Consciousness and free will.

[The Inglorious One]

Here is an essay that is relevant in this other topics, like philosophy of religion, science or metaphysics:

A Theology Based on David Bohm's Holomovement Metaphysics

[Obvious Leo]

Scientists misappropriate the word "nothing" in order to explain a universe from nothing all the time.

Bullshit. There isn't a scientist in the world who claims that the universe came into existence from nothing. Even Larry Krauss is not actually claiming this, although his agent obviously decided it was a good title for a book.

the distinction is that existence is what existed before the big bang 13.8 billion years ago

Who cares what we choose to call it? you were supposed to be explaining what you meant by "first cause".

Leo is a proponent of "Leo-ism," which is neither a philosophy nor a science, but rather a kind of self-worship.

finally, an ally.

Yep. You guys deserve each other.

[alpha]

the distinction is that existence is what existed before the big bang 13.8 billion years ago

Who cares what we choose to call it? you were supposed to be explaining what you meant by "first cause".

anything that prevents an infinite regress of causes.

did everyone happen to notice how leo conveniently avoids the questions that he can't answer?

[The Inglorious One]

There isn't a scientist in the world who claims that the universe came into existence from nothing. Even Larry Krauss is not actually claiming this, although his agent obviously decided it was a good title for a book.

Exactly, but don't don't blame his publisher. He's given lectures he himself called a universe from nothing. And his isn't the only book. It seems to be a deliberate ploy to muddy the water, to obfuscate the real issue in order to avoid using any language that might suggest a "first cause," which in his mind (and others') imply a god of some kind. He, like Leo, is so fanatically anti-theist that in a Closer to Truth interview, he made himself look like foolish ass rather than admit the to logical necessity of a first cause.

[The Inglorious One]

did everyone happen to notice how leo conveniently avoids the questions that he can't answer?

His worst habit, I think, is the way he makes inferences from things never said or even implied. I usually just ignore him.

Tell me what you think of the essay I linked to, alpha.

[alpha]

There isn't a scientist in the world who claims that the universe came into existence from nothing. Even Larry Krauss is not actually claiming this, although his agent obviously decided it was a good title for a book.

Exactly, but don't don't blame his publisher. He's given lectures he himself called a universe from nothing. And his isn't the only book. It seems to be a deliberate ploy to muddy the water, to obfuscate the real issue in order to avoid using any language that might suggest a "first cause," which in his mind (and others') imply a god of some kind. He, like Leo, is so fanatically anti-theist that in a Closer to Truth interview, he made himself look like foolish ass rather than admit the to logical necessity of a first cause.

well said.

His worst habit, I think, is the way he makes inferences from things never said or even implied. I usually just ignore him.

yes, his baseless interpretations, accusations, ridiculous suggestions (like demanding that everyone become a non-newtonian scientist, physicist, biologist, etc., so we can understand philosophy and logic.). simply absurd.

[alpha]

Tell me what you think of the essay I linked to, alpha.

i have it open in a tab. the article looks interesting, but a bit lengthy, so it'll take time to read the whole thing, but i'll let you know after i'm done. i like people with high capacity minds (this bohm fella seems to be one) who provide plausible ideas (even if i might disagree with some of them), rather than just reject everything, without presenting any meaningful alternatives.

[Obvious Leo]

There isn't a scientist in the world who claims that the universe came into existence from nothing. Even Larry Krauss is not actually claiming this, although his agent obviously decided it was a good title for a book.

Exactly, but don't don't blame his publisher. He's given lectures he himself called a universe from nothing. And his isn't the only book. It seems to be a deliberate ploy to muddy the water, to obfuscate the real issue in order to avoid using any language that might suggest a "first cause," which in his mind (and others') might imply a god of some kind. He, like Leo, is so fanatically anti-theist that in a Closer to Truth interview, he made himself look like foolish ass rather than admit the to logical necessity of a first cause.

You'll get no argument from me if all you're doing is claiming that Larry Krauss is a fool because he's right at the top of my shit-list of physicists to be ignored at all costs. I reckon he's not only a fool but a posturing media slut and a traitor to the interests of science to boot. I don't know how much of his stuff you've read but I think you're misunderstanding him if you think he's just trying to avoid the notion of first cause. First cause is already invalidated by the first law of thermodynamics, which predates spacetime physics by over half a century and is universally regarded as inviolate. What Krauss is trying to do is salvage an unsalvagable theory because if General Relativity (GR) is taken literally then the big bang must be accepted as the beginning of the universe. However if Quantum Mechanics (QM) is taken literally then the big bang cannot possible be the beginning of the universe. Both GR and QM are predicated on Special Relativity (SR), which is basically the theory which interweaves time and space into a continuum in the first place, but there can be no doubt that all three of these theories are fundamentally incompatible with each other. What Krauss is trying to do is salvage this mess by forcing a square peg into a round hole and making a piss-poor job of it in the process. You may rest assured that he is not regarded as a serious player by any of the truly illustrious figures in the field of theoretical physics. In fact most of them are of the view that they need blokes like him like they need a hole in the head because all he does is give science a bad name and hand a free kick to the theists.

anything that prevents an infinite regress of causes.

did everyone happen to notice how leo conveniently avoids the questions that he can't answer?

I haven't avoided anything, alpha, but you're just not listening to my responses. The first law of thermodynamics is not only a fundamental law of nature but it is also a statement of metaphysical first principle often expressed as "ex nihilo, nihil fit". Nothing comes from nothing. This means that the only thing which can exist eternally is existence itself and eternity means exactly what it appears to mean. There was no first cause. I'm not denying that this is a difficult notion for a mortal mind to grasp but it's a fucking sight better than the alternative. The alternative is that you shove your causes outside of existence itself and place them beyond the reach of either scientific or philosophical enquiry, which is exactly what the theists do. It doesn't help a bit because the next question then becomes "What caused god?"

[alpha]

anything that prevents an infinite regress of causes.

did everyone happen to notice how leo conveniently avoids the questions that he can't answer?

I haven't avoided anything, alpha, but you're just not listening to my responses. The first law of thermodynamics is not only a fundamental law of nature but it is also a statement of metaphysical first principle often expressed as "ex nihilo, nihil fit". Nothing comes from nothing. This means that the only thing which can exist eternally is existence itself and eternity means exactly what it appears to mean. There was no first cause. I'm not denying that this is a difficult notion for a mortal mind to grasp but it's a fucking sight better than the alternative. The alternative is that you shove your causes outside of existence itself and place them beyond the reach of either scientific or philosophical enquiry, which is exactly what the theists do. It doesn't help a bit because the next question then becomes "What caused god?"

1. i stated that something has to be infinitely old; i'm not saying it's necessarily god, or a cause external to existence.
2. the issue at hand is freewill, which isn't much related to discussions about a first cause.
3. the two main questions you repeatedly avoided are: i. is a "self-determining" system determined or random? ii. if i choose to drink/not drink water when i'm thirsty, was my "choice" caused (determined), or uncaused (random)?

[Obvious Leo]

1. i stated that something has to be infinitely old; i'm not saying it's necessarily god, or a cause external to existence.

I know you didn't say that, and I agree that existence is infinitely old. We don't have a problem then. If existence is infinitely old then it has no cause. It's just a matter of accepting that infinity means infinity and not something else.

2. the issue at hand is freewill, which isn't much related to discussions about a first cause.

it wasn't me who brought the subject up. For reasons of your own you brought in the initial cause argument and I merely responded to it by pointing out that it was fallacious.

if i choose to drink/not drink water when i'm thirsty, was my "choice" caused (determined), or uncaused (random)?

Your choice was caused. By you.

[The Inglorious One]

First cause is already invalidated by the first law of thermodynamics...

Only if you presume "first" refers to something in a long sequence of events. It does not. It's hierarchical.

From the essay I linked to:

The holomovement idea stresses two things: wholeness and movement. A few matters help to develop and refine these ideas and give them more substance. In so doing, they start to explore the holomovement's theological potential.

The holomovement is an unbroken and undivided whole. All forms of it merge. We cannot separate them. In the holomovement's wholeness, nothing limits it. Thus, we cannot define or measure it. There is no way to describe or specify it because to do so is to divide it. A theory can only concentrate on an aspect of it important in a limited context. Only through its particular appearances is it known, and then only glimpses of its shadow are possible.

...To develop Bohm's religious ideas we need to recall his holomovement idea. The holomovement lies under the world we perceive. It is an implicate order in the sense that it contains all of reality, past, present and future. The implicate order contains reality folded within it. It unfolds into the explicate order, the world which we perceive. This unfolding is continuous. Thus nothing is static but at any time is a fresh unfolding of the holomovement.

I don't know what you think about Bohm's ideas nor do I care. The point is, your belief that "first cause" points to something even remotely connected to the sequence of events or the first law of thermodynamics is what's invalidated.

[Obvious Leo]

I don't know what you think about Bohm's ideas nor do I care. The point is, your belief that "first cause" points to something even remotely connected to the sequence of events or the first law of thermodynamics is what's invalidated.

According to Bohm, you should have added. I've read a little about this holomovement idea, but admittedly not much, and there are aspects of it which can be accommodated into the self-causal philosophy of the pre-Socratics and Spinoza which I'm referring to, but much of what I've read seems to be grounded in eternalism, which is just pre-determinism by another name. As far as I can see eternalism and creationism are synonymous terms, although physicists tend to get a bit precious when you point this out to them.

[The Inglorious One]

I don't know what you think about Bohm's ideas nor do I care. The point is, your belief that "first cause" points to something even remotely connected to the sequence of events or the first law of thermodynamics is what's invalidated.

According to Bohm, you should have added.

And classical theism (not to be confused with the popular theism you see on TV).

[Obvious Leo]

And classical theism (not to be confused with the popular theism you see on TV).

Classical theism is the only theism I know, mate, because it was taught to me by the classical men in frocks.

[The Inglorious One]

Based on what I've seen, then, I can only conclude that "the classical men in frocks" who taught you were either morons or theologically immature. Why else would Thomistic theologians find Bohm's ideas appealing?