Does everything have a beginning and an end to it?

@NoOne phil,

So every boundary has a thing on both sides by definition.

And every "thing" has an end to it simply by how it is defined.

1 Reply

@parados,

parados wrote:

So every boundary has a thing on both sides by definition.

One more time. No, material difference is not a thing.

parados wrote:

And every "thing" has an end to it simply by how it is defined.

Yes.
I continued last post while you were working on this. Read Language and Experience. Work for me is nearing the end of a day.

1 Reply

@NoOne phil,

NoOne phil wrote:

parados wrote:

And every "thing" has an end to it simply by how it is defined.

Yes.
I continued last post while you were working on this. Read Language and Experience. Work for me is nearing the end of a day.

So every thing has an end.
Why does everything have an end? Because that is how it is defined.

Can a thing not have an end? No.
Why? Because that is how it is defined.

It's a bit more complex but that is the basic argument it seems.

1 Reply

@parados,

The sad part is, children are taught by rote and never even suspect the principles of predication determine what may or may not be said. Consequently they spend a great deal of time thinking gibberish and don't even realize it.

If you want to improve humanity, help them think.

1 Reply

@NoOne phil,

So..
Let's assume that the universe is not a thing. But rather it is simply a collection of things. I'll call that collection the C-universe.

The C-universe contains things which all have boundaries and all those boundaries have to have other things on both sides of the boundary. That would mean that the C-universe must be circular* or infinite.

*-Circular means in some way all items are bounded by other items in some fashion through space/time.

1 Reply

@parados,

" have other things on both sides of the boundary"
OMG, please confirm that you are not deaf.
One of the topics covered in Phaedo, can one assert a material difference to a boundary? I think we convered this more than once.

1 Reply

@NoOne phil,

I didn't assert a material difference to the boundary. When one thing starts and another ends, it is a boundary. It doesn't mean the boundary has a material difference.

1 Reply

@parados,

So a thing that is not a thing but a collection of things? What do you call that?

1 Reply

@NoOne phil,

One might call it a universe...

But it must have material differences and boundaries to be more than one thing so one could hardly call a collection of things a thing.

1 Reply

Interesting question.

New cientific theories say that everything come from nothing. At the begining, only a multidimensional space (11 or 27, who knows) existed. For, who knows what reason, all dimensions but three curved over themselves and disapeared (or the like). One dimension, took some peculiarities and is what we know today as time. The other three are alike (x,y,z). This fourdimensional space had some irregularities which allowed the energy or matter to be created. Energy and matter are the same thing, small strings vibrating with different amplitudes and frequencies. Strings become quantums and those particles and then energy and matter.

But there are still too many questions to answer, Alfredito. A lot to learn. And remember in this live you´ll never use what you don´t know.

0 Replies

@parados,

parados wrote:

One might call it a universe...

But it must have material differences and boundaries to be more than one thing so one could hardly call a collection of things a thing.

On the contrary. A collection implies a boundary.
A set, or a collection, are just synonyms for things.

1 Reply

@NoOne phil,

So then does the universe contain things or not?

1 Reply

@parados,

Is a boundary a container?
If a boundary is a container, and a boundary is not a difference, what is implied?

Is the cup that holds the coffee the coffee that holds itself?
Starting to get annoyed at how you are used to thinking?

Don't feel bad. Plato's Parmenides is meant as a mental exercise to learn the principles of predication. As far as I know, no one has figured out the dialog yet.

When you cannot distinguish in your mind, the three categories of names, you have no choice but to think nonsense.

2 Replies

@NoOne phil,

Quote:

Is a boundary a container?
If a boundary is a container, and a boundary is not a difference, what is implied?

But if the universe has a boundary then shouldn't the universe be a thing?

1 Reply

@parados,

I dont recall saying that it did or was.

But I will say this. The cosmologist of today, are they violating the principles of grammar, and thus speaking a great deal of nonsense, or not?

0 Replies

@NoOne phil,

This still leaves us with the universe being circular in nature or else infinite if it is not a thing.
Let me rephrase.. the things that make up what is commonly referred to as the universe are either in a circular arrangement (see earlier post for explanation) or infinite.

1 Reply

@parados,

Circular is a form, no difference.
Infinite is material difference.
Which ever you choose, you still claim that it is not a thing.
Your mind was made for crafting things.

There are two fundamental categories of logic. See my treatise.

1 Reply

@NoOne phil,

NoOne Phil wrote:

Do you claim that the Universe is a thing?
If you claim it is a thing, then it has a boudary which separates the material universe from another material of some other thing, i.e. another universe, ad infinitum, and you have the logic impossibility of an infinite regression.

There for, the Universe, qua Universe cannot be a thing.
But, if it is a material difference, it has no form, i.e. no end or boundary at all.

But that leaves us with a conundrum.

If a thing exists then it has a boundary which separates that material thing from the material of some other thing, ad infinitum and you have the logic impossibility of an infinite regression.

So can a "thing" exist without creating an infinite regression?
If things can exist if there is an infinite regression then the universe can be a thing.

1 Reply

@parados,

Let me see if I can put this another way without treading on your meanings of words.

You stated - If the universe is a thing then it leads to infinite universes.
In order for that to be true it must mean that a thing leads to infinite things.
Infinity is something that can't be contained.
Your use of "universe" is to describe this uncontainable infinity.

0 Replies

Does everything have a beginning and an end to it?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know