The first cause argument

[Polymath257]

Nah. For the third time, this same question you avoided. I cant believe that you are incapable of understanding this question so Im sure you are capable. There is no question about it.

Who built the hotel? Try not to ignore it and speak of the axiomatic infinite hotel that is in the future, after the hotel is built, which is a thought experiment.

I am sure you understand this question.

Clearly, you are not understanding the Hilbert Hotel here. It is *irrelevant* if it was built or who built it. It is an example of what happens with countable infinities. It is not in the future.

More relevant for an infinite regress is the model of negative natural numbers. Can you refute it?

 

[Polymath257]

That implies that when we are dead, our lives no longer have relevance.
In turn, that implies that our existence has no relevance.
My conscience tells me that makes no sense.

Well, that is a separate issue. I disagree that our existence has no relevance in this scenario. That is a judgement of meaning, not a fact about the universe. And meaning is given by conscious entities, like us.

Your conscience presumably thinks otherwise.

Yes, I think otherwise on several points.

I disagree that if the universe 'just exists', then our lives have no relevance after we die (they can be quite relevant to our friends and family).

I also disagree that if our lives have no relevance long after we are dead, then our lives had no relevance while we were alive. The relevance of our lives *is* how we relate to others while we are alive. A candle flame that goes out does not lose the relevance it had while lit.

Also, I think that it is conscious beings like us that give 'relevance' to things. Relevance isn't a part of the fabric of the universe, but instead a part of the social fabric of conscious beings.

So I disagree on pretty much every claim here.

 

[Polymath257]

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.

IT IS AN ANALOGY.

More relevant is the set of negative integers that provides a specific model where everything has a predecessor and there is no first element.

CAN YOU DEAL WITH THIS?

Tell me. how much is Zero divided by Zero.

It is undefined. Division is defined as the inverse operation to multiplication and only makes sense if there is a single answer. But, for any number x, x times 0 is 0, so there is not a single answer.

That means 0/0 is undefined.

And why do you think that is relevant?

 

[Polymath257]

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.

Please try to engage with arguments. Anyway, since you came to someones aid, this is called a veridical paradox.

Tell me. how much is Zero divided by Zero.

here is the first post in this thread to mention an infinite hotel: The first cause argument

This is *clearly* making an analogy. And that analogy is relevant.

But clearly you didn't understand the analogy, so it needs to be spelled out.

The hotel is *analogous* to the negative integers. THOSE are a good model for an infinite regression. In them, each element has a predecessor and there is no first element.

THAT is the relevance for the first cause argument: it shows that there is no logical contradiction to an infinite regress and that there may not be a first cause.

 

[Polymath257]

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.

Please try to engage with arguments. Anyway, since you came to someones aid, this is called a veridical paradox.

Tell me. how much is Zero divided by Zero.

Why do you bring up and hash over so many irrelevancies?

Infinity divided by 14 billion, zero divided by zero, focusing on 'fish' in a turn of phrase rather than dealing with the argument?

 

[muhammad_isa]

I disagree that if the universe 'just exists', then our lives have no relevance after we die (they can be quite relevant to our friends and family)

That's not what I mean, really. I mean it is no longer relevant for US.
That means in turn, whatever we choose in this life does not have relevance for US, in the cosmic scheme of things.
..something I don't believe.

Relevance isn't a part of the fabric of the universe, but instead a part of the social fabric of conscious beings.

Well, what is a conscious being?

 

[firedragon]

Why do you bring up and hash over so many irrelevancies?

Infinity divided by 14 billion, zero divided by zero, focusing on 'fish' in a turn of phrase rather than dealing with the argument?

Whats the argument? Why are you jumping on to someone else's conversation? Is it because of you tribalistic "we" initiative?

If you cannot follow an argument, that's fine. But try not to engage in an argument halfway, stop there, and make some irrelevant statement to you.

Thanks.

 

[firedragon]

This is *clearly* making an analogy. And that analogy is relevant.

Absolutely not. It is a strawman. Just like all the arguments you made about vacuums and events inside a vacuum etc etc. I know this is a usual apologetic, but its a strawman.

Repeating a strawman does not make good argument.

 

[Polymath257]

Absolutely not. It is a strawman. Just like all the arguments you made about vacuums and events inside a vacuum etc etc. I know this is a usual apologetic, but its a strawman.

It is relevant because of the discussion about potential infinite regress, which is quite relevant for your argument.

The vacuum discussion was concerning whether your first premise is valid or not. The hotel discussion is whether your dismissal of an infinite regress is valid or not.

Repeating a strawman does not make good argument.

Once again, can you deal with the example of the negative integers, where there is an infinite regress and no first element?

 

[Polymath257]

That's not what I mean, really. I mean it is no longer relevant for US.

Once we are dead, we no longer exist, so *of course* nothing is relevant *to us*. I don't see the problem.

That means in turn, whatever we choose in this life does not have relevance for US, in the cosmic scheme of things.

Correct. Meaning is local, not cosmic. At least, that's how I see it.

..something I don't believe.

Then we disagree. I see it as egotistical to think we matter on the cosmic scale.

Well, what is a conscious being?

I don't have a precise definition, but every conscious being we know about is alive and lives on this one small planet. I allow for the possibility that there may be conscious life elsewhere in the universe.

 

[firedragon]

It is relevant because of the discussion about potential infinite regress

A veridical paradox as evidence for infinite regression? Thats pretty hilarious really.

Once again, can you deal with the example of the negative integers, where there is an infinite regress and no first element?

Nope. If you really want to make such a paradox as analogous to the argument, you have to define who made the hotel. What ever infinity you wish to talk about is based on the hotel, and its infinite number of rooms, etc etc etc. Who built the hotel? Is it also infinite?

Its a strawman argument. The OP does not argue about something that happens in veridical paradox, inside a dreamt up hotel, with a dreamt up axiom of infinity as basis for thought.

I know that you understand this. But I dont understand how you could keep repeating the same thing, knowing it is a strawman. Getting sensitive to a reply I am giving someone else, but ignoring the ad hominem others have used which also should be your concern if you are so concerned of people not responding to arguments correctly.

Of course I will not respond to it again.

 

[Polymath257]

A veridical paradox as evidence for infinite regression? Thats pretty hilarious really.

It's only a paradox until you understand it.

Nope. If you really want to make such a paradox as analogous to the argument, you have to define who made the hotel.

Why? The question is whether an infinite regress is possible or not. You claim it is not, but your argument fails when applied to the negative integers, showing it to not be logically sound.

What ever infinity you wish to talk about is based on the hotel, and its infinite number of rooms, etc etc etc. Who built the hotel? Is it also infinite?

Again, it is *irrelevant* to the question of whether an infinite regress is possible or not.

If you want, ignore the hotel. Look at the negative integers.

Its a strawman argument. The OP does not argue about something that happens in veridical paradox, inside a dreamt up hotel, with a dreamt up axiom of infinity as basis for thought.

No, it dismisses an infinite regress without showing why it can be dismissed. The negative integers show that the argument used to dismiss an infinite regress is invalid.

I know that you understand this. But I dont understand how you could keep repeating the same thing, knowing it is a strawman.

I don't think it *is* a strawman. I think it goes directly to the point of your dismissal of infinite regresses, which is required for there to be a first cause.

Getting sensitive to a reply I am giving someone else, but ignoring the ad hominem others have used which also should be your concern if you are so concerned of people not responding to arguments correctly.

I respond to arguments as I see them, whether or not you think they are 'correct'. The fact that you can't see the relevance is not my problem.

 

[firedragon]

I respond to arguments as I see them, whether or not you think they are 'correct'. The fact that you can't see the relevance is not my problem.

Thats bias.

Cheers.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

I assume your answer to the cause of the big-bang is you don't know?

First of all, the big bang doesn't explain the origins of the universe - not really. It explains the expansion.
But let's say the big bang is whatever happened at T = 0.

Then the answer to your question is that this event has no cause.
It can't have a cause.

Because causes happen BEFORE effects.
And if the universe is supposedly an "effect", then its "cause" must have happened "before" T = 0.

And that simply doesn't compute.
it's like north of the north pole.

There's just no there there.

 

[Polymath257]

Thats bias.

Cheers.

If you are not interested in seeing the relevance and don't ask, then I can't help you.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

However, there exists something called "philosophical time" whose definition is not defined in physical terms.

Aka, imaginary time

 

[Polymath257]

A veridical paradox as evidence for infinite regression? Thats pretty hilarious really.

it seems that you don't really grasp what a veridical paradox is (from Paradox - Wikipedia):

"A veridical paradox produces a result that appears absurd, but is demonstrated to be true nonetheless. The paradox of Frederic's birthday in The Pirates of Penzance establishes the surprising fact that a twenty-one-year-old would have had only five birthdays had he been born on a leap day. Likewise, Arrow's impossibility theorem demonstrates difficulties in mapping voting results to the will of the people. Monty Hall paradox (or equivalently Three Prisoners problem) demonstrates that a decision that has an intuitive fifty–fifty chance is in fact heavily biased towards making a decision that, given the intuitive conclusion, the player would be unlikely to make. In 20th-century science, Hilbert's paradox of the Grand Hotel, Schrödinger's cat, Wigner's friend or Ugly duckling theorem are famously vivid examples of a theory being taken to a logical but paradoxical end."

Notice that these are *paradoxes* but are *true, nonetheless*.

 

[muhammad_isa]

..its "cause" must have happened "before" T = 0.

That is just one of those time paradox things..
It's just a circular argument..
Make assumptions / definitions of what time and space are, and then show that time [as in your assumption] can't exist.

It doesn't really mean anything.
Something that is eternal, is eternal.
If the universe had a beginning, and God does not, it becomes meaningless to suggest that time could not exist.

 

[firedragon]

Notice that these are *paradoxes* but are *true, nonetheless*.

Thats an intentional mischaracterisation. You yourself googled, cut and pasted from somewhere a statement "appears absurd, but is demonstrated to be true nonetheless" but later changed it to "true, nonetheless".

You dropped the "demonstrated to be" part intentionally. See, it cant be a mistake. Because a cut and paste should not "DROP" words in sentences. Magic.

Quick googling, cut and paste, drop a word, cut and paste again.

This is no valid argument. Paradoxes are good for thinking, but by definition end in "self-contradictory or a logically unacceptable conclusion". Its in the same page you cut and pasted from. I also googled your cut and paste.

And, I have said 10 times or more. This is a strawman. Repeat it. No worries.

 

[firedragon]

If you are not interested in seeing the relevance and don't ask, then I can't help you.

I think you should not be bias when addressing other peoples conversations. You ignored that too. Strangely. I told you that you ignored all the ad hominem in this thread, but came to the aid of someone you think is part of your repeatedly said "we" group of people for not addressing his argument.

Thats bias. No problem. Ignore this again.

But sorry Polymath. Cannot engage with your strawman arguments.