Proving logic can't explain existence

[Aupmanyav]

To be honest I feel sorry for you. You could witness a miracle with your own eyes and you would deny it saying well maybe in a thousand years when I'm dead they will be able to explain it.....

Don't feel sorry for me. I am perfectly happy the way I am not believing in an eternal life, also not believing in any reincarnation. I have lived a full life with all its up and downs. Of course, humanity will do many things after I am no more. They will go to Mars, perhaps have a station there. They will know many more secrets of the universe, just like we know more than what people knew in the first Century of the Christian Era. BUT, I refuse to be a part of any untruth. If you can, provide me the evidence.

 

[Hellbound Serpiente]

Why not?

This is an argument I have seen a lot and, frankly, it just seems like an expectation that the infinite acts like the finite. But, it doesn't.

At any point in time, an infinite time interval had already passed. There is no 'start'.

I don't mean to infer, but don't you think it is absurd to treat an imaginary concept [infinity] as real? Infinity is just an idea in our brains [useful in legitimate contexts], there is no such thing as infinity in the real world.

OK, so?

Let's say [hypothetically] if we were to go infinite years ahead of times, it would be impossible to go back to our times as that would require infinite numbers of years to get back to where we are now. Now, let's reverse this. Same logic applies. It does seems more rational that infinite past is a better alternative because the latter alternative [that infinite time interval] have this huge unexplainable, assumption that we can reach where we are now after infinite time interval.

So don't approach it. Maybe it just is.

Possible. Like I said, we don't know. I agree with you to some extent. But don't you think that maybe there was a beginning is more probable?

Let's see. No matter, no energy, no space, no time. We do assume the laws of physics. Is that nothing or something?

Even if I agree with you here, don't you think that it is more sensible to believe that [nothingness which gave birth to] something with unchanging laws and constants requires a sentient, intelligent, creative, efficient agent to keep and maintain it that orderly way? Even if I agree that something was born from nothing [which, I don't know, I don't think there's any concrete proof to it], isn't it rational to think that the order in which things are kept in our world require intelligence?

If anything, it is a LOT less than assuming an eternal deity to get things going. That isn't nothing either.

But it does have it's own unexplainable assumptions.

 

[Polymath257]

You already know the answer to this bud. Go to the first cause and what caused it?

Why do you assume there was a cause?

Besides, we were talking about an infinite regress, in which case there is no first cause. Every cause (in that case) has a preceding one.

 

[Polymath257]

I don't mean to infer, but don't you think it is absurd to treat an imaginary concept [infinity] as real? Infinity is just an idea in our brains [useful in legitimate contexts], there is no such thing as infinity in the real world.

Well, it seems to me that you are assuming that there is nothing infinite in the real world. I see no reason why space cannot be infinite in extent, or time infinite in duration.

Let's say [hypothetically] if we were to go infinite years ahead of times, it would be impossible to go back to our times as that would require infinite numbers of years to get back to where we are now. Now, let's reverse this. Same logic applies. It does seems more rational that infinite past is a better alternative because the latter alternative [that infinite time interval] have this huge unexplainable, assumption that we can reach where we are now after infinite time interval.

You are making some unfounded assumptions in both directions.

Just because time is infinite into the future, it need not be the case that there is some time an actual infinite duration into the future. It may simply be that there is no end to time.

In the same way, an infinite past does NOT mean there is a time that was infinitely far in the past. Any actual time would be only finitely far into the past, but there was always a previous time.

This is one of those situations where people assume infinite durations act like finite ones. A finite duration always has a start and a stop. That need not be the case for infinite durations.

Possible. Like I said, we don't know. I agree with you to some extent. But don't you think that maybe there was a beginning is more probable?

No, actually. I think it more plausible/probable that there was no beginning at all.

Even if I agree with you here, don't you think that it is more sensible to believe that [nothingness which gave birth to] something with unchanging laws and constants requires a sentient, intelligent, creative, efficient agent to keep and maintain it that orderly way?

No. In fact, quite the opposite. I think that a sentience requires those unchanging laws to be able to function.

Even if I agree that something was born from nothing [which, I don't know, I don't think there's any concrete proof to it], isn't it rational to think that the order in which things are kept in our world require intelligence?

No. In fact, quite the opposite. I find it far more likely that there are orderly laws because things have properties (including nothingness). Intelligence is something that arises *far* later, once there are complex atoms, molecules, and biology.

It seems to me that intelligence requires physical laws and not the other way around.

But it does have it's own unexplainable assumptions.

The big mystery is ultimately why there is something rather than nothing. But, in that context, causality makes no sense, so the 'why' question has no answer. Existence 'just is'.

 

[McBell]

I don't mean to infer, but don't you think it is absurd to treat an imaginary concept [infinity] as real? Infinity is just an idea in our brains [useful in legitimate contexts], there is no such thing as infinity in the real world.

Sweet.
Then you know the last digit of pi, right?

Not to mention the last numerical value between the number 4 and five....

 

[firedragon]

I'm not a science nerd, but I read that energy has no beginning or end. It has always existed. It's not a mystery or unknown so far we know how it works from physics and so forth. We also know that different types of energy sustains and motivates life and things on earth (take that as ye will). So, in that respect, there is no beginning or end.

As for source, I wouldn't call energy source. It makes it sound like a fixed thing (or being, or so have you) that has a hand or guides the making of things. Instead, I'd say (if you see the stars for example) everything is shaped into and out of being. The formation of the physical universe. The creation of a child from sperm and egg. Things burst and things develop. Recycled. So, if there is a source it's the "act of" formation (playdoing I guess) not the act of creation.

As for it being a mystery, I disagree that the source (the act of) is a mystery. We do study the movement of what makes stars et cetera. So, it's a mystery on our part but not of itself; it just is.

As for it being magical, I would not say so. Mystery I understand to an extent since we don't know everything about how things form into and out of existence and the mechanisms of that motion, but magical? Sounds like a Disney movie. Fantasia comes to mind.

What if God is not magical?

 

[Hellbound Serpiente]

Well, it seems to me that you are assuming that there is nothing infinite in the real world.

Not really, I am making no assumptions. I am just bringing light to the fact that infinity [and “2”s and “4”s and “2+2” etc.] are just our imaginary concepts that we created to deal with reality. There are no infinity and 2+2’s outside in reality. Pretty much like how certain buttons, let’s say x, in joysticks are our creation to manage video games are outside the [canon, story] of video games reality, something constructed to help us control and manage our playing of the game. In the canon and storyline of the game, the “please press the x button to attack/jump/etc.” doesn’t exists. The characters don’t press “x” or any button to jump in the canon of the story/saga.

I personally do think that there is something infinite. I feel like God is Infinite. But even if I agree with you, the [totality of] space are not in our [observable] real world. It’s far beyond the model of reality that we can perceive. We cannot [at least not yet] reach the corners of space. As such, it is impossible for us to determine whether space truly is infinite or not. We can’t measure the immeasurable. So, I see no reason to assume that it is infinite. It’s just another [and a very counterintuitive, I must say (since not only is infinite an imaginary concept, but we are yet to find infinite entities in our model of reality)] assumption.

I see no reason why space cannot be infinite in extent, or time infinite in duration.

And I see no reason why The Holy Qur’an cannot be incontestable and unassailable in it’s unique literary and linguistic features. Would it be rational for me to jump to conclusion that it truly is such? Isn’t that an assumption too [and a very groundless one since we are yet to make a thorough assessment of it]? I see no reason why Social Darwinism cannot be sufficiently [or, dare I say, completely] accurate in it’s implications. Should I start believing it?

You are making some unfounded assumptions in both directions.

Those assumptions are present in the option of reaching a certain time duration despite of time being infinite. I am not making any assumptions, I am just using the assumption underlying that argument.

Just because time is infinite into the future, it need not be the case that there is some time an actual infinite duration into the future. It may simply be that there is no end to time.

In the same way, an infinite past does NOT mean there is a time that was infinitely far in the past.

In that case, we have to make another [baseless] assumption it is possible to reach a certain duration in time despite of countless previous time coming before it [and after it (if we are traveling in the other direction)] in infinite future/past.

Any actual time would be only finitely far into the past, but there was always a previous time.

And what if we want to reach the duration of time that is always a previous [to other times]?

I feel like we are arguing in circles here. I think the better answer is I don’t know. However, I still standby that infinite time have more baseless assumptions than finite.

This is one of those situations where people assume infinite durations act like finite ones.

Again, I am not assuming anything. I am just willing to place my bets on the finite durations being a better choice than the infinite durations because infinite durations explanation have many baseless assumptions underpinning it.

A finite duration always has a start and a stop. That need not be the case for infinite durations.

Just because there isn’t a need for it to be, doesn’t mean it isn't there. I personally feel like religions are unneeded, but they are a reality. Unfortunately, they exists. Sure, that need not be the case for infinite durations, but how does it prove there truly isn’t such a thing?

But I do agree with you to some extent. I am extremely uneducated in the subject of infinity and mathematics [and science in general]. These subjects has driven some of the greatest minds in history to insanity. I don’t think I am qualified enough to make a healthy assessment of it.

Well No, actually. I think it more plausible/probable that there was no beginning at all.

Why do you think it is more far likely to have occurred when it requires just as much [if not more] unverifiable and senseless speculation?

Well No. In fact, quite the opposite. I think that a sentience requires those unchanging laws to be able to function.

I think you got me twisted here. I do feel like I made a poor choice of word. What I meant something like universe [which I personally feel like a folding and unfolding mass], a continuous automatic system [which is born out of quantum chaos] needing a sentient, conscious, focused, perceptive, intelligent, accurate, creative agent to create, maintain and operate unchanging laws and constants to keep it running in an effective, orderly way unlike the chaotic way the quantum world functions [from which it is born]. I personally don’t think chaos breeds anything other than chaos. To think that order is born out of chaos sounds counterintuitive]

Also, besides that, I don’t mean to argue, with all due respect, I personally feel BOTH are needed. Pretty much like to consistently smooth, safe, guided, ordered proficient car-driving needs both a sentient, conscious, focused, perceptive, intelligent, accurate, creative and overall expert and proficient car-driver AS WELL AS mechanical and operational mechanism of the car. If there is no [and/or poor] driver and/or mechanics, the driving will be poor and lead to destruction. If someone tells me that they have seen a consistent show of effective car-driving in absence of a [effective] driver and the mechanics of the car, I’d find that to be senseless. I’d have to make baseless assumptions for believing that since it is counterintuitive. This is where I find both the believers and non-believers in fine-tuning to be too extremes in their views. Both are flawed to some extent while both also make good points.

Well No. In fact, quite the opposite. I find it far more likely that there are orderly laws because things have properties (including nothingness). Intelligence is something that arises *far* later, once there are complex atoms, molecules, and biology.

Doesn’t quantum objects and entities have properties too? Correct me if I am wrong here, I am extremely ignorant of quantum realm and quantum mechanics. Why is there such chaos in quantum world which does have things with properties too?

And I wasn’t talking about intelligence in our world. Intelligence may have risen later in our world, but that doesn’t necessarily mean there was no intelligence at all.

The big mystery is ultimately why there is something rather than nothing. But, in that context, causality makes no sense, so the 'why' question has no answer. Existence 'just is'.

Well, I guess we’ll agree to disagree. I feel like causality is a safer bet than the alternative. It requires just as much [if not more] wild speculation.

Sweet.

Then you know the last digit of pi, right?

Not to mention the last numerical value between the number 4 and five....

Do I have to? And even if I don't know it [and/or it is unknowable to us], doesn't mean it is infinite. Let's assume there is an omniscient, all-knowing God. Who's to say He won't know it? Our inability to know something doesn't mean that something is unknowable and/or infinite and/or nothing and/or non-existent etc. etc. etc. Perhaps our inability to accurately pin-point the exact value of pi [and the last numerical value between the number 4 and five] is because:

1. We are short-sighted and don't have the effective tools necessary to pin-point it.

2. Our self-constructed concepts and/or it's functions and/or our way of functioning with them have inherent flaws.

There are many other better alternatives.

 

[McBell]

Do I have to? And even I don't know it [and/or it is unknowable to us], doesn't mean it is infinite. Let's assume there is an omniscient, all-knowing God. Who's to say He won't know it? Our inability to know something doesn't mean that something is unknowable and/or infinite and/or nothing and/or non-existent etc. etc. etc. Perhaps our inability to accurately pin-point the exact value of pi [and the last numerical value between the number 4 and five] is because:

1. We are short-sighted and don't have the effective tools necessary to pin-point it.

2. Our self-constructed concepts and/or it's functions and/or our way of functioning with them have inherent flaws.

There are many other better alternatives.

You really should work on your back peddling.
Or perhaps you should brush up on all that infinite means and stands for?

 

[Hellbound Serpiente]

This is quite off topic, but I will talk to you about Karma [...]

I want to talk about this too, because it would more elaborate on my opinion that unchanging laws that makes something unchaotic and orderly to be born out of chaos and disorders needing a sentient, conscious, focused, perceptive, intelligent, accurate, creative agent to create, maintain and operate those unchanging laws along with that unchaotic system.

Law of karma and other unchanging SPIRITUAL laws might give me a good analogous example to further elaborate why it needs such an agent that I described.

There are no moral laws because there is nobody that is going to judge you except for yourself.

Morals are like time, they are just man made concepts. Morals were invented by humans because they help us survive here, but you can clearly see that the animals don't follow our morals.

I disagree. Pretty much how sun doesn't revolve around the earth, I believe spiritual laws don't revolve around my beliefs, and they are true, existing reality in the real world.

However, I am a bit tired right now as I've working the whole day and just wrote a wall o' text above.

 

[Hellbound Serpiente]

You really should work on your back peddling.
Or perhaps you should brush up on all that infinite means and stands for?

Sweet.
Then you know exactly what I am back peddling on, right?

Not to mention my exact miscomprehension about what infinite means and stands for....

 

[McBell]

Sweet.
Then you know exactly what I am back peddling on, right?

Not to mention my exact miscomprehension about what infinite means and stands for....

You are the one claiming infinity does not exist.
In fact you said:

there is no such thing as infinity in the real world.

So how about you show that pi is not infinite.
Of course, you will need to show the last digit to so.
And please show your math.

don't worry about the second one.
I suspect you will be to busy back peddling away from the first one.

 

[Polymath257]

And I see no reason why The Holy Qur’an cannot be incontestable and unassailable in it’s unique literary and linguistic features. Would it be rational for me to jump to conclusion that it truly is such? Isn’t that an assumption too [and a very groundless one since we are yet to make a thorough assessment of it]? I see no reason why Social Darwinism cannot be sufficiently [or, dare I say, completely] accurate in it’s implications. Should I start believing it?

Let me put it this way. There is no *logical* reason why time cannot be infinite into either the future or the past.

Those assumptions are present in the option of reaching a certain time duration despite of time being infinite. I am not making any assumptions, I am just using the assumption underlying that argument.

What is the difficulty of 'reaching a certain time duration despite time being infinite'?

The whole point is that there is no beginning, so it isn't necessary to traverse an infinite amount of time. Time is just always there.

In that case, we have to make another [baseless] assumption it is possible to reach a certain duration in time despite of countless previous time coming before it [and after it (if we are traveling in the other direction)] in infinite future/past.

Again, it isn't a matter of 'reaching' because there is no start.

And what if we want to reach the duration of time that is always a previous [to other times]?

Huh?

I feel like we are arguing in circles here. I think the better answer is I don’t know. However, I still standby that infinite time have more baseless assumptions than finite.

And I see the finiteness assumption as being far more baseless. It is an assumption that there is a first. And there is no good reason for assuming that.

Again, I am not assuming anything. I am just willing to place my bets on the finite durations being a better choice than the infinite durations because infinite durations explanation have any baseless assumptions underpinning it.

No duration is infinite: any two points in time have only a finite duration between them.

Just because there isn’t a need for it to be, doesn’t mean there isn’t. I personally feel like religions are unneeded, but they are a reality. Unfortunately, they exists. Sure, that need not be the case for infinite durations, but how does it prove there truly isn’t such a thing?

Once again, time being infinite into the past does not mean there is an infinite duration between some two times.

But I do agree with you to some extent. I am extremely uneducated in the subject of infinity and mathematics [and science in general]. These subjects has driven some of the greatest minds in history to insanity. I don’t think I am qualified enough to make a healthy assessment of it.

OK. Ignorance is curable.

Why do you think it is more far likely to have occurred when it requires just as much [if not more] unverifiable and senseless speculation?

I disagree. To assume there is a beginning makes the assumption that there is a first time. No such assumption is made if there is no beginning.

I think you got me twisted here. I do feel like I made a poor choice of word. What I meant something like universe [which I personally feel like a folding and unfolding mass], a continuous automatic system [which is born out of quantum chaos] needing a sentient, conscious, focused, perceptive, intelligent, accurate, creative agent to create, maintain and operate unchanging laws and constants to keep it running in an effective, orderly way unlike the chaotic way the quantum world functions [from which it is born]. I personally don’t think chaos breeds anything other than chaos. To think that order is born out of chaos sounds counterintuitive]

And, again, to be an intelligence requires a complex collection of pre-conditions, which are, in essence, laws of nature.

The laws are needed to support the existence of an intelligence, not the other way around. The laws are automatic. The intelligence is dependent. At least, that seems like the most plausible scenario to me.

Doesn’t quantum objects and entities have properties too? Correct me if I am wrong here, I am extremely ignorant of quantum realm and quantum mechanics. Why is there such chaos in quantum world which does have things with properties too?

And I wasn’t talking about intelligence in our world. Intelligence may have risen later in our world, but that doesn’t necessarily mean there was no intelligence at all.

And why would there be intelligence without laws to allow for the complexities of intelligence?

Well, I guess we’ll agree to disagree. I feel like it is a causality safer bet than the alternative. It requires just as much [if not more] wild speculation.

It seems to me that the assumption that there is a first cause is far more 'unsafe' than the hypothesis that there was none.

Do I have to? And even I don't know it [and/or it is unknowable to us], doesn't mean it is infinite. Let's assume there is an omniscient, all-knowing God. Who's to say He won't know it? Our inability to know something doesn't mean that something is unknowable and/or infinite and/or nothing and/or non-existent etc. etc. etc. Perhaps our inability to accurately pin-point the exact value of pi [and the last numerical value between the number 4 and five] is because:

1. We are short-sighted and don't have the effective tools necessary to pin-point it.

2. Our self-constructed concepts and/or it's functions and/or our way of functioning with them have inherent flaws.

There are many other better alternatives.

No, the point is NOT that we don't know the last digit of pi. The point is that there *is* no last digit of pi. And we *know* there is no last digit.

We *can* accurately 'pin point' the value of pi. It's just that the value isn't a rational number. We can also pin point the value of the square root of 2 even though it isn't a rational number.

 

[Polymath257]

You are the one claiming infinity does not exist.
In fact you said:

So how about you show that pi is not infinite.
Of course, you will need to show the last digit to so.
And please show your math.

don't worry about the second one.
I suspect you will be to busy back peddling away from the first one.

Just a correction: pi is a finite number. It is between 3 and 4.

The *decimal expansion* of pi is infinite. But it is very far from being the only number with this property: the decimal expansion of 1/3 is also infinite.

 

[Polymath257]

Sweet.
Then you know exactly what I am back peddling on, right?

Not to mention my exact miscomprehension about what infinite means and stands for....

Well, to be fair, there are several different, independent, concept of 'infinity'. The one currently being used is that of being unbounded.

 

[Hellbound Serpiente]

PI is just another mathematical constant, and mathematic is our human construct. There is no maths and 2+2 outside human brain. I already said in my previous post that mathematics is not universal and does not exist in real sense, but is a tool we created to deal with our reality.

 

[paarsurrey]

Not really, I am making no assumptions. I am just bringing light to the reality that infinity [and “2”s and “4”s and “2+2” etc.] are just our imaginary concepts that we created to deal with reality. There are no infinity and 2+2’s outside in reality. Pretty much like how certain buttons, let’s say x, in joysticks are our creation to manage video games are outside the [canon, story] of video games reality, something constructed to help us control and manage our playing of the game. In the canon and storyline of the game, the “please press the x button to attack/jump/etc.” doesn’t exists. The characters don’t press “x” or any button to jump in the canon of the story/saga.

I personally do think actually there is something infinite. I feel like God is Infinite. But even if I agree with you, the [totality of] space are not in our real world. It’s far beyond the model of reality that we can perceive. We cannot [at least not yet] reach the corners of space. As such, it is impossible for us to determine whether space truly is infinite or not. We can’t measure the immeasurable. So, I see no reason to assume that it is infinite. It’s just another [and a very counterintuitive, I must say (since not only is infinite an imaginary concept, but we are yet to find infinite entities in our model of reality)] assumption.

And I see no reason why The Holy Qur’an cannot be incontestable and unassailable in it’s unique literary and linguistic features. Would it be rational for me to jump to conclusion that it truly is such? Isn’t that an assumption too [and a very groundless one since we are yet to make a thorough assessment of it]? I see no reason why Social Darwinism cannot be sufficiently [or, dare I say, completely] accurate in it’s implications. Should I start believing it?

Those assumptions are present in the option of reaching a certain time duration despite of time being infinite. I am not making any assumptions, I am just using the assumption underlying that argument.

In that case, we have to make another [baseless] assumption it is possible to reach a certain duration in time despite of countless previous time coming before it [and after it (if we are traveling in the other direction)] in infinite future/past.

And what if we want to reach the duration of time that is always a previous [to other times]?

I feel like we are arguing in circles here. I think the better answer is I don’t know. However, I still standby that infinite time have more baseless assumptions than finite.

Again, I am not assuming anything. I am just willing to place my bets on the finite durations being a better choice than the infinite durations because infinite durations explanation have any baseless assumptions underpinning it.

Just because there isn’t a need for it to be, doesn’t mean there isn’t. I personally feel like religions are unneeded, but they are a reality. Unfortunately, they exists. Sure, that need not be the case for infinite durations, but how does it prove there truly isn’t such a thing?

But I do agree with you to some extent. I am extremely uneducated in the subject of infinity and mathematics [and science in general]. These subjects has driven some of the greatest minds in history to insanity. I don’t think I am qualified enough to make a healthy assessment of it.

Why do you think it is more far likely to have occurred when it requires just as much [if not more] unverifiable and senseless speculation?

I think you got me twisted here. I do feel like I made a poor choice of word. What I meant something like universe [which I personally feel like a folding and unfolding mass], a continuous automatic system [which is born out of quantum chaos] needing a sentient, conscious, focused, perceptive, intelligent, accurate, creative agent to create, maintain and operate unchanging laws and constants to keep it running in an effective, orderly way unlike the chaotic way the quantum world functions [from which it is born]. I personally don’t think chaos breeds anything other than chaos. To think that order is born out of chaos sounds counterintuitive]

Also, besides that, I don’t mean to argue, with all due respect, I personally feel BOTH are needed. Pretty much like to consistently smooth, safe, guided, ordered proficient car-driving needs both a sentient, conscious, focused, perceptive, intelligent, accurate, creative and overall expert and proficient car-driver AS WELL AS mechanical and operational mechanism of the car. If there is no [and/or poor] driver and/or mechanics, the driving will be poor and lead to destruction. If someone tells me that they have seen a consistent show of effective car-driving in absence of a [effective] driver and the mechanics of the car, I’d find that to be senseless. I’d have to make baseless assumptions for believing that since it is counterintuitive. This is where I find both the believers and non-believers in fine-tuning to be too extremes in their views. Both are flawed to some extent while both also make good points.

Doesn’t quantum objects and entities have properties too? Correct me if I am wrong here, I am extremely ignorant of quantum realm and quantum mechanics. Why is there such chaos in quantum world which does have things with properties too?

And I wasn’t talking about intelligence in our world. Intelligence may have risen later in our world, but that doesn’t necessarily mean there was no intelligence at all.

Well, I guess we’ll agree to disagree. I feel like it is a causality safer bet than the alternative. It requires just as much [if not more] wild speculation.

Do I have to? And even I don't know it [and/or it is unknowable to us], doesn't mean it is infinite. Let's assume there is an omniscient, all-knowing God. Who's to say He won't know it? Our inability to know something doesn't mean that something is unknowable and/or infinite and/or nothing and/or non-existent etc. etc. etc. Perhaps our inability to accurately pin-point the exact value of pi [and the last numerical value between the number 4 and five] is because:

1. We are short-sighted and don't have the effective tools necessary to pin-point it.

2. Our self-constructed concepts and/or it's functions and/or our way of functioning with them have inherent flaws.

There are many other better alternatives.

" I feel like God is Infinite."
" And I see no reason why The Holy Qur’an cannot be incontestable and unassailable in it’s unique literary and linguistic features."

Thanks and regards

 

[Hellbound Serpiente]

Well, to be fair, there are several different, independent, concept of 'infinity'. The one currently being used is that of being unbounded.

I never denied my general ignorance about infinite [and science in general], I was asking him simply what exactly did he thought I got wrong about infinity. I already admitted it [and I hope God makes me scientifically literate]. Correct me if I am wrong here, but there are also many several different, independent concept of big bang, but if we were discussing a specific model and I misunderstood something about that specific model, doesn't I have the right to know what exactly did I got wrong?

 

[McBell]

Just a correction: pi is a finite number. It is between 3 and 4.

The *decimal expansion* of pi is infinite. But it is very far from being the only number with this property: the decimal expansion of 1/3 is also infinite.

Fair enough.
However, my point is the last digit of pi should be presented to us, with the math shown, here in a short while.

 

[Hellbound Serpiente]

The exact last thing you did in your dream last month should be presented to me, with the dream shown, in a short while ... otherwise you were dreaming infinity ...

 

[Hellbound Serpiente]

I don’t want to flog the dead horse here since this is a dog chasing it’s own tail scenario. We are arguing in circles here for two days now and I don’t think we will reach any verdict if we keep circling around infinitely [pun intended]. Regardless, I’ll just sum up some of my personal opinion with some examples as a [possible] final address of mine to the topic.

Imaginary concepts like infinity don’t qualify as real life cases, reality isn’t necessarily how we imagined it to be. How can we so sure that space/time/etc, are infinite? How are we suppose to measure the immeasurable? What experiment have we perform [if we can] that ever yielded infinite results for space/time/etc.? These are all speculation, and I don’t think it’s wise to use speculation as proofs like you did when you used perceptual infinity of space as an example of infinity existing in real life outside rather than just an abstract, imaginary, mathematical concept.

I will use another discussion here as an analogy for better elaboration: I don’t remember when but I’ve read an atheist member here [I think it is Evangelisthumanist] who made an argument against God which seems pretty analogous to our situation here. From what I can recall, he said if there is no time, how is God capable of doing anything since without intervals, nothing can’t be done. Think about it this way --- Without intervals, we wouldn’t have scales. For God to say “Be” and for it to be materialize, you need two moments in time and an interval between those moments in time, one moment in time being God saying “Be” and another moment in time of whatever He is desiring to “be” to be materialized, and there’s an interval between them. In absence of time, these necessary moments of time and the interval between them are also absent, and as such, it is impossible for God to do that [or anything].without time. Everything would be frozen still in absence of time [including God].

I think my reply was of that Godly realm doesn’t necessary act like real life. Perhaps all the event happens simultaneously in form of one singular, compound event at the same time. Everything would be ever-present in one timeless moment. But how would a timeless God relate to the nature of infinity we are discussing? Well, if all the moments of time is ever-present in single infinite time moment, that could explain away the complains I and other are making.

But these, too, are just speculation. I won’t respond to all the arguments, would touch on few as I am exhausted to my core atm.

No, the point is NOT that we don't know the last digit of pi. The point is that there *is* no last digit of pi. And we *know* there is no last digit.

We *can* accurately 'pin point' the value of pi. It's just that the value isn't a rational number. We can also pin point the value of the square root of 2 even though it isn't a rational number.

1. And how is rational and irrational nature of the numbers relevant to the point that infinity does not exist non-conceptually, which was THE original point?

2. How can irrational answer be considered pin-point accurate? Sounds pretty paradoxical to me. Can unjustified acts be considered righteous justifications? Isn’t that equivalent to saying that we have morally justified the justification of the murder of [say] Junko Furuta, it’s just that the evidence of the justification we know is unjustified? Don’t you think that a paradox? Doesn’t it shows inherent flaws in our logic rather than an unjustified [irrational] act being a true justification [real, true existance]?

3. Besides, from what I’ve read, there is no human application where irrational numbers are used pretty much like there is no real life example found yet with infinite measurement [unless we believe your argument time is infinite, which are just speculations rather than proofs], doesn’t this make both of this ideas … you know, irrational?

Let me put it this way. There is no *logical* reason why time cannot be infinite into either the future or the past.

How does that answer my question? So far, there is no logical reason that The Holy Qur’an cannot be imitated either linguistically or literarily. Does that mean I should believe that and use it as a counter-example if someone asks me is using subjective, tentative concepts like imaginary criteria of aesthetic beauty as an objective criteria?

I’ll use other examples since that one got a bit complicated. There is no logical reason why God cannot be time either, should I use that as an example if someone asks me if it is wise to use some possibly fictional entity existing in our imagination as a real life example, and say “Well, it seems to me that you are assuming that there is no God in the real world. I see no reason why time cannot be God itself”. There is no logical reason why the unchanging laws cannot be God Himself and/or features [or components or properties (whatever you deem fit as an example)] of God. There is no logical reason why all the forces in the universe cannot be God either [Pantheism]. There is no logical reason why universe [or maybe even time (as it suit more due to being the point at hand)] cannot be into and/or part of God either. But these are all speculations.

What is the difficulty of 'reaching a certain time duration despite time being infinite'?

If there is no beginning and time is infinite, then there are endless moments of time. But how can we get to a certain moment of time [let’s say, the moment of time when Big Bang occurred] when endless moments after moments have to come before it?

The whole point is that there is no beginning, so it isn't necessary to traverse an infinite amount of time. Time is just always there.

I know it isn’t necessary, it’s just a hypothetical scenario for the purpose of making a hypothetical assessment of speculations about there being no beginning. We are discussing how probable these possibilities are, this is just an analogous reasoning based on what actually does happen in reality [of going indefinitely]. “Traversing an infinite amount of time” = idealized scenario based on real life occurrence to test imaginary belief that doesn’t exist in the real world.

Besides, I don’t know about you, but I’ve read articles which says that time started with Big Bang, and that time is moving forward. So the necessity of hypothetically reversing [or forwarding] is there when evaluating it’s nature based on that behavior [act of moving forward]. But you could very well say that infinite doesn’t act like the finite. Fine, we are arguing in circle.

Again, it isn't a matter of 'reaching' because there is no start.

Then how did, say, universe reached a moment in time where the formation of intelligence took place when there was no start [another moment in time] but rather endless, infinite time occurring before it?

Huh?

I’ll just “chase the carrot” saying as an example since there’s always a previous/upcoming event in this example as well. If a carrot is tied to a stick in front of mule or a stubborn horse to make them step forward and walk ahead to reach it. The carrot is here always have an upcoming event. What would happen if a mule continue to reach out for THIS particular event [so through it can get to it’s true goal of reaching the carrot]? The mule will keep going infinitely, never reaching the event of achieving the carrot [which is it’s main objective, using stepping forward as a secondary objective to reach near to his true goal of receiving the carrot]. The same would happen if there was no beginning. But the same didn’t happened in our real life. Not only did we reach a moment in time where Big Bang, formation of Earth and Intelligence happened, but time is still moving forward and REACHING certain time-periods. With no beginning and start, there would be just infinite going forward like the horse.

No duration is infinite: any two points in time have only a finite duration between them.

I know, which is why I don’t believe in infinity. Poor choice of words, again, but I can assure you, I didn’t meant that. By infinite duration, I mean infinite moments in time. The only reason I use the term duration because I was paraphrasing your vocabulary: “Just because time is infinite into the future, it need not be the case that there is some time an actual infinite duration into the future.” [Note: I never said that there is a need to be the case there is some time an actual infinite duration in the original post to which you gave that reply]

And, again, to be an intelligence requires a complex collection of pre-conditions, which are, in essence, laws of nature.

The laws are needed to support the existence of an intelligence, not the other way around. The laws are automatic. The intelligence is dependent. At least, that seems like the most plausible scenario to me.[/QUOTE]

Well, it seems to me that you are assuming that there is no laws needed to support the existence of an intelligence in [a hypothetical] Godly/Spiritual realm. I see no reason why spiritual laws [like law of karma] cannot be present in other realms to allow for the complexities of intelligence [in God and/or whatever is suited to the hypothesis].

And why would there be intelligence without laws to allow for the complexities of intelligence?

Pretty much like how at any point in time, an infinite time interval had already passed with no beginning. Irrational, right? Well, I can just turn around and say that you are expecting outworldly intelligence to act like real life intelligence. Just like unfounded expectation that infinite acts like the finite, the unfounded expectation here seems to be the spiritual/Godly/[add any other that suits the hypothesis] acts like the material. It doesn’t, just like the real life material world doesn’t act like video games realm where movement requires controllers and mechanical/operational/software programming [and other prerequisites].

And why there be movements in real life without the controllers and mechanical/operational/software programming [and other prerequisites] for the function of movement possible in video game realm? Because much like infinite doesn’t act like finite, real life doesn’t act like video game realm. Similarly, spiritual realm don’t act like real life.

… Can’t you see the pile of speculation in this case as well?