Please explain how everything in the universe "experiences"?
Well, I have to provide you with the argument for the mind which is based on the fact that change exists. Well, the idea is that any change needs the mind to occur, and to do the change mind has to have the ability to experience and cause. Therefore, there is an experience in any location that there is a change.
No doubt, at this very moment, a near infinite number of "changes" are taking place in the innumerable solar systems and galaxies that are millions and billions of light years away from us.
Whose mind is instigating (or experiencing) those changes?
There is only one mind, the mind, which is omnipresent in spacetime. I have an argument for that if you are interested.
seeds wrote: ↑Mon Jan 29, 2024 9:59 pm
Or, to bring this a little closer to home, whose mind is instigating the changes taking place on the surfaces of Jupiter or Saturn?
_______
seeds wrote: ↑Tue Jan 30, 2024 6:49 pm
Well, you may be familiar with my theory, but you certainly don't seem to understand it, otherwise you would not have suggested that we "end up" in a parallel universe as opposed to literally becoming a parallel universe.
Anyway, setting that aside for now, explain to me how we become "omnipresent"?
(Continued in next post)
_______
I don't know how I could become omnipresent. I wish I knew. But to me that is the ultimate goal since you become unified with all other beings.
First of all, what makes you say that we become "unified with all other beings"?
You can experience everything and every being.
seeds wrote: ↑Tue Jan 30, 2024 6:49 pm
And secondly - then what?
Do we all just collectively twiddle our thumbs together for eternity - trillions of years into the infinite future with no specific purpose?
I have two theories here: Either there is a meaning in life or not. We are fully satisfied with life if we can find the meaning for it otherwise life becomes troublesome when you get used to everything. We might want to return to the world of ignorance, here, to have a sense of wonder again and start things from scratch.
Does this grand unification of our being with all other beings,...
(as in the old "water droplet back into the ocean" ploy)
...mean that we lose our sense of self-awareness and personal identity?
No, we don't lose the sense of self-awareness and personal identity.
seeds wrote: ↑Tue Jan 30, 2024 6:49 pm
If so, then we're talking about existential nihilism here.
The point is that you are demonstrating the problem of someone who has not bothered to extrapolate the implications of the "ultimate goal" you have in mind to its furthest and most logical conclusion, which basically amounts to this...
"...Oh boy, I can't wait for my personal "I Am-ness" to blink out of existence after it merges back into the ocean of oneness from which it momentarily arose..."
Or, perhaps this...
"...Oh boy, I can't wait to merge with all other beings so that we can all live together for trillions of years on into eternity as a 'Borg-like Collective" with absolutely nothing logical to do to fill the void of infinite time..."
(Continued in next post)
_______
Yes, infinite life is problematic if there is no meaning to it.
Yes, and your OP title clearly states that "Nothing to somthing [sic] is logically impossible".
However, you also agreed with the idea that the ̶s̶o̶m̶t̶h̶i̶n̶g̶ something from which the universe emerged - "always existed" - is also logically impossible.
So, which is it?
Which one of those two "logically impossible" options is true?
Because one of them has to be true, because here we are (existing somethings) that are wondering and talking about how our "somethingness" came about.
_______
First things first, to me spacetime is fundamental (by fundamental I mean it is not caused and did not arise) and it has a beginning. The physical either popped into existence or was caused since the beginning of time.
bahman, all of the following assertions were made by you...
"I can show that spacetime is fundamental and cannot begin to exist or be caused."
----
"Spacetime however has a beginning"
----
"Spacetime simply has existed and will exist. That is what I mean by fundamental."
----
"No, by the beginning of time, I mean the beginning of spacetime."
Wow! One could get whiplash from being jerked back and forth between those contradicting statements.
Now, if this turns out to be yet another situation where you end up saying...
"...Well, I should have said this, and not that..."
...then, in the immortal words of Johnny Carson,...
"...May a thousand camels throw a party in your underwear..."
_______
Time cannot begin to exist by this I mean it cannot come into existence. It however has a beginning.
Skepdick wrote: ↑Tue Jan 30, 2024 9:20 pm
You are talking about a syntax/notation for representing and manipulating infinite precision infinitesimals,
OK.
Skepdick wrote: ↑Tue Jan 30, 2024 9:20 pm
coupled with formal semantics + pragmatics.
What do you mean?
Skepdick wrote: ↑Tue Jan 30, 2024 9:20 pm
By any other name - it's a programming language.
How come? Could you please elaborate?
What I mean is that ALL Mathematics is reducible to some form of symbol manipulation - a computational model.
And manipulating the symbols is all fine and dandy. Until you attempt to convert/read/print the "infinite precision number" x as an actual, human-comprehensible value.
There is no need to print and read anything. Everything is working based on the laws of nature. Yes, there is a problem if you want to simulate reality to infinite precision.
bahman wrote: ↑Wed Jan 31, 2024 1:55 pm
There is no need to print and read anything. Everything is working based on the laws of nature. Yes, there is a problem if you want to simulate reality to infinite precision.
That's hardly a problem for me - it's a problem for you.
Assume two infinite precision numbers:
X: 0.000...???...
and
Y: 0.0000....???...
Can you determine which of the following is true (in finite time):
X > Y
X = Y
X < Y
X = 0
Y = 0
If you can't determine any of those things - then you can't really divide by X or Y without ending up with nonsense.
bahman wrote: ↑Wed Jan 31, 2024 1:55 pm
There is no need to print and read anything. Everything is working based on the laws of nature. Yes, there is a problem if you want to simulate reality to infinite precision.
That's hardly a problem for me - it's a problem for you.
Assume two infinite precision numbers:
X: 0.000...???...
and
Y: 0.0000....???...
Can you determine which of the following is true (in finite time):
X > Y
X = Y
X < Y
X = 0
Y = 0
If you can't determine any of those things - then you can't really divide by X or Y without ending up with nonsense.
Why do you involve me? In reality one of the above statements is correct.
bahman wrote: ↑Wed Jan 31, 2024 2:39 pm
Why do you involve me? In reality one of the above statements is correct.
That's not useful. Which one?
If your measurement equipment is not precise enough to distinguish between 0 and an infinitesimal you could be erroneously dividing by 0 in your equations.
bahman wrote: ↑Wed Jan 31, 2024 2:39 pm
Why do you involve me? In reality one of the above statements is correct.
That's not useful. Which one?
It is useful.
Skepdick wrote: ↑Wed Jan 31, 2024 2:52 pm
If your measurement equipment is not precise enough to distinguish between 0 and an infinitesimal you could be erroneously dividing by 0 in your equations.
bahman wrote: ↑Wed Jan 31, 2024 3:36 pm
No that is not what I said above but that is correct. By begin to exist I mean it does not exist and then exist.
So time has a beginning?
Sure it has.
How can time have a beginning without having to begin to exist?
commonsense wrote: ↑Wed Jan 31, 2024 6:24 pm
So time has a beginning?
Sure it has.
How can time have a beginning without having to begin to exist?
Time cannot begin to exist, by this I mean that it does not exist and then exists, since this is a change and any change requires time. This leads to an infinite regress that is logically impossible. We can exclude that time has existed eternally in the past for the same reason, infinite regress. So time has to have a beginning. Think of it like this: Time exists now. Now let's go back, time still exists until the beginning of time and not farther since it is meaningless to go back beyond the beginning of time! Is that clear now?
bahman wrote: ↑Wed Jan 31, 2024 6:25 pm
Sure it has.
How can time have a beginning without having to begin to exist?
Time cannot begin to exist, by this I mean that it does not exist and then exists, since this is a change and any change requires time. This leads to an infinite regress that is logically impossible. We can exclude that time has existed eternally in the past for the same reason, infinite regress. So time has to have a beginning. Think of it like this: Time exists now. Now let's go back, time still exists until the beginning of time and not farther since it is meaningless to go back beyond the beginning of time! Is that clear now?
Your replies throughout this thread are completely confusing. Time began to exist at some point, but time has no beginning at any point, says you. Would you please explain how you are separating ‘begin’ from ‘beginning’?
But to me that is the ultimate goal since you become unified with all other beings.
