Evolution and Creationism. Are they really different?

[Shad]

Of course I have heard of these arguments, but I have used neither of them.

Yes you have. You brought up the First Cause argument which by default is also the Argument from Contingency.

I have not defined God as uncaused.

You personally did not create this definition but you have used it.

I have not drawn a conclusion. I am agnostic.

Yet this is contradict by the arguments for God you have used.

Definitions are not a game.

When applied to an entity such as gods yes it is.

If one defines insects in a way that excludes spiders, this does not entitle the person who disagrees with the definition to attack bystanders who point out that others have made that definition.

First off spiders are not insects and actually exist. You are not some bystander as you use this definition quite freely.

If someone says, "I believe in God" and that person's definition of God is "an uncaused cause" then one should argue about whether there is an uncaused cause rather than whether God is anthropomorphic.

I have not drawn any conclusions. I am agnostic.

You wouldn't by using arguments for God if this were true. There would be no point in doing so while maintaining the label.

I have not made any arguments. I have simply noted that the law of the excluded middle says that EITHER there is a God OR there is NOT a God. That's a simple statement of logic. I don't see why this calls for a massive knee-jerk diatribe.

You have made statements which I argue again. In regards to your LEM statement I would ask you define exists.

I do not favor a conclusion. I am agnostic.

Yet you only use arguments for God

I am not making a conclusion (much less jumping to one). I am agnostic.

Actually you have made a conclusion regarding my comment.

You do reject logic.

This is the conclusion you made yet denied making above.

The statement "Either God exists or it's not the case that God exists" is a simple statement of fundamental logic and one that you reject.

I never rejected LEM. Again the conclusion you made yet denied you have made.

I have posted no argument for God. I am agnostic.

Yet you post this

"If there is an uncaused thing and if we define that thing as God, then God exists.
Otherwise, God does not exist."

My skepticism is not radical. I am agnostic.

The trilemma is an argument for radical skeptic.

I certainly agree that people may label things effects that are not, in fact, effects. However, when I note that others have labeled things thus, it is not a call for a rant in which you claim that I hold opinions that I do not hold.

You made statements which contradict your label. I am pointing this out.

 

[Zosimus]

Yes you have. You brought up the First Cause argument which by default is also the Argument from Contingency.

Mentioning that an argument exists is not the same as supporting the argument.

You personally did not create this definition but you have used it.

Untrue.

Yet this is contradict by the arguments for God you have used.

I have not made any argument for God. He is but one of an infinite number of possible explanations for what we see around us.

When applied to an entity such as gods yes it is.

Do you also see the bogeyman every time you open your closet?

First off spiders are not insects and actually exist.

Only because they have been defined thus.

You are not some bystander as you use this definition quite freely.

I simply understand the arguments used by those taking positions on the field. You make it seem as though comprehending my rival's arguments is tantamount to endorsing them. This is not so.

 

[gnostic]

Causation requires time" only applies after the big bang. You cant apply same rules beyond the big bang. At the initial singularity, no time, no space, no matter and no physical laws existed. Yet the universe (an effect) was caused in "no time context". In other words, the cause for the big bang didn't involve time. See #875.

Wrong.

Big Bang predict the singularity, because it point to singularity.

HOWEVER, no one can say for what this singularity is, because science cannot observe the singularity.

You know that scientists for the Big Bang have estimated the universe is 13.798 billion years with margin of error of 0.037 billion years, since the Planck space probe. BUT of 13.798 billion years, 377,000 years are "unobservable", because the universe before 377,000 years, marks the time that the universe was opaque.

377,000 years after the Big Bang, marks the beginning of the Recombination epoch. Everything before the Recombination epoch - all the older epochs that the Big Bang cosmologists can explain, right up to the earliest epoch (known as the Planck's epoch) right up to the very instance of expansion beginning, are all hypothetical and theoretical.

Since all the epochs before the Recombination epoch divide the universe between opaque and transparent, this dividing line acts as a curtain, or what astronomers and astrophysicists called the "event horizon".

Do you know what this "Recombination epoch" is?

It is the time when electrons bonded with ionised atoms (ionised hydrogen atoms and ionised helium, the two lightest elements in the universe), thereby forming electrical-neutral and stable atoms.

While the universe consisted of ionised matters, the universe of this time (pre-Recombination era) was opaque and unobservable.

This binding effect that the Recombination epoch, had not only produced stable matters and made the universe transparent and observable, it also had another effect: it produced more energies that decoupled photons from matters. So the first light we that can see began 377,000 years after the Big Bang (note that I am referring to the "big bang" here as the beginning of expansion).

This is what the astrophysicists (Arno Penzias and Robert Wilson) were able to observe for the first time, in 1964, using radio telescope - the Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation (CMBR). And that's we could observed with the recent space telescopes -

• COBE (Cosmic Background Explorer, launched in 1989),
• WMAP (Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe, 2001 - 2010),
• and Planck space probe (2009 - 2013).

This CMBR was first predicted by Ralph Alpher and Robert Herman in 1948.

NASA and ESA (European Space Agency) are attempting to design and develop new space probes that are capable of observing epochs earlier than the Recombination epoch.

My point is, that if science cannot observe the beginning of expansion or the singularity, then how can YOU possibly know that there no space and time before the Big Bang?

Yes, yes, yes, (BB) cosmologists have predicted that space time began at this point, but they cannot verify this yet, just as they cannot observe and cannot verify what this "singularity" is. No one knows what this singularity is.

So you are jumping to conclusions with this whole God being "outside of time" and "First Cause", before even scientists know if there were space, time or anything before the Big Bang. You are just spinning your illogic rantings, not realising you jumping from one logical fallacy after another (circular reasoning, special pleading, moving the goalposts, etc).

 

[NoorNoor]

Wrong.

Big Bang predict the singularity, because it point to singularity.

HOWEVER, no one can say for what this singularity is, because science cannot observe the singularity.

You know that scientists for the Big Bang have estimated the universe is 13.798 billion years with margin of error of 0.037 billion years, since the Planck space probe. BUT of 13.798 billion years, 377,000 years are "unobservable", because the universe before 377,000 years, marks the time that the universe was opaque.

377,000 years after the Big Bang, marks the beginning of the Recombination epoch. Everything before the Recombination epoch - all the older epochs that the Big Bang cosmologists can explain, right up to the earliest epoch (known as the Planck's epoch) right up to the very instance of expansion beginning, are all hypothetical and theoretical.

Since all the epochs before the Recombination epoch divide the universe between opaque and transparent, this dividing line acts as a curtain, or what astronomers and astrophysicists called the "event horizon".

Do you know what this "Recombination epoch" is?

It is the time when electrons bonded with ionised atoms (ionised hydrogen atoms and ionised helium, the two lightest elements in the universe), thereby forming electrical-neutral and stable atoms.

While the universe consisted of ionised matters, the universe of this time (pre-Recombination era) was opaque and unobservable.

This binding effect that the Recombination epoch, had not only produced stable matters and made the universe transparent and observable, it also had another effect: it produced more energies that decoupled photons from matters. So the first light we that can see began 377,000 years after the Big Bang (note that I am referring to the "big bang" here as the beginning of expansion).

This is what the astrophysicists (Arno Penzias and Robert Wilson) were able to observe for the first time, in 1964, using radio telescope - the Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation (CMBR). And that's we could observed with the recent space telescopes -

• COBE (Cosmic Background Explorer, launched in 1989),
• WMAP (Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe, 2001 - 2010),
• and Planck space probe (2009 - 2013).

This CMBR was first predicted by Ralph Alpher and Robert Herman in 1948.

NASA and ESA (European Space Agency) are attempting to design and develop new space probes that are capable of observing epochs earlier than the Recombination epoch.

My point is, that if science cannot observe the beginning of expansion or the singularity, then how can YOU possibly know that there no space and time before the Big Bang?

Yes, yes, yes, (BB) cosmologists have predicted that space time began at this point, but they cannot verify this yet, just as they cannot observe and cannot verify what this "singularity" is. No one knows what this singularity is.

So you are jumping to conclusions with this whole God being "outside of time" and "First Cause", before even scientists know if there were space, time or anything before the Big Bang. You are just spinning your illogic rantings, not realising you jumping from one logical fallacy after another (circular reasoning, special pleading, moving the goalposts, etc).

You are making a contradiction.
You already agreed that BB predicts the singularity and that cosmologists have predicted that space time began at this point. Then, Why am I wrong?

No one is talking about confirmation nor a confirmation can be made.
It's about the mainstream (most probable) view of cosmologists about the initial singularity. Singularity is just a term. The true nature of it, is something undefined, beyond the limits of science and beyond the physical realm itself.

 

[gnostic]

You already agreed that BB predicts the singularity and that cosmologists have predicted that space time began at this point.

But they don't know what this singularity is.

Prediction is one thing, verifiable evidence is another.

Until the prediction has been verified and validated, then such a prediction is akin to guess work or speculation.

Prediction doesn't make it true, until the prediction has been confirmed, observed, verified or validated.

Cosmologists have also many other predictions regarding to different cosmologies. Some of these predictions have been wrong and debunked, like the Steady State cosmology, the Big Bang's rival during the 40s, 50s and 60s.

And then are prediction that have proof (mathematical equations or model), but no verifiable evidences. These are known as theoretical astrophysics, where scientists can prove the prediction with maths and logic, but the prediction are not verifiable (eg not observable, testable, measurable or has no evidences). Example of theoretical physics in cosmology, would be the Multiverse cosmology.

There are evidences for some parts of the Big Bang theory, like the Redshift as a mean to measure objects (like galaxies) moving away from another, hence the universe is expanding, and Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation (CMBR).

BUT there are parts of the BB theory that is theoretical only, like the earlier BB epochs.

For instance, BB predict the earliest epoch (Planck Epoch) in the Bang Bang, but they are able to verify if there prediction of the events in the Planck Epoch is true.
Another example would be the BB cosmologists have also predicted the cause of the universe accelerating due to Dark Energy, and yet they cannot observe Dark Energy.​

Do you now understand the difference between prediction and evidence?

I did not make any contradiction. It is just YOU, misunderstanding that prediction is true, when it hasn't been verified or tested.

 

[Zosimus]

But they don't know what this singularity is.

Prediction is one thing, verifiable evidence is another.

Until the prediction has been verified and validated, then such a prediction is akin to guess work or speculation.

Prediction doesn't make it true, until the prediction has been confirmed, observed, verified or validated.

Cosmologists have also many other predictions regarding to different cosmologies. Some of these predictions have been wrong and debunked, like the Steady State cosmology, the Big Bang's rival during the 40s, 50s and 60s.

And then are prediction that have proof (mathematical equations or model), but no verifiable evidences. These are known as theoretical astrophysics, where scientists can prove the prediction with maths and logic, but the prediction are not verifiable (eg not observable, testable, measurable or has no evidences). Example of theoretical physics in cosmology, would be the Multiverse cosmology.

There are evidences for some parts of the Big Bang theory, like the Redshift as a mean to measure objects (like galaxies) moving away from another, hence the universe is expanding, and Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation (CMBR).

BUT there are parts of the BB theory that is theoretical only, like the earlier BB epochs.

For instance, BB predict the earliest epoch (Planck Epoch) in the Bang Bang, but they are able to verify if there prediction of the events in the Planck Epoch is true.
Another example would be the BB cosmologists have also predicted the cause of the universe accelerating due to Dark Energy, and yet they cannot observe Dark Energy.​

Do you now understand the difference between prediction and evidence?

I did not make any contradiction. It is just YOU, misunderstanding that prediction is true, when it hasn't been verified or tested.

Once again, you embark down the failed road of verificationism. Surely you must be aware that thousands of statements are not verifiable but very meaningful. It cannot be verified, for example, that electrons exist. However, we should not conclude that a theory that includes these hypothetical particles is a meaningless one.

If a man goes to a psychologist and says, "I feel that my life is meaningless. I think I will poison my children and shoot myself," should the psychologist conclude that this statement, since unverifiable, is guess work and speculation?

Or should a paramedic confronted with a man who says he has shortness of breath and a wrenching pain down his left arm conclude that this information is unverifiable and thus unimportant?

Is a blind man justified in doubting that a moon exists because he is unable to see it? To him the object is unverifiable.

 

[gnostic]

If a man goes to a psychologist and says, "I feel that my life is meaningless. I think I will poison my children and shoot myself," should the psychologist conclude that this statement, since unverifiable, is guess work and speculation?

Or should a paramedic confronted with a man who says he has shortness of breath and a wrenching pain down his left arm conclude that this information is unverifiable and thus unimportant?

Is a blind man justified in doubting that a moon exists because he is unable to see it? To him the object is unverifiable.

This is stupid, Zosimus. You cannot simply give me examples without time to examine them or address them.

Each of the examples of yours, above, is pathetic, weak, and just an excuse for you to jump down on me points, which have nothing to do with science.

A blind man don't need to verify anything, especially if it is not his job as a scientist. So to ask a blind man to verify anything that he cannot observe with his own eyes, is asking to much from a man. Why would I ask a blind man to verify if the moon is real? Are you so pathetic, that you must use a blind man?

It would be like me to ask a person who deaf, if he can hear what his neighbor is doing with his guitar. No, Zosimus I would not ask a blind man if he could see the moon.

And psychology is what people called "soft science", in which psychologists examine people's behaviour, emotion and mental states. Each patient need to be examine for their individual needs.

A paramedic would have to listen to what a patient have to say, but at the same time, he would need to examine what symptoms are causing the patient's distress. It is stupid to say something unverifiable is unimportant.

Physics, chemistry, biology, astronomy, Earth science, etc are hard science, which don't deal with people emotional or mental states. You won't ask psychologists about how perform surgery on a patient's heart, any more than you would ask heart surgeon to psychoanalyse a person's psychological state.

And lastly, you are forgetting that observing in science don't necessary mean that a scientist have to "see" with his own eyes. For instance, a electrician or any specialist in electronics, don't need to see thing with his own, hear things with his ears or feel things with touch. People can use equipments or devices (eg multimeters or that can measure the current, voltage, resistance or power). Touching live wire is simply inviting electrocution.

Doctors, nurses often used electros on patients that are attached to device, that can monitor someone pulses and blood pressures. That's observation.

And, my reply with regarding to verification, using cosmology and astrophysics. Me and NoorNoor was talking about the Big Bang, and what constitute as evidences, and how they differ from predictions. None of your examples address what I was saying to NoorNoor, so we are talking about two different things. Perhaps if you address the Big Bang issue, then I wouldn't need to berate you for giving me unrelated examples.

I'd guess is just you trying to get me to get sidetracked or just you being YOU - a do### - sadistically attempting to move the goalposts.

 

[Zosimus]

This is stupid, Zosimus. You cannot simply give me examples without time to examine them or address them.

I have provided you with time to examine and address them. That's the point of the forum. You can take as much time as you like to think about something before posting.

Each of the examples of yours, above, is pathetic, weak, and just an excuse for you to jump down on me points, which have nothing to do with science.

I will ignore your personal and irrelevant personal attacks for a moment to simply point out that the examples given were the ones given in the God vs. Science debate (and related comments) between Nicholas Beale and Colin Howson, a debate found at http://www.prospectmagazine.co.uk/features/godandscience, which I stumbled upon after reading http://www.starcourse.org/discussion/DisAyer.html, and which I read with great interest.

A blind man don't need to verify anything, especially if it is not his job as a scientist. So to ask a blind man to verify anything that he cannot observe with his own eyes, is asking to much from a man. Why would I ask a blind man to verify if the moon is real? Are you so pathetic, that you must use a blind man?

Tut tut... calling me pathetic for quoting obvious refutations of verificationism. Really, you are extremely confused. You claim to support falsificationism, but as soon as one turns one's back, you're back wallowing in the mud of verificationism. Don't you understand that verificationism itself is unverifiable? I have tried to explain this simple concept to you, but you don't get it any more than you get the simple basic rules of English grammar. I had hoped that finding a third source to dumb the concept down for you might help you to reach an epiphany. Sadly, it seems that you have a mind like concrete: All mixed up and permanently set.

It would be like me to ask a person who deaf, if he can hear what his neighbor is doing with his guitar. No, Zosimus I would not ask a blind man if he could see the moon.

No, Gnostic -- it would be like a deaf man saying that sound does not and cannot exist because he cannot hear sound. That's the point.

And psychology is what people called "soft science", in which psychologists examine people's behaviour, emotion and mental states. Each patient need to be examine for their individual needs.

Completely irrelevant.

A paramedic would have to listen to what a patient have to say, but at the same time, he would need to examine what symptoms are causing the patient's distress. It is stupid to say something unverifiable is unimportant.

Any paramedic worth his salt would immediately conclude that the man was having a heart attack and would inject him with magnesium. The paramedic would not sit around pontificating on self-refuting philosophical systems.

Physics, chemistry, biology, astronomy, Earth science, etc are hard science, which don't deal with people emotional or mental states. You won't ask psychologists about how perform surgery on a patient's heart, any more than you would ask heart surgeon to psychoanalyse a person's psychological state.

Yes, but we're talking about a man who might (or might not) be having a heart attack, the symptoms of which are the pain in the left arm and shortness of breath, neither of which is confirmable.

And lastly, you are forgetting that observing in science don't necessary mean that a scientist have to "see" with his own eyes. For instance, a electrician or any specialist in electronics, don't need to see thing with his own, hear things with his ears or feel things with touch. People can use equipments or devices (eg multimeters or that can measure the current, voltage, resistance or power). Touching live wire is simply inviting electrocution.

Yes, that's exactly my point and one that seems completely lost on you whenever the topic strays outside your preconceived notions.

Doctors, nurses often used electros on patients that are attached to device, that can monitor someone pulses and blood pressures. That's observation.

Thank you for stating the obvious. I knew we had you around for some reason!

And, my reply with regarding to verification, using cosmology and astrophysics. Me and NoorNoor was talking about the Big Bang, and what constitute as evidences, and how they differ from predictions. None of your examples address what I was saying to NoorNoor, so we are talking about two different things. Perhaps if you address the Big Bang issue, then I wouldn't need to berate you for giving me unrelated examples.

No, the point is that the evidence doesn't matter except to the extent that said evidence might falsify the theory in question. No amount of verification (attempted or performed) is relevant to the theory. I can drop 100 rocks to show that Newton's Law of Gravity works, but that doesn't mean that it can predict gravitational lensing.

 

[viole]

If we agree to reject infinite regress, then we can see that a cause-effect chain would have 3 different categories.

"A"- first cause. the absolute beginning is a pure first cause. By definition "first" means nothing precedes (remember, we rejected infinite regression). At the beginning, no effect of any kind exists.

"B"- first effect an effect caused directly by the first cause. At this point, no other effect exists. "B" is unique in the sense that it was directly caused by the first cause in absence of any other effects.

"C"- effect/cause: typical item along the chain. Every effect is also a cause for other subsequent effects. "C" is typical in the sense that it was caused by a preceding effect like all other items along the chain. "C" exists/appears in a realm of effects.

Causality requires a time context only in "C" realm. Time didn't influence "B" and has absolutely no relevance to "A".

At the initial singularity, there was no time context, yet the universe appeared in no time context (category B). After this point, every thing is necessarily in category "C" in a strict adherence to a controlling environment of effects "physical laws"

There is no logical reason to reject infinite regress. I am not saying we are here because of infinite regress, I am saying that there are no sufficient reasons to exclude it a priori.

By the way, all your arguments assume a certain ontology of time in their premises. A pretty outdated one, actually (no pun intended). There are other ontologies of time, which are even more in agreement with modern physics, that render all your arguments obsololete. i am afraid.

Ciao

- viole

 

[NoorNoor]

There is no logical reason to reject infinite regress. I am not saying we are here because of infinite regress, I am saying that there are no sufficient reasons to exclude it a priori.

No, infinite regress is logically fallacious (homunculus fallacy). Every answer generates exact same question. It's an endless fallacy that explains nothing. Rather than providing an answer, the process keeps shifting the question backwards. A kind of process that lacks any explanatory value.

By the way, all your arguments assume a certain ontology of time in their premises. A pretty outdated one, actually (no pun intended). There are other ontologies of time, which are even more in agreement with modern physics, that render all your arguments obsololete. i am afraid.

The initial singularity arises directly from the mathematics of the general relativity. the 13.8 billion years, is a widely accepted age of the universe. Beyond the beginning of expansion, it was an initial singularity.
Yes, there are many variant theories today but the view of the initial singularity is still the mainstream view.

I understand you don't agree. What's your view?

 

[Zosimus]

Viole doesn't exclude infinite regress? Hmm... perhaps next she'll front a defense of circular reasoning.

 

[viole]

Viole doesn't exclude infinite regress? Hmm... perhaps next she'll front a defense of circular reasoning.

Nope. How so? Show me how accepting infinite regress as a logical possibility, not necessarily a nomological one, entails circular reasoning. Or how the two things are related.

Thrill me with your acumen.

Ciao

- viole

 

[viole]

No, infinite regress is logically fallacious (homunculus fallacy). Every answer generates exact same question. It's an endless fallacy that explains nothing. Rather than providing an answer, the process keeps shifting the question backwards. A kind of process that lacks any explanatory value.

Nope. It explains everything. Everything that exists would be explained by its antecedent. Without exceptions. No questions whatsoever. At least no begging ones. I could say that is the way it is, a brute fact that does not require further explanations, in the same way God, or any uncaused first cause, is the way it is and does not require further explanations.

So, what is your edge?

Remember: this is just for the sake of the discussion. i do not even believe in fundamental causality, not to speak of infinite causality.

The initial singularity arises directly from the mathematics of the general relativity. the 13.8 billion years, is a widely accepted age of the universe. Beyond the beginning of expansion, it was an initial singularity.
Yes, there are many variant theories today but the view of the initial singularity is still the mainstream view.

I understand you don't agree. What's your view?

Singularity is the name we give to "what we do not know", since our physical theories break at those regimes. And that is a good thing if you are a physicist looking for an interesting job.

So, I am not sure what your point is. That the mainstream view is: we do not know?

Ciao

- viole

 

[Zosimus]

Nope. How so? Show me how accepting infinite regress as a logical possibility, not necessarily a nomological one, entails circular reasoning. Or how the two things are related.

Thrill me with your acumen.

Ciao

- viole

What I can easily show is that your reading comprehension skills are so inadequate that you can barely follow the conversation. The quoted message is a case in point.

 

[viole]

What I can easily show is that your reading comprehension skills are so inadequate that you can barely follow the conversation. The quoted message is a case in point.

Which does not address my question how infinite regress and circular reasoning are related. Or how you came from "accepting the possibility of infinite regress" to "making a case for circular reasoning".

Unless you write things with random or incoherent associations, of course.

So, your case is..,,?

Ciao

- viole

 

[Zosimus]

Which does not address my question how infinite regress and circular reasoning are related. Or how you came from "accepting the possibility of infinite regress" to "making a case for circular reasoning".

Unless you write things with random or incoherent associations, of course.

So, your case is..,,?

Ciao

- viole

Since I never said that infinite regress and circular reasoning were related (beyond the fact that both are logically indefensible), I don't see how I need to go beyond the idea that a person who is willing to defend infinite regress is willing to defend anything.

 

[NoorNoor]

Nope. It explains everything. Everything that exists would be explained by its antecedent

In other words, Everything that exists would be explained by causal factors in its past. Are you sure? That necessarily means you totally believe in causality, to the contrary to your statement below that you don't?

Without exceptions

Meaning, Nothing is causeless. Again, Its a confirmation of your belief in causality. Which clearly contradicts your statement "a brute fact that does not require further explanations (cause)"?

No questions whatsoever. At least no begging ones. I could say that is the way it is, a brute fact that does not require further explanations, in the same way God, or any uncaused first cause, is the way it is and does not require further explanations.

You don't really believe in any "brute fact that does not require further explanations". Not at all. If you do, then why you keep going backwards in an infinite regression? You believe "Everything that exists would be explained by its antecedent". You don't believe in any causeless fact.

You favor infinite regression essentially because it gives a causal factor in the past for every effect. All your items are finite/caused. There is no single infinite/causeless item. There is no absolute fact.

So, what is your edge?

Causality is a fundamental fact. Both classical physics and the theory of relativity confirm causality. all laws of physics and the general relativity itself break down at the initial singularity. Similarly, causality breaks down at the singularity. The beginning is logically a cause not an effect. The cause (first) is a causeless fact. An absolute fact.

Remember: this is just for the sake of the discussion. i do not even believe in fundamental causality, not to speak of infinite causality.

You do strongly believe in causality "without exception". In addition, Your statements "Everything that exists would be explained by its antecedent" clearly show your belief in "infinite causality". You are being illogical,
You started saying that infinite regression explains everything and now you don't believe in infinite causality?

Singularity is the name we give to "what we do not know", since our physical theories break at those regimes. And that is a good thing if you are a physicist looking for an interesting job

Sure we know it's a point where physical laws break down, we know it's the limit of our physical realm. We know it's a point beyond which, the non-physical beyond our limit of knowledge, exists.

So, I am not sure what your point is. That the mainstream view is: we do not know?

Its not a point, it's a fact. We don't know. In other words, we know this is our threshold of knowledge of the physical world. We can point to the fact that, what we can neither know/understand does exist.

 

[viole]

Since I never said that infinite regress and circular reasoning were related (beyond the fact that both are logically indefensible), I don't see how I need to go beyond the idea that a person who is willing to defend infinite regress is willing to defend anything.

Well, then show to me how infinite regress would be indefensible. Independently from whether I believe it or not.
At the moment, I am just reading empty proclaims without any substance.

Ciao

- viole

 

[viole]

In other words, Everything that exists would be explained by causal factors in its past. Are you sure? That necessarily means you totally believe in causality, to the contrary to your statement below that you don't?

Meaning, Nothing is causeless. Again, Its a confirmation of your belief in causality. Which clearly contradicts your statement "a brute fact that does not require further explanations (cause)"?

I am playing the role of defender of infinite regress here. What I believe about causality is not relevant, in this role.

You don't really believe in any "brute fact that does not require further explanations". Not at all. If you do, then why you keep going backwards in an infinite regression? You believe "Everything that exists would be explained by its antecedent". You don't believe in any causeless fact.

Ditto. I would just like to know what is so outlandish about infinite regress.

You favor infinite regression essentially because it gives a causal factor in the past for every effect. All your items are finite/caused. There is no single infinite/causeless item. There is no absolute fact.

I am not favoring anything. For instance, I do not believe in superman, but I could defend the logical possibility of superman. So, what is so illogical about infinite regress?

Causality is a fundamental fact. Both classical physics and the theory of relativity confirm causality. all laws of physics and the general relativity itself break down at the initial singularity. Similarly, causality breaks down at the singularity. The beginning is logically a cause not an effect. The cause (first) is a causeless fact. An absolute fact.

I can easily show you how causality might not exist at fundamental level. But that would be material for another thread. Here I would like to know what is so irrational about infinite regress, if causality exists. Maybe you are right, but you have to show it to me. I am sure you do not expect I accept your proclaims without challenge.

You do strongly believe in causality "without exception". In addition, Your statements "Everything that exists would be explained by its antecedent" clearly show your belief in "infinite causality". You are being illogical,
You started saying that infinite regression explains everything and now you don't believe in infinite causality?

Again, your are confusing what I really think with what I could defend.

Sure we know it's a point where physical laws break down, we know it's the limit of our physical realm. We know it's a point beyond which, the non-physical beyond our limit of knowledge, exists.

Its not a point, it's a fact. We don't know. In other words, we know this is our threshold of knowledge of the physical world. We can point to the fact that, what we can neither know/understand does exist.

Nope. We don't know to have reached the limits of our physical realm, whatever that means. After all, physicists are spending a lot of time and money (including a bit of your taxes) to study exactly that. So, this claim of yours is wishful thinking and question begging. It assumes that there are limits to the physical realm. Maybe there are, maybe there are not.

What I know is that history is full of people who claimed we reached the limits of naturalistic explanations, just to be proven wrong a few decades later.

Ciao

- viole

 

[Etritonakin]

I have wondered if reality was quite similar to the new virtual reality -and it seems reasonable to me.

Within virtual reality, simple on and off states can be arranged to represent anything -and be perceived as anything -and to interact in any imaginable manner based on arrangement.

If we consider what makes one element different from another in reality, we see that they are composed of the same things -but in a different arrangement which changes how they act, interact and are perceived by us.

It is now believed by some that the most basic elementary particles have been found -but perhaps even they are composed of that which cannot be identified as a particle, just as an atom is composed of that which cannot be identified as an element.
Perhaps they are composed of -or compose, if they are the most basic -what would more accurately be called data.
I don't see that everything could be composed purely of information -as information must be represented by something -but it seems logical that everything is the same basic thing in different formations -or patterns of information.

Information:
2 what is conveyed or represented by a particular arrangement or sequence of things.

It seems logical to me that everything be reducible to the most simple thing which could represent some sort of on or off (or positive and negative) states -and some force to cause or generate on and off states which could then develop into patterns -so on and so forth....

...which would mean that everything is essentially exactly the same thing in various arrangements -including ourselves.

The logic used to create virtual reality is based on two states -on/off -1/0 -yes/no...
...which are then fed through simple logic gates which -in turn -produce either of two states based on multiple inputs of either of two states.... so on and so forth....

It is also interesting that this logic is represented as the basis for good and evil -existence and creation -in various philosophies and religions.....

(...the Taijitu [diagram of the supreme ultimate] of Taoism,

Matt 5:37 But let your ‘Yes’ be ‘Yes,’ and your ‘No,’ ‘No.’ For whatever is more than these is from the evil one.

.....etc.)