The Half-life of Facts.

@Frank Apisa,

Quote:

Even then the hypothesis of gods will be difficult to logically dismiss. How would one argue that the gods did not dictate that what we have discovered...be what we have discovered.

Definitely, yet the hypothesis that gods exist would become useless as an explanation for the state of the world. We would have simpler, more robust hypotheses to compete with it. It's not really the case nowadays.

0 Replies

...for instance when we say the "prime mover" is the "cause" of everything we mean to say there is an order established within the ensemble set of everything (all times n spaces). That is, that there is a shape of order on the linkage of events a geometry of sequences. On a Metaphysical level we simply mean to say that everything is already here and its eternal.
Decoding the opaque languaging, the 1 mover is the reason of all things because it is all things including the order on which they unfold in spacetime.
The prime mover "knows" all things because timelessly speaking all things belong to its set, to its nature...
The prime mover is the uncaused causer in the sense that we experience causation inside spacetime but the whole Set itself exists uncaused eternally.
It also can be said the prime mover is UNITY as the order of events provides the measure of reason and Logos itself...and in that sense the prime mover is Love once Unity equals Love.

0 Replies

@Fil Albuquerque,

Fil Albuquerque wrote:

yes I am saying the first cause is permanent,

If it is permanent then it can't change and it can't interact with anything else as it would also have to be partless... it is an impossibility and useless... everything is more simply explained by letting go of the notion of permanence...unless you can prove otherwise... preferably with a 'simple' explanation.

2 Replies

@igm,

igm wrote:

Fil Albuquerque wrote:

yes I am saying the first cause is permanent,

If it is permanent then it can't change and it can't interact with anything else as it would also have to be partless... it is an impossibility and useless... everything is more simply explained by letting go of the notion of permanence...unless you can prove otherwise... preferably with a 'simple' explanation.

What do you base the "if permanent therefore unchanging" on?

Why can a thing not be both permanent and changing?

There is the possibility that the universe (the megaverse) has always been...that it is both infinite and eternal. But things are always changing.

Or are you excluding the possibility that the megaverse can be infinite and eternal?

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

Frank Apisa wrote:

Why can a thing not be both permanent and changing?

permanent

adjective
1.
lasting or intended to last or remain unchanged indefinitely.

You are asking me why something that is unchanging cannot also change?

1 Reply

@igm,

igm wrote:

Frank Apisa wrote:

Why can a thing not be both permanent and changing?

permanent

adjective
1.
lasting or intended to last or remain unchanged indefinitely.

You are asking me why something that is unchanging cannot also change?

Well...you may be right to suggest that a thing that is permanent cannot also change...I truly do not know.

But the definition you offered certainly does not answer my question. (Take another look at the "or's" in that definition.

Once again...I do not know if a thing must be unchanging in order to be permanent...but for that to be seems a bit of a reach.

I'll reflect on it a bit...and see if I can resolve it in my own mind.

If anyone else reading here has anything that might help, I'd appreciate it.

3 Replies

@igm,

I thought you got to easely picture what I was speaking about...does a film for instance has any change as a whole ? No, and yet the pictures in sequence seam to move. 4D spacetime geometry works more or less the same, the way I picture it. Imagine the transition from frame to frame in time is like changing the wave length in your radio, you stop listening a radio station n start listening the next. Now apply this imaging metaphor to 4d spacetime. You can't see past events or future events because you are at each point settled into a specific "wavelength" radio station the here n now, but ultimately all radio stations coexist no matter if you change the channel you were tuned into. The other channels didn't vanish they just are in their specific wavelength. Motion is in this view the resulting effect from these transitions. But all spacetime is settled.

1 Reply

@Fil Albuquerque,

Furthermore imagine that this huge 4D movie which is the Universe loops on itself once it reaches the end, smooth transition with no boundaries, and imagine that it does so in a coherent way, that is, in a way in which the end meets logically the starting conditions of the Big Bang...its the model of a cycling Universe. Alternatively you can apply the same principle if you rather go with Multiverse. Just imagine all possible "films" exist in a Universal "video store" each with its own wavelength field...

0 Replies

@Frank Apisa,

http://imageshack.us/scaled/large/23/t8wf.jpg

.........FRANK'S LOGIC

1 Reply

@fresco,

fresco wrote:

.........FRANK'S LOGIC

Ahhh, I don't think so. I see more circularity and obfuscation on your part than on mine. But complex issues are a bitch to deal with...and we all have prejudices in those dealings.

I'll still work on trying to understand where igm is coming from regarding change and permanent.

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

Its screamingly obvious where igm is coming from. He is pointing out that anything defined as permanent is axiomatically "unchanging".

He also implies the concept of "permanence" is either useless or religious when related to our use of the word "reality" because empirically we know that everything is in a state of flux. What we actually/contextually mean by "permanence" is relative persistence with respect to human functionality.

And the argument which you try every time, of a "Frank" sitting outside "everything" and stating it is "permanently changing", and that changing "may be the true nature of reality" is A GOD'S EYE VIEW !. It adds nothing to arguments about usage of the word "facts" or "reality", and exposes the paucity of your so-called agnosticism and your ridiculous practice of calling dissenters from your views, "religious".

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

Quote:

If anyone else reading here has anything that might help, I'd appreciate it.

It's a pure words game, void of meaning in the absence of reference in the real world. Metaphysics and theology easily get in that ethereal territory were empty words play hide and seek with one another.

People can talk of a "prime mover" till Kingdom come but they'll never nail one against the wall. If such a thing/entity/god exists, I doubt It considers Itself bound by the limits if the English language.

1 Reply

@fresco,

fresco wrote:

Its screamingly obvious where igm is coming from. He is pointing out that anything defined as permanent is axiomatically "unchanging".

It most assuredly is not “screamingly obvious” where igm is coming from…nor where you are coming from, Fresco. You guys are so wedded to your belief system that you think actually explaining your position is not worth while…it is, to you folk, something that simply has to be accepted.

I don’t think is should just be accepted…and I think anyone with any sense of balance would not either.

Quote:

He also implies the concept of "permanence" is either useless or religious when related to our use of the word "reality" because empirically we know that everything is in a state of flux. What we actually/contextually mean by "permanence" is relative persistence with respect to human functionality.

You and he have a tendency to characterize comments that casts any doubt on the tenets of your belief system as “useless” or inconsequential. That tendency does not actually make them useless or inconsequential. Most of them are no less useless or inconsequential than much of the stuff you pedal all the time.

The notion of “permanence” has a meaning within the context of permanent flux…and that “meaning” does not HAVE to be relative with respect to human functionality. You present that argument as fact…in a gratuitous, self-serving way. It isn’t necessarily so. I am not saying it is NOT so…but that it does not follow from any logical progression. Your assertion that it is so…is for the convenience of your arguments.

Quote:

And the argument which you try every time of a "Frank" sitting outside "everything" and stating it is "permanently changing", and that changing "may be the true nature of reality" is A GOD'S EYE VIEW !.

Where have I EVER asserted that…let alone use it every time???

Normally you do not build straw men so easily deconstructed, Fresco. Are you feeling poorly today?

Quote:

It adds nothing to arguments about "facts" and exposes the paucity of your so-called agnosticism and the ridiculous nature of calling dissenters from your views, "religious".

I’ve not called you “religious”…I have suggested that you are enthralled with a belief system. Some belief systems are not religious…strong atheism, for instance.

C’mon. If you cannot do better than this when speaking candidly and unpretentiously, perhaps you’d better go back to that silly techno-babble you usually offer. At least there it is obviously you really are not saying anything.

0 Replies

@Olivier5,

Olivier5 wrote:

Quote:
If anyone else reading here has anything that might help, I'd appreciate it.

It's a pure words game, void of meaning in the absence of reference in the real world. Metaphysics and theology easily get in that ethereal territory were empty words play hide and seek with one another.

People can talk of a "prime mover" till Kingdom come but they'll never nail one against the wall. If such a thing/entity/god exists, I doubt It considers Itself bound by the limits if the English language.

Thank you, Olivier. I hope you also do not find the meanings of the "musings" of igm and Fresco "screamingly obvious"...or for that matter, particularly meaningful or logical.

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

Frank Apisa wrote:

igm wrote:

Frank Apisa wrote:

Why can a thing not be both permanent and changing?

permanent

adjective
1.
lasting or intended to last or remain unchanged indefinitely.

You are asking me why something that is unchanging cannot also change?

Well...you may be right to suggest that a thing that is permanent cannot also change...I truly do not know.

You're not sure if something that is defined as not being able to change 'ever'...'may' be able to change???

1 Reply

@igm,

igm wrote:

Frank Apisa wrote:

igm wrote:

Frank Apisa wrote:

Why can a thing not be both permanent and changing?

permanent

adjective
1.
lasting or intended to last or remain unchanged indefinitely.

You are asking me why something that is unchanging cannot also change?

Well...you may be right to suggest that a thing that is permanent cannot also change...I truly do not know.

You're not sure if something that is defined as not being able to change 'ever'...'may' be able to change???

Correct.

And you should be also. Unsure, that is.

If the thing that is "unable to change"...is something that "is changing"...then the inability for it to change means that it will remain changing forever.

That is the conundrum I am pondering. (I acknowledge it is doing to my mind what trying to comprehend "nothingness" or "infinity" does to it.)

But I am giving it a go.

If you see the notion that something that is constantly changing might be unable to change that condition...as ludicrous or illogical...fine. I am having such difficulty with it that perhaps you are correct.

I will continue to consider it.

0 Replies

@Frank Apisa,

Quote:

Thank you, Olivier. I hope you also do not find the meanings of the "musings" of igm and Fresco "screamingly obvious"...or for that matter, particularly meaningful or logical.

The only thing that's screamingly obvious is how blissfully ignorant they are of their own ignorance. To think that the rules and idiosyncrasies of human language constrain an hypothetical 'prime mover' is absurd, and to look up in a English dictionary for how this prime mover must look like ("if He is permanent then He must be unchanging") , are exercises in futility.

If you want to know God, you have to look for Him in a FRENCH dictionary... Wink

1 Reply

@Olivier5,

No need as:

http://www.chantiers-philo.fr/wp-content/uploads/2011/10/9782846750851FS.gif

1 Reply

@timur,

Nietzsche est mort. That much is certain...

0 Replies

Regarding change, the right question to be asked is why space expands into nothingness once that is the original assumption and from there to question if expanding into nothingness makes any sense at all...
Precisely because I think it doesn't make the slightest sense that anything outside space time can happen including the very expansion of space time I rather think of space time expansion (with all that there is inside) as an effect we experience like characters in a film jumping from frame to frame instead of supposing the "film" grows into nothingness which is absurd.
From this perspective there is no real expansion happening as the whole film exists already with all space time cycle, although we as the characters inside the film, inside space time, have the experience of expansion and change being at work.
Now many of you may think this is bold speculation but to my view it is far less bold then supposing space can grow into nothingness.
Note please, don't confuse, I am not saying matter and inflation are not pushing space time outwards, what I am saying is that expansion itself is something else, I am saying that the experience of motion through space time and of space time itself is not what it seams. Its not free movement.

2 Replies

The Half-life of Facts.

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know