of nothing". You have to say and state this because you BELIEVE "nothing to something" is not just possible but what actually happened. This is because you BELIEVE that there was 'a beginning'.

See, when and if 'you', human beings, have and hold BELIEFS, then 'you' HAVE TO say and state "things", as though they are actually true, because if you did not, then what you BELIEVE is true would just crumble to pieces.

But, just saying, or stating, "things" does IN NO WAY mean that those "things" are true, right, NOR correct.

A lot of what you have been saying, and stating, here is OBVIOUSLY NOT true, NOT right, and NOT correct.
I already provide an argument for there was nothing in the beginning. It seems to me that you didn't understand theargument. Do you want me to repeat the argument?
YES.

And I also wanted you define what the word 'argue' actually means, to you.
bahman wrote: Mon Nov 30, 2020 9:18 pm
Age wrote: Sat Nov 28, 2020 3:41 am
bahman wrote: Wed Nov 25, 2020 8:22 pm
Sort of. Let me change the argument a little

P1) PoC states that an agent is needed for going from one state of affair to another one
Does the causality principle REALLY state this?
Yes, at least we can agree with it in this discussion.
Are you aware that you claim that an 'agent' is needed for going from one state of affair to another state of affair but you also claim that nothing is the initial state so there is no need for something [an agent] to cause it.
bahman wrote: Mon Nov 30, 2020 9:18 pm
Age wrote: Sat Nov 28, 2020 3:41 am
bahman wrote: Wed Nov 25, 2020 8:22 pm P2) PoC does not apply to nothing
Based on 'what' EXACTLY, besides your OWN BELIEF?
It is based on two facts, 1) There was no God, and 2) There was nothing at the beginning.
Is it a PROVEN FACT that:
There was no God?
There was a beginning? And,
There was nothing at the beginning?

If yes to any or all of these, then what PROOF exists?

Also, IF proof exists, then why has this PROOF not yet been shared with the rest of humanity, in the days of when this is being written?
bahman wrote: Mon Nov 30, 2020 9:18 pm
Age wrote: Sat Nov 28, 2020 3:41 am
bahman wrote: Wed Nov 25, 2020 8:22 pm C1) Therefore, the process of nothing (the first state of the affair) to something (the second state of the affair) is possible
P3) There was nothing in the starting and there is something now
C2) From C1 and P3 one can conclude that there is no need for an agent, so call God.
What can be CLEARLY SEEN here is a PRIME EXAMPLE of how the brain works in that it will say just about ANY thing to back up and support the ALREADY HELD BELIEFS, within that brain.
That is not true if you pay attention to the argument.
LOL Okay.
bahman wrote: Mon Nov 30, 2020 9:18 pm
Age wrote: Sat Nov 28, 2020 3:41 am What else that can be CLEARLY SEEN here is there is absolutely NO logical relationship in this argument.
What is not logical?
So that I do NOT misconstrue YOUR "argument" in ANY way, and then get accused of being MISTAKEN and MISCONSTRUING YOUR "argument" I will allow you to write YOUR "argument" in the most SIMPLEST form, AND THEN I will REVEAL and SHOW 'what is NOT logical' in that, so called, "argument", of YOURS.
bahman wrote: Mon Nov 30, 2020 9:18 pm
Age wrote: Sat Nov 28, 2020 3:41 am Also, and by the way, the VERY FIRST QUESTION I asked you in this post was;
So, are you saying that to go from one state of affair to another then an agent is needed to cause this?

You answered;
Yes. Which can be CLEARLY SEEN and EVIDENCED above.

Therefore, your CONTRADICTION now is BLATANTLY OBVIOUS.

To say that to transfer, or transform, from 'one state of affair' [the, so called, "first state of the affair of nothing"] to the next state of affair', [which you call, "the second state of affair of something] an "agent" is needed, but then, for you, to go on and conclude, and state, that there is NO need for an "agent", [whatever you want to call 'it'] is just to BLATANT a CONTRADICTION that I should NOT 'have to' point this out to you. Or, am I MISSING some thing here?

If yes, then 'what' EXACTLY is that?

By the way, of course If there was 'absolutely nothing', then any 'principle of causality' would not apply to 'it', absolutely nothing, but then, there would also be NO 'principle of causality' anyway. But none of this has any bearing on the fact that some 'thing' is needed to transfer, or transform, from 'nothing' to 'something'.
You are mixing things. Nothing is not something.
And 'apple' is ALSO not 'orange'. But so what?

I am NOT "mixing things" here. I am only COPYING what you are saying and writing. I even asked you, am I MISSING some thing here? You did NOT clarify.

If, as you claim, an agent is needed to go from one state of affair [nothing] to another state of affair [something], then an agent is needed to go from nothing to something. So, what do you propose I am actually "mixing up"?
bahman wrote: Mon Nov 30, 2020 9:18 pm That is the whole point. PoC applies to something not nothing.
But how did we get from nothing to something?

It is an OBVIOUS FACT that 'causality', cause and effect, could NOT apply to 'nothing'. By definition 'nothing' speaks for itself. But what you have said here has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with what else you have said, which you claim are "arguments".
bahman wrote: Mon Nov 30, 2020 9:18 pm
Age wrote: Sat Nov 28, 2020 3:41 am
bahman wrote: Wed Nov 25, 2020 8:22 pm
Good to here that.
Does this mean you agree with me that an 'agent', or 'some thing' is needed to change from one state of affair to another, or the next, state of affair.
Yes, for when the state of affair refers to something rather than nothing.
Great. We are getting somewhere. Now, how did we arrive to be living in 'some thing', which you propose and claim came from 'no thing'.

How, EXACTLY, did 'something' (one state of affair) come about from 'nothing' (a previous state of affair)?
bahman wrote: Mon Nov 30, 2020 9:18 pm
Age wrote: Sat Nov 28, 2020 3:41 am
bahman wrote: Wed Nov 25, 2020 8:22 pm
I have to show two things in here: A) An agent, so-called, God cannot bring something out of nothing, and B) There was nothing in the beginning.
But WHY do you 'have to' show these two things? What is the actual purpose in showing these two things? What is 'it' EXACTLY that you want to achieve here?
If we accept these two facts then nothing to something is possible. This is kind of obvious.
LOL This is what you are saying here, and PLEASE correct me if I am WRONG. You are saying here that if we accept that God cannot bring something out of nothing and that there was nothing in the beginning, which just means that if we accept that there was a beginning and before this there was nothing, then nothing to something is possible. Which is kind of the MOST STUPIDEST thing to say.

If there was nothing BEFORE something, then nothing TO something is possible. Considering the fact that NO one would claim that there is not something, then nothing TO something is not just possible but an IRREFUTABLE FACT. THAT IS; IF we were to accept the MOST ILLOGICAL CLAIM that there was 'a beginning' [of something].

And what is also just as OBVIOUS are your BELIEFS, which are;
There was a beginning.
There was nothing before something.
There is no God.

bahman wrote: Mon Nov 30, 2020 9:18 pm
Age wrote: Sat Nov 28, 2020 3:41 am
bahman wrote: Wed Nov 25, 2020 8:22 pm A: Let assume that it is possible.
But WHY 'assume' ANY thing here?

WHY NOT just LOOK AT what thee ACTUAL Truth IS, instead?
You have to be patient with this assumption to see that it leads to a contradiction.
But I can ALREADY SEE the CONTRADICTIONS in YOUR BELIEFS and ASSUMPTIONS.
bahman wrote: Mon Nov 30, 2020 9:18 pm
Age wrote: Sat Nov 28, 2020 3:41 am
bahman wrote: Wed Nov 25, 2020 8:22 pm There was however nothing including time but God at the starting point.
What are 'you' proposing this 'God' thing is exactly here?
God is the agent that creates something out of nothing.
I saw this CONTRADICTION, of YOURS, a while ago now. As evidenced AND proven above.
bahman wrote: Mon Nov 30, 2020 9:18 pm
Age wrote: Sat Nov 28, 2020 3:41 am
bahman wrote: Wed Nov 25, 2020 8:22 pm The process of nothing to something is a ghange. You need time for any change. This means that you need time for the creation of time. This is a regress. Regress is not acceptable. Therefore, God cannot create something out of nothing.
Do you REALLY BELIEVE that you are saying things in logically reasoned ways here?
Yes. What is wrong with that?
When combined with the rest, then just about EVERY part of 'that', what you are saying here, IS WRONG.
bahman wrote: Mon Nov 30, 2020 9:18 pm
Age wrote: Sat Nov 28, 2020 3:41 am
bahman wrote: Wed Nov 25, 2020 8:22 pm B: This is shown in the previous post.
This is getting beyond a joke now.
No. For sake of clarity I repeat the argument again: There are two options for the beginning (let's call it beginning), (1) There was nothing in the beginning, and (2) There was something in the beginning.
But this, AGAIN, is NOT 'an argument'. This is just YOU stating YOUR BELIEFS.


The word 'beginning' refers to 'the start' of ...

Now, if we are talking about 'a beginning' in reference to 'the start of something', and 'something' references the WHOLE of Everything, then there could NOT be ANY thing else other than 'nothing'. So, that takes (2) out of the picture, COMPLETELY.

BUT, what actual 'evidence', or preferably actual 'proof', do you have that there was even 'a beginning' to 'something/Everything'?
bahman wrote: Mon Nov 30, 2020 9:18 pm We achieved the conclusion in the first case.
PLEASE refrain from using the 'we' word here if including 'me'. Or, I will REVEAL further just how WRONG 'you' REALLY ARE.
bahman wrote: Mon Nov 30, 2020 9:18 pm In the second case, one can always ask what was on the point before the beginning. It was either something or nothing. In both case, we reach the conclusion that there was nothing in the very starting point.
When will you get to the fact that 'a beginning' or 'a starting point' is nothing more than just what YOU BELIEVE IS TRUE?

There is ABSOLUTELY NO ACTUAL PROOF that there was 'a beginning', in the context of 'a beginning', which you are using here.
bahman wrote: Mon Nov 30, 2020 9:18 pm
Age wrote: Sat Nov 28, 2020 3:41 am
bahman wrote: Wed Nov 25, 2020 8:22 pm
Actually, there is evidence for this. Pair of electron and positron pop out of nothing all the time. My argument also supports this too.
But HOW could they, or ANY thing else, "pop out" of 'nothing'. Considering there is ALREADY some thing, that is; thee Universe, then this means that there is nothing that something could "pop out" of.

Remember, what APPEARS to be the case may not actually be the case.
But the universe cannot be the cause of the creation of something when it violates the law of conservation energy.
How EXACTLY, to you, does that violate the human being conceived "law of conservation energy"?

If you do NOT elaborate on NOR explain this, then the rest of what you say will be moot.

I will ask again; How could a pair of electron and positron pop out of nothing, if there already exists something?

And do NOT forget; There ALREADY exists something
.

So, how could there be 'nothing', for some 'thing' like a pair of electron/positron, or ANY thing else, to 'pop out' of?
Age wrote: Sat Nov 28, 2020 3:41 am
bahman wrote: Wed Nov 25, 2020 8:22 pm
Our experience is classical and does not apply to the quantum regime and also the beginning.
Speak for 'you' ONLY.

MY experience is of ALL, and NOT just of SOME.

The, so called, "classical" AND "quantum" are actually intertwined and consistent, with absolutely NO contradiction between them at all.
True. But you cannot see quantum fluctuation in the classical regime. That is what I am trying to say.[/quote]

You CAN, when you LOOK AT EVERY thing, on the WHOLE, and NOT just LOOK AT SOME things, in DIFFERENT regimes.

Because absolutely EVERY thing is relative to the observer, this is WHY you say you can NOT SEE some things.

'My experience' is NOT what you say 'our experience' IS. And this is WHY I can SEE things where and when you can NOT.
Age wrote: Sat Nov 28, 2020 3:41 am
bahman wrote: Wed Nov 25, 2020 8:22 pm
I hope that things are clear by now.
What is ACTUALLY CLEAR, to me, is obviously NOT YET CLEAR, to you.
How about now?[/quote]

LOL

What is CLEAR, to me, is just how much you contradict and just how ABSURD YOUR BELIEFS and CLAIMS ACTUALLY ARE.
bahman wrote: Mon Nov 30, 2020 9:18 pm
Age wrote: Sat Nov 28, 2020 3:41 am
bahman wrote: Wed Nov 25, 2020 8:22 pm
Regress means that you are dealing with an endless chain of things or in other words, there is always something before or after another thing in this endless set of things.
Which ALL leads backs on to Itself. This, after all, is HOW thee ACTUAL Truth of things is REVEALED, and thus becomes CLEAR and KNOWN.

If you can NOT find the end, and the resolution, of the chain of things, then I suggest LOOKING AT these things in another way, or from another perspective.

By the way, the KEY to unlocking ALL of the, so called, "mysteries of Life" will also ALLOW 'you' to SEE, CLEARLY, what IS thee Creator, and thus thee Cause, of ALL-OF-THIS.

Learning how to find that missing link, which exists in YOUR "endless chain", will provide 'you' with thee Answer to how to prevent the "chain" from becoming "endless".
No. You don't understand my argument.
What will become CLEAR, soon enough, is that 'I' understand YOUR, so called, "argument" FAR MORE than you could even imagine, in the days of when you wrote this.

YOUR, so called, "argument" fell to pieces BEFORE you even 'tried to' write it.

This is because YOUR whole, so called, "argument" is based solely on those pre-existing BELIEFS, which are completely and utterly unsubstantiated.
bahman wrote: Mon Nov 30, 2020 9:18 pm
Age wrote: Sat Nov 28, 2020 3:41 am
bahman wrote: Wed Nov 25, 2020 8:22 pm Well, if there was always something in the past then there is no way to reach from now to the ultimate past
Do you have ANY proof for this claim.

I will suggest to you that there IS always something in the past, and that reaching the, so called, 'ultimate past' (or Answer) is REALLY a VERY SIMPLE and EASY thing to do, which, by the way, has ALREADY been done.
bahman wrote: Wed Nov 25, 2020 8:22 pm so it is impossible to reach from the ultimate past to now too.
LOL

If only you already KNEW what the, so called, 'ultimate past' IS, then, you too, would SEE just how funny this REALLY IS.
Can you reach infinity by counting?
Could 'you', the human being, reach ANY thing, which would take longer than how long the body 'lives' for?

Thee Answer should be ABSOLUTELY OBVIOUS.

So, if you could "reach infinity by counting" or not should be so obvious to not even be put into question. But, then again, 'you', "bahman", do not yet actually KNOW what the 'ultimate past' ACTUALLY IS.
Age wrote: Sat Nov 28, 2020 3:41 am
bahman wrote: Wed Nov 25, 2020 8:22 pm That is way the regress is not acceptable.
The, so called, 'regress' is not acceptable to 'you', and some "others", only because of the distorted way you LOOK AT, USE, and SEE that word and its meaning.

By definition you LOOK AT, SEE, and USE that word as an 'impossibility', therefore, to you, that word, and the meaning that you give to it, HAS TO BE 'unacceptable'.
No, I argued against it.[/quote]

WHY do you MISUNDERSTAND me, so much and so often?
bahman wrote: Mon Nov 30, 2020 9:18 pm
Age wrote: Sat Nov 28, 2020 3:41 am
bahman wrote: Wed Nov 25, 2020 8:22 pm
I hope that things are clear now.
MUCH CLEARER to the readers now, thanks.

YOUR VIEWS, ASSUMPTIONS, and CONCLUSIONS are so ill-gotten, so distorted, and so misinformed, that this is the reason WHY 'you' BELIEVE what you do here.
Hmmm.
Okay.
Advocate
Posts: 3470
Joined: Tue Sep 12, 2017 9:27 am
Contact:

Re: Principle of causality does not apply to nothing

Post by Advocate »

[quote=Age post_id=482611 time=1606810430 user_id=16237]
I have done, many times before. God is that kind of word, as in infinity, certainty, truth.. each references an absolute of some kind. [/quote]

Each and EVERY one of these words is VERIFIABLE in the empirical, and in the logical, sense.

Your answers are NOT 'perfect' NOR 'complete'. Only when they have been 'exhausted' will they be, so called, 'complete. Your answers may, however, be "perfect" and "complete", to 'you'. But they are CERTAINLY NOT 'perfect' nor 'complete' in the actual and absolute perfect and complete sense.
[/quote]

None of them are verifiable in the empirical sense. You cannot measure god, infinity, certainty, or truth, only their relative effects. For example, we can verify someone's favourite colour empirically by seeing what they say and what they choose, but that doesn't mean it's a known fact, it's only know that it produces the expected effects As Though it were correct in a particular subset of conditions. The meaningful controls to separate conscious experience from other variables don't exist yet. The verification is always of a black-box output, unless you're inside the box. So that's where logic comes in. We can logically deduce that our own experience follows certain rules and that others seem to be made of the same stuff and have the same experiences, and that's good Enough for most purposes, but not good enough for talking about what consciousness IS, which is more about how that experience differs and how, therefore, the same input to various black-boxes (minds) can produce radically different results, even when circumstances and incentives are apparently identical.

Exhaustive perfection is another one of those terms that is transcendent and therefore Only a placeholder. Perfection as "complete" almost never means exhaustive, and cannot when we're talking about philosophy, which encompasses literally all un-empirical questions. To be complete as a framework of understanding is a reachable criteria and i've reached it. All questions can be answered with a single cohesive understanding - by logical extension, not directly. Only the simplest subjects can possibly be addressed exhaustively, if there even is one that simple, which is debatable.
Age
Posts: 20164
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: Principle of causality does not apply to nothing

Post by Age »

Advocate wrote: Tue Dec 01, 2020 3:55 pm
Age wrote: Tue Dec 01, 2020 9:13 am I have done, many times before. God is that kind of word, as in infinity, certainty, truth.. each references an absolute of some kind.
Each and EVERY one of these words is VERIFIABLE in the empirical, and in the logical, sense.

Your answers are NOT 'perfect' NOR 'complete'. Only when they have been 'exhausted' will they be, so called, 'complete. Your answers may, however, be "perfect" and "complete", to 'you'. But they are CERTAINLY NOT 'perfect' nor 'complete' in the actual and absolute perfect and complete sense.
None of them are verifiable in the empirical sense. [/quote]

How do you KNOW that FOREVER MORE "none of them are verifiable in the empirical sense"?

Where does this vision, and KNOWING, of each and EVERY future event, forever more, come from, EXACTLY?
Advocate wrote: Tue Dec 01, 2020 3:55 pm You cannot measure god, infinity, certainty, or truth, only their relative effects.
But I have 'measured', 'tested', 'retested', and 'remeasured', and thus 'verified', empirically AND logically, these things ALREADY.

So, what you say CANNOT be done has, in face, ALREADY been done.
Advocate wrote: Tue Dec 01, 2020 3:55 pm For example, we can verify someone's favourite colour empirically by seeing what they say and what they choose, but that doesn't mean it's a known fact,
What does the 'it' word refer to here, exactly?

What do you propose is not a known fact?

If you are referring to 'favorite color', then what would you say is the reason to cause 'you' to not know the fact of what one persons 'favorite color' is?

But if the 'it' word referred to some thing else, then what is 'that'?
Advocate wrote: Tue Dec 01, 2020 3:55 pm it's only know that it produces the expected effects As Though it were correct in a particular subset of conditions.
There is NO 'correct' in relation to some one's 'favorite color'. Either one has one or they do not. What else is there to possibly be KNOWN?
Advocate wrote: Tue Dec 01, 2020 3:55 pm The meaningful controls to separate conscious experience from other variables don't exist yet. The verification is always of a black-box output, unless you're inside the box. So that's where logic comes in. We can logically deduce that our own experience follows certain rules and that others seem to be made of the same stuff and have the same experiences, and that's good Enough for most purposes, but not good enough for talking about what consciousness IS, which is more about how that experience differs and how, therefore, the same input to various black-boxes (minds) can produce radically different results, even when circumstances and incentives are apparently identical.
You appear to absolutely convolute and make hard what is essentially Truly simple AND easy.
Advocate wrote: Tue Dec 01, 2020 3:55 pm Exhaustive perfection is another one of those terms that is transcendent and therefore Only a placeholder. Perfection as "complete" almost never means exhaustive, and cannot when we're talking about philosophy, which encompasses literally all un-empirical questions. To be complete as a framework of understanding is a reachable criteria and i've reached it.
Great. So how does that make you feel?
Advocate wrote: Tue Dec 01, 2020 3:55 pm All questions can be answered with a single cohesive understanding - by logical extension, not directly. Only the simplest subjects can possibly be addressed exhaustively, if there even is one that simple, which is debatable.
Sounds, to me, like this is all to complex AND hard again, for you.
Age
Posts: 20164
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: Principle of causality does not apply to nothing

Post by Age »

Scott Mayers wrote: Sun Nov 29, 2020 11:53 am
surreptitious57 wrote: Sat Nov 28, 2020 5:00 pm
Age wrote:
I am NOT attempting to be understood here in this forum

You would have to wait till I write somewhere else and relate it back to what I post here to best understand the ME
You may very well not be attempting to be understood here in the forum but that does not mean I should not try to understand you based upon the words you post here . I see no point in not attempting to understand you even if that is your intention . The whole point of actually asking clarifying questions is to understand you better and you say that you are always happy to see them being asked even if they are not asked as often as you would like them to be

I do not know how long it will take you to write somewhere else but in the meantime all I have are the words you post here
And so though it is not YOUR intention to be understood it most certainly is MY intention to understand YOU as best as I can
I concur.
You concur with what part, exactly?

See, if I am not attempting to be understood, by the people in this forum, then this means that I am writing in a way so that I do not get fully understood, yet. The full reason for this will become much clearer later on.

If you concur that it is YOUR intention to understand the "other" as best as 'you' can, then I suggest 'you' do what "surreptitious57" very rarely ever does, and that is; ask as MANY 'clarifying questions' as you can.
Scott Mayers wrote: Sun Nov 29, 2020 11:53 am Although I don't have a personal dislike for Age as a person, her approach requires reflection on what (s)he* says as an equal participant in these debates.
But I do not do 'debates'. This is because of what 'debates' actually are, what they lead to, and what they cause.
Scott Mayers wrote: Sun Nov 29, 2020 11:53 am I get the sense that she is believing she has a neutral observer's perspective and is trying to be 'Socratic'.
If you get that 'sense', then you are mistaken, as I am NOT 'believing' ANY thing here.

I have MY Observer's perspective. If that happens to be a, so called, "neutral observer's perspective", then so be it. However, if you think or believe that I do NOT have this observer's perspective, then just write 'where' and explain 'why'. Then, if what you write and say is True, Right, and Correct, then it will and IS 'irrefutably True'.
Scott Mayers wrote: Sun Nov 29, 2020 11:53 am But she's coming across as though this is a game whereby she wants to just defeat others, not participate.
I did not intend to come across this way. But, now reflecting on your view this may be exactly what is happening and occurring. But considering what I have set out to achieve, then ALL of 'you' will be PERFECTLY FINE with this defeat, and in all honesty WISHED I ' defeated the "others" ' a LONG TIME AGO. But the best things do come to those who wait, patiently.
Scott Mayers wrote: Sun Nov 29, 2020 11:53 am And while I appreciate depth, her long posts are repetitive and disconnected.
If 'you' provided actual examples with full explanations, then this will help me tremendously in my learning how to communicate better with 'you', human beings.
Scott Mayers wrote: Sun Nov 29, 2020 11:53 am If you think you've gained ground with some agreement and respect, she'd find some means to dislodge that illusion quickly.
Do not get me wrong, if some agreement has been reached, then that will remain, but I just have a tendency to move on VERY QUICKLY. I do NOT see disrespect anywhere. I obviously notice when some people are some times 'TRYING' their hardest to disrespect 'me', but this is of NO concern AT ALL. I do NOT mean to show ANY disrespect anywhere, and if I do, then I apologize profusely for any misgivings and misunderstandings on my part.
Scott Mayers wrote: Sun Nov 29, 2020 11:53 am I am opting to stay away from responding because I don't have the time nor patience to have to delve into her mindset to determine why she's behaving this way.
If you did, however, provide examples of when you see me behaving a 'certain way', and then explained 'what way' I appear to come across, to you, then I would have far better insight into what I need to change and how to change 'that', for the better.

See, I have ABSOLUTELY NO IDEA what 'way' I am behaving when someone just says to me, something like; 'you are behaving this (or that) way'.
Scott Mayers wrote: Sun Nov 29, 2020 11:53 am I just know that it is not productive and exhausting.
I would LOVE to AWARE OF and KNOW what 'way' 'it' is that I am, supposedly and allegedly, 'behaving'.

I can NOT change what I do NOT know and can NOT see.
Scott Mayers wrote: Sun Nov 29, 2020 11:53 am And I am owning my choice to not respond to her without prejudice.
Are you are also owning your choice to NOT respond to me, in ANY way?
Scott Mayers wrote: Sun Nov 29, 2020 11:53 am * I don't know Age's sex and am adopting the 'feminine' pronouns here given his or her process of thought appears to come from an emotional priority rather than a logical one.
Where did this PRESUMPTION that the thought processes within a brain within a male gendered human body comes from a logical priority rather than a logical one and that the thought processes within a human body with female sexual organs comes from an emotional priority rather than a logical one.

I have observed MANY a human body with male sexual organs attached to them, on many occasions, over reacting emotionally rather than logically.

Also, if you provided some examples of where you SEE or BELIEVE that the words I have written come from an 'emotional priority rather than a logical priority', then we will have some thing to LOOK AT and SEE, and then we will be able to DISCUSS if what you SEE or BELIEVE is ACTUALLY what 'it' IS, or NOT. Until then we readers have ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to go on.
Scott Mayers wrote: Sun Nov 29, 2020 11:53 am The stereotype of the feminine is not intended to presume sexual distinction but rather 'gender' by the cultural standards of most of time.
What is the difference between 'sexual distinction' and 'gender', and how long is 'most of time' for, exactly?
Scott Mayers wrote: Sun Nov 29, 2020 11:53 am I asked once but got the same kind of confusing rhetoric she uses normally without willing to answer questions.

[*][I recalled it as something like,
... What I am is not relevant. I first used the name Bob when I first came...
I am not sure what she said specifically, and this name probably wasn't this, but it lacked clarifying whether the name she choose was sufficiently reflective of her sex or just the label she opted for.]
If what I said 'lacked clarifying' of some thing or other, then I suggest just asking ANOTHER 'clarifying question'. And, I suggest asking the MOST SPECIFIC 'clarifying question' possible.

I do NOT want to reveal a 'gender', of a writer, as this is of NO importance AT ALL, and is NOT relevant AT ALL, in what I have set out to achieve. In fact, revealing 'genders' can leave some with VERY PREJUDICED views, as EVIDENCED and PROVEN above in the post that I am replying to now.

Oh, and by the way, I do NOT want to reveal 'age' as well, (although I did slip up once). As revealing an 'age' to some human beings can be conducive to producing VERY PREJUDICED views within them.
Age
Posts: 20164
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: Principle of causality does not apply to nothing

Post by Age »

I forgot to mention that that name that I used previously was 'ken', but this does NOT NECESSARY have ABSOLUTELY ANY thing at all to do with gender', as SOME would first PRESUME or ASSUME.

In fact a LOT of what does NOT NECESSARILY have ABSOLUTELY ANY thing at all to do with what is first thought, presumed, or assumed.

I write this way to SHOW and REVEAL to future peoples how the brain actually works. Through the replies I receive here, in this forum, I have the EVIDENCE and the PROOF of just how quickly the brain ascertain things, jumps to conclusions, and then BELIEVES those things, WHOLEHEARTEDLY, which was all just based solely on some ASSUMPTION, which OBVIOUSLY could have be WHOLLY and COMPLETELY WRONG, from the outset.

Now, if my username in this forum was 'ken' for example, then WHY jump to the conclusion that then MEANS that the writer is, or is within, a human body with male sexual organs?

Your [anyone's] MOST Honest answer/s would be MOST APPRECIATED here.
Age
Posts: 20164
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: Principle of causality does not apply to nothing

Post by Age »

Advocate wrote: Sun Nov 29, 2020 3:37 pm
Age wrote: Sun Nov 29, 2020 2:07 am
Advocate wrote: Sun Nov 29, 2020 2:01 am

This is a PRIME EXAMPLE of WHY to NOT solely use those individual tiny little brains, within those human bodies.

There exists a Truly OPEN Mind, which is the very Thing that has been allowing 'you', human beings, to be able to obtain and ascertain MORE and MORE knowledge ALL OF THE TIME. I suggest using this Thing far more and far more often, and using far less those tiny human brains when LOOKING AT and SEEING 'things'.

ALL of this will become BLATANTLY OBVIOUS and CRYSTAL CLEAR, as well, when, and if, 'you' ever discover and/or learn just how thee Mind and the brain ACTUALLY WORKS also.

May I suggest that LOOKING AT 'things' collectively, instead of individually, helps tremendously in LEARNING and SEEING what thee ACTUAL Truth of 'things' ACTUALLY IS.

By the way, if you BELIEVE those last two little sentences you wrote are true, right, and correct, then you can not and you will NOT proceed any further past those claims.
All words are a stand-in. Some words are Only a stand-in, because there's nothing verifiable about them in an empirical sense.
Will you provide any examples of words that you think or believe there is nothing verifiable about them in any empirical sense?

Until you bring those words into a discussion, so that we can LOOK AT them and discuss them OPENLY, then what you say and allege here is just a claim of YOURS ONLY, which you may or may not believe is true. Do you BELIEVE your claim here is true?

Until you can PROVE your claim irrefutably true, then it just stands as an individual claim, which may or may not be true.
I offer an answer; a framework for understanding, for which sufficiency is the benchmark, not completeness. [/quote]

To me, 'sufficiency' without 'completeness' is NOT thee understanding that I have, and am in the process of learning how to explain, and be FULLY understood.
Advocate wrote: Sun Nov 29, 2020 3:37 pm You can use any understanding of the words you want but mine will answer the most possible questions in the last possible space.
But I have ALREADY asked you to answer SOME questions, and your response was something like; "Some questions cannot be answered." Which, to me, just sounds like one of ANY of those preachers, teachers, and scientists who really do NOT YET KNOW what they are talking about.
Advocate wrote: Sun Nov 29, 2020 3:37 pm Words such as perfect, infinity, certainty, all reference the transcendent and therefore cannot be understood or tested Except as placeholders.
But these things have ALREADY been TESTED AND UNDERSTOOD, well by 'me' anyway.

But then 'you' do use a very distorted and conflicting set of definitions, from thee ACTUAL Truth of things, for these words. Which explains A LOT, if and when ANY one wants to Truly delve into 'this'.
Advocate wrote: Sun Nov 29, 2020 3:37 pm They're only distinguishable from fiction to the extent we agree on their sufficiency for a particular purpose.
Who, and/or what, is the 'we' here?
Advocate wrote: Sun Nov 29, 2020 3:37 pm The proof of my claim is in testing it by looking for exceptions, not in requiring more and more clarifying answers until it encompasses all possible questions in the universe.
Either way, 'looking for and finding EXCEPTIONS' and/or 'looking for and finding CLARIFYING ANSWERS', which ENCOMPASSES ALL, are BOTH VERY SIMPLE and VERY EASY things to do, well for 'me' anyway.

This is because I have ALREADY accomplishment this, and thus ALREADY have thee KNOW-HOW.

By the way, there is only One question, which when answered, properly AND correctly, then provides thee SOLUTION, which encompasses ALL possible questions in the Universe.

But do not forget, there are two types of questions. Meaningful questions and non meaningful questions. Non meaningful questions are not necessarily resolved within one's lifetime, but meaningful questions can be resolved almost immediately, at any time. In fact thee ANSWERS to ALL meaningful are ALREADY KNOWN. They are just NOT YET consciously known, to just about ALL human beings in the days of when this is being written.
Post Reply