Free Will

[Immanuel Can]

And what, exactly, is the mathematical calculation that you are referring to?

That an infinite regress of prerequisites — of any kind, but in this case, of causes — is impossible. Such a chain of things never gets started, because the set of things that has to happen before any particular “caused” event can come about is always infinite. So nothing can ever happen.

That's just intuitive logic, not maths.

Try to produce the sequence, mathematically. See what happens.

[BuzzCap7]

I can only tell you how I do it, but I suspect there is a better way.

I first click the quote symbol at the top right of the post, and then click on "Preview". I then delete everything below the comment I am replying to (in the edit window), except for the final quote mark, and then I write my reply. After that, I copy and paste from the preview window. Click on the quote symbol at the top of the edit window, and paste between the brackets. If you need instructions that are easier to follow, I suggest asking someone else.

Thank you Harbal. That is similar to what I was doing. I checked the FAQ's and did not find anything there.

This software is good but very basic so it apparently goes that it will take more work being here.

Going back my friend to believability..........I learned that it really does not matter what I say. I can say my name is BuzzCap7 or Mark or I am x years old or I ride my Harley 7 days a week, I have gray hair or literally anything.......

Whether someone believes me or not, it is up to them. One of my favorite axioms Harbal is, "Nothing is, until you make it so.".

As well, people who experienced what I have experienced in life will see it is so. If someone else is not "there yet", that is 100% ok.

Another person believe in what I say changes nothing about me. It sort of begs the question, why ask the question if you are not going to believe the answer. Or at the very least, listen but to comes back and say "I don't believe you." is a bit humorous. That is ok. It is all a part of learning and growing as I see it.

Going into the spirit world is something you can actually test out. Not, not, not, not, not, not, not that you will or should. I am just saying you can (anyone can) if they so choose. To say you don't believe it is ok. And leave it like that. Or, you can test it yourself. Both answers are RIGHT in my opinion. Maybe you are ready for it. Maybe not. It truly does not matter.

Everyone has the right to their own opinion as well as the right to change it if one so chooses. ALL is good.

Thank you again for your assistance in the multi-quoting. "You're the best!"

BuzzCap7

[Harbal]

That an infinite regress of prerequisites — of any kind, but in this case, of causes — is impossible. Such a chain of things never gets started, because the set of things that has to happen before any particular “caused” event can come about is always infinite. So nothing can ever happen.

That's just intuitive logic, not maths.

Try to produce the sequence, mathematically. See what happens.

What sequence? You could say, for example, that our present universe started with the Big Bang. It will expand for so long and then start to contract back into a tiny mass again, after which the whole process will start all over again. I very much doubt that there are any maths that prove that process cannot be infinite, both past and future. That's not a theory I subscribe to, btw, it's just an example. I don't really understand why people have fixed ideas about things we don't have enough knowledge or information about to know.

[Harbal]

Going back my friend to believability..........I learned that it really does not matter what I say. I can say my name is BuzzCap7 or Mark or I am x years old or I ride my Harley 7 days a week, I have gray hair or literally anything.......

Whether someone believes me or not, it is up to them. One of my favorite axioms Harbal is, "Nothing is, until you make it so.".

As well, people who experienced what I have experienced in life will see it is so. If someone else is not "there yet", that is 100% ok.

Another person believe in what I say changes nothing about me. It sort of begs the question, why ask the question if you are not going to believe the answer. Or at the very least, listen but to comes back and say "I don't believe you." is a bit humorous. That is ok. It is all a part of learning and growing as I see it.

Going into the spirit world is something you can actually test out. Not, not, not, not, not, not, not that you will or should. I am just saying you can (anyone can) if they so choose. To say you don't believe it is ok. And leave it like that. Or, you can test it yourself. Both answers are RIGHT in my opinion. Maybe you are ready for it. Maybe not. It truly does not matter.

Everyone has the right to their own opinion as well as the right to change it if one so chooses. ALL is good.

It's nothing personal. I don't believe what anyone says when they make incredible claims that are outside my own experience. I am probably the least spiritual person you will ever come across, so that may account for my unreceptive attitude.

Thank you again for your assistance in the multi-quoting. "You're the best!"

My pleasure.

[Immanuel Can]

That's just intuitive logic, not maths.

Try to produce the sequence, mathematically. See what happens.

What sequence?

The sequence of integers representing causality, receding infinitely backward.

Get some paper and try it. Then get back to me when you have figured out what the first number would be.

[Harbal]

Try to produce the sequence, mathematically. See what happens.

What sequence?

The sequence of integers representing causality, receding infinitely backward.

Get some paper and try it. Then get back to me when you have figured out what the first number would be.

There wouldn't be a first number. That's the point. Logic tells us that no matter how far we go back, something must have come before, yet it also tells us that there must have been a starting point. What I take from that is that there is a gap in our knowledge. The information we need in order to understand is missing. I don't mind not knowing the answer to the puzzle, which is probably why I'm not tempted to make something up.

[Immanuel Can]

What sequence?

The sequence of integers representing causality, receding infinitely backward.

Get some paper and try it. Then get back to me when you have figured out what the first number would be.

There wouldn't be a first number. That's the point.

Amazing! You discovered the obvious.

Logic tells us that no matter how far we go back, something must have come before, yet it also tells us that there must have been a starting point. What I take from that is that there is a gap in our knowledge.

You mean the problem is that you think we don’t understand simple maths?

[Harbal]

The sequence of integers representing causality, receding infinitely backward.

Get some paper and try it. Then get back to me when you have figured out what the first number would be.

There wouldn't be a first number. That's the point.

Amazing! You discovered the obvious.

Logic tells us that no matter how far we go back, something must have come before, yet it also tells us that there must have been a starting point. What I take from that is that there is a gap in our knowledge.

You mean the problem is that you think we don’t understand simple maths?

No, the problem is that we do not have the information that would enable us to correctly apply the maths or logic.

[Fairy]

Eternal in the past. Eternity has two “directions,” you know.

When you refer to the universe as not being eternal, are you referring to the physical composition of the universe, ie: all the components that make up the physical matter that is this universe?

By strict definition, that is exactly what the word “universe” refers to: not merely something local, like the Earth or the galaxies, but the entire cosmos. All matter is within the “universe,” which means “the one (of everything).”

Within the universe implies the universe is the container of matter. And you claim this container is not eternal.

[Immanuel Can]

There wouldn't be a first number. That's the point.

Amazing! You discovered the obvious.

Logic tells us that no matter how far we go back, something must have come before, yet it also tells us that there must have been a starting point. What I take from that is that there is a gap in our knowledge.

You mean the problem is that you think we don’t understand simple maths?

No, the problem is that we do not have the information that would enable us to correctly apply the maths or logic.

Since something that is mathematical does not depend on empirical facts, far less on any ideology or belief system, but on impartial calculation within a closed symbol-system, that’s impossible. It can’t be “the information” that is lacking, unless by “the information” you mean “the ability to do simple maths.” And I doubt you can mean that.

[Immanuel Can]

When you refer to the universe as not being eternal, are you referring to the physical composition of the universe, ie: all the components that make up the physical matter that is this universe?

By strict definition, that is exactly what the word “universe” refers to: not merely something local, like the Earth or the galaxies, but the entire cosmos. All matter is within the “universe,” which means “the one (of everything).”

Within the universe implies the universe is the container of matter. And you claim this container is not eternal.

“The universe” does not refer to “a container.” It refers to everything (“uni”) in physical existence, considered in total, as one. And we know for certain that it is not eternal, since it is entropic and because it’s governed by causality, of which there can be no infinite regress.

[Fairy]

By strict definition, that is exactly what the word “universe” refers to: not merely something local, like the Earth or the galaxies, but the entire cosmos. All matter is within the “universe,” which means “the one (of everything).”

Within the universe implies the universe is the container of matter. And you claim this container is not eternal.

“The universe” does not refer to “a container.” It refers to everything (“uni”) in physical existence, considered in total, as one. And we know for certain that it is not eternal, since it is entropic and because it’s governed by causality, of which there can be no infinite regress.

Ok, thanks for the clarification.

If the universe has a beginning and end, then where does it go when it ends? The universe seems to exist now, as we are here to observe it, but where does it go when it ends? I suppose that’s like asking where does consciousness go when the body dies. I would appreciate your opinion on this?

[Harbal]

Amazing! You discovered the obvious.

You mean the problem is that you think we don’t understand simple maths?

No, the problem is that we do not have the information that would enable us to correctly apply the maths or logic.

Since something that is mathematical does not depend on empirical facts, far less on any ideology or belief system, but on impartial calculation within a closed symbol-system, that’s impossible. It can’t be “the information” that is lacking, unless by “the information” you mean “the ability to do simple maths.” And I doubt you can mean that.

So you think you know everything there is to know about reality, and about the nature of time, do you? Name any occurrence that is capable of occurring without being caused by a previous occurrence. Then show me the maths that prove it.

I agree that the idea of infinite regress is counter intuitive, but then so is the alternative of a first cause, so it seems there must be something that would enable us to see how one of those ideas could be possible, but that we don't yet know, or there must be an alternative that we haven't yet thought of.

[attofishpi]

“The universe” does not refer to “a container.” It refers to everything (“uni”) in physical existence, considered in total, as one. And we know for certain that it is not eternal, since it is entropic and because it’s governed by causality, of which there can be no infinite regress.

Right. So you have just invalidated your claim that God is eternal.

[Immanuel Can]

Within the universe implies the universe is the container of matter. And you claim this container is not eternal.

“The universe” does not refer to “a container.” It refers to everything (“uni”) in physical existence, considered in total, as one. And we know for certain that it is not eternal, since it is entropic and because it’s governed by causality, of which there can be no infinite regress.

Ok, thanks for the clarification.

If the universe has a beginning and end,

You’ve mistaken the case. “Regress” means “going backwards.” It does not tell us anything about “going forwards.” There is no possibility of a “infinite regress of causes.” That doesn’t mean that the same argument says anything about an “infinite progression” of causes.

So what we know is that the universe HAS a beginning point. The same argument does not tell us anything about whether or not the universe has “an end,” or what that “end” would be. We’d need different arguments for that one, and I haven’t suggested any.