The first cause argument

[ratiocinator]

Hillbert Hotel was introduced as an argument for infinite regression by another person. So jumping into that conversation, telling me that's irrelevant seems strange to me.

I didn't say it was irrelevant, I said that your question about it was irrelevant. Hilbert Hotel is an analogy that illustrates something about infinity. You seem to be taking it way too literally.

Tell me. how much is Zero divided by Zero.

It's undefined. What has that got to do with the price of fish?

I also note that you basically ignored my point. Infinity may have some apparently paradoxical implications but it is actually a concept that can be dealt with without real contradictions, so you cannot logically or philosophically rule it out. In fact, mathematics deals with different sizes of infinity.

 

[firedragon]

I didn't say it was irrelevant, I said that your question about it was irrelevant. Hilbert Hotel is an analogy that illustrates something about infinity. You seem to be taking it way too literally.

You must understand, in that case, the person who brought up that analogy was being irrelevant. Leave it. ITs useless.

It's undefined. What has that got to do with the price of fish?

I dont know if you bring fish as an analogy or something. But it seems like you are not ready for discussion.

I also note that you basically ignored my point. Infinity may have some apparently paradoxical implications but it is actually a concept that can be dealt with without real contradictions, so you cannot logically or philosophically rule it out. In fact, mathematics deals with different sizes of infinity.

I tried to explain but "fish" was your response. So I dont see any point.

Ciao.

 

[ratiocinator]

I tried to explain but "fish" was your response.

Sorry, but if asking "how much is Zero divided by Zero. [sic]" was an attempt at an explanation, you need to try harder.

 

[firedragon]

Sorry, but if asking "how much is Zero divided by Zero. [sic]" was an attempt at an explanation, you need to try harder.

No worries. Cheers.

 

[ratiocinator]

No worries. Cheers.

*sigh* Usual tactics.

 

[oldbadger]

First Cause. Cannot logically have another cause. If you read the OP, you will see the infinite regression, which is what you will get into. But still, you cannot use the "first cause" there. First cause by definition is first cause. Not the second cause.
.

Ah......but you cannot ever reach it. So you'll never know what it might have been...... Ever.
You'll never perceive what the last reaction might be, either.
So you might as well go for a walk, enjoy the day, or whatever.

 

[oldbadger]

*sigh* Usual tactics.

 

[firedragon]

*sigh* Usual tactics.

Usual ad hominem.

Go ahead. Another one.

 

[firedragon]

Ah......but you cannot ever reach it. So you'll never know what it might have been...... Ever.

Thats why its a philosophical argument.

 

[oldbadger]

Thats why its a philosophical argument.

...in which case you might have more joy in success by searching out what happened yesterday.
Because to guess about how nothingness came out of chaos to produce somethingness is more time wasteful than wondering about where chaos is taking everything.

 

[ratiocinator]

Usual ad hominem.

If anybody is guilty of an ad hominem here, it would be yourself. I made a point and you ignored it in favour of implying a lack of understanding on my part, rather than addressing it and explaining what you thought I misunderstood. My question remains unanswered (what is the relevance of zero divided by zero?) and my original point (that mathematics deals perfectly well with infinity without contradiction, so cannot be ruled out on logical grounds) remains unaddressed by yourself.

 

[firedragon]

I made a point

"Fish"? Great point.

 

[firedragon]

...in which case you might have more joy in success by searching out what happened yesterday.
Because to guess about how nothingness came out of chaos to produce somethingness is more time wasteful than wondering about where chaos is taking everything.

talking about time waste, talking about other peoples time waste is you wasting time talking about others.

 

[ratiocinator]

"Fish"? Great point.

"What's that got to do with the price of fish?" is a common idiom: "A rhetorical question calling attention to a non-sequitur or irrelevant statement or suggestion made by another person. Primarily heard in UK". I apologise if you're not familiar with it.

And that wasn't the point I was referring to anyway.

 

[leroy]

We know viruses exist, there is evidence for them.
There is no evidence for a 'supreme being'

Ok then you are raising a different objection , but your original objection of "what caused a suprime being" is dumb , after you admit it we can move on to a different topic .

 

[leroy]

In my view the universe 'just is'. There is no 'how it came about'.


I don't know. Both seem to be real possibilities, but I don't have evidence to choose between the two.

In 1, we may have to go to a multiverse.

In order to have an eternal multiverse you most:

0 show that multiverses exist

1 avoid the BGV theorem

2 avoid the second law of thermodynamics

3 avoid the bolzman brain paradox.

..

And then deal with the philosophical arguments
That point to a finite universe.

It seems easier to simply accept that the universe is not eternal.

 

[Altfish]

Yeah, but its not a scientific answer. I am sure you can understand that. No problem. You can see that it is an answer because there is no scientific answer. When you dont have an answer you say "I dont know".

It doesn't matter if it's a scientific answer or not, it is an honest answer.

 

[Altfish]

Ok then you are raising a different objection , but your original objection of "what caused a suprime being" is dumb , after you admit it we can move on to a different topic .

That was an answer to the proposal put forward.

 

[firedragon]

It doesn't matter if it's a scientific answer or not, it is an honest answer.

Thats not a problem. Cheers.

 

[Polymath257]

In order to have an eternal multiverse you most:

0 show that multiverses exist

1 avoid the BGV theorem

A classical result, not a quantum result. it is avoided in quantum theories of gravity.

2 avoid the second law of thermodynamics

The second law is a statistical law, not a fundamental one. We *expect* it to be violated on time scales more than the Poincare recurrence time.

3 avoid the bolzman brain paradox.

No need to do so. We are talking about an infinite past, not an infinite future.

And then deal with the philosophical arguments
That point to a finite universe.

Like what? All that I have seen misunderstand the nature of an infinite past.

It seems easier to simply accept that the universe is not eternal.

Not really.