Dilemma of beginning of time

[surreptitious57]

Logic is the ASSUMPTION that the universe has structure

None the less it is obvious that logic itself has structure so it begs a question : where does this structure come from ?

The structure comes from its very own axioms which are taken to be self evident a priori statements of truth
They are the foundations upon which other sound or valid but less self evident truths can then be determined

[Logik]

Logic is the ASSUMPTION that the universe has structure

None the less it is obvious that logic itself has structure so it begs a question : where does this structure come from ?

The structure comes from its very own axioms which are taken to be self evident a priori statements of truth
They are the foundations upon which other sound or valid but less self evident truths can then be determined

Sure. And all axioms are arbitrary. When the foundations are made up (e.g they bear no resemblance or correspondence to reality in any way) - this is what happens.

[surreptitious57]

And all axioms are arbitrary

This is true but they must have some degree of rigour / consistency to them though
Axioms that lack them are useless so it is no good if they are completely arbitrary

[Logik]

This is true but they must have some degree of rigour / consistency to them though

Why?

Axioms that lack them are useless so it is no good if they are completely arbitrary

Consistency is not a measure of utility. Prediction is.

If the logic-system produces consequences that agree with reality, then it's useful.

[surreptitious57]

The more arbitrary one is the greater the potential for error is
The less arbitrary one is the greater the potential for truth is
More rigorous / less arbitrary ones have to be corrected less

[Logik]

The more arbitrary one is the greater the potential for error is
The less arbitrary one is the greater the potential for truth is

How have you come to accept these principles?

More rigorous / less arbitrary ones have to be corrected less

Rigour is merely "strict adherence to a set of rules".

Which rules?
Who decided on these rules?
How and why?

[surreptitious57]

Rigour is merely strict adherence to a set of rules

Which rules ?
Who decided on these rules ?
How and why ?

Rules or laws pertaining to logic
Human beings decided on them
Because they are useful to them

[Logik]

Rules or laws pertaining to logic
Human beings decided on them

So the laws of logic are subjective? Perfect!

Man-made laws are false authorities when it comes to logic.
Man-made laws are only authorities when it comes to ethics/morality.

Because they are useful to them

So if the laws of logic are entirely subjective, then surely if we are to invent a system that is:
1. MORE useful
2. Contains LESS laws

Then surely the old laws should be abandoned?

[Speakpigeon]

I already asked you what would be the problem with the idea of an infinite linear time... No answer yet.
What would be illogical with the idea of an infinite linear time?

Of course it's illogical, that's obvious. The idea that time has an actual direction, that things can actually change at all, is perfectly illogical.

???
Again, what's illogical in that?
Merely repeating it's illogical doesn't make it illogical.
If you can't explain yourself beyond repeating it's illogical, then we'll leave it at that but you seem to have a lot of beliefs you're unable to justify.

And here we have infinite change. Does the past just disappear or what? Does the future not yet exist? Crazy ideas coming from everyday illusions.

???
The idea that you would have an infinite past doesn't imply that the past disappear, or for that matter that it doesn't. We don't seem to know either way, and this irrespective of whether the past is or isn't infinite.
Again, you have a lot of notions you don't seem capable of justifying and yet you think beliefs different from yours are crazy?!
Whoa.
EB

[Logik]

Again, you have a lot of notions you don't seem capable of justifying and yet you think beliefs different from yours are crazy?!
Whoa.

I think justifying things is a crazy belief.

To whom must I justify my beliefs and why?

Are you an authority on what is "proper justification"? If you aren't then I see no reason to justify anything to you.

I engage you because I choose to - you engage me because you choose to. But I am not here to prove OR justify anything to you.

In fact, every time you demand proof/justification where I have given you reading I will invoice you for my time.

[Speakpigeon]

Totality contains all possibilities.

Sure but we're not discussing "Totality" here, whatever that means. We're discussing what is or ins't logically possible about something nobody knows about reality.

So both of you are correct. But only a totality derived of absolutely nothing justifies change at all. So the inclusive possibility makes Speakpigeon remain 'more' correct given Alta is limited to a state without causation.

I'm not "more" correct. I'm correct.
I'm correct since I'm not talking about what we know or don't know but about what is or isn't logical possible.
EB

[Speakpigeon]

"Originating" in "absolute nothingness" is an oxymoron.

That's true.
EB

[Speakpigeon]

You cannot reach from eternal past to now by waiting.

Non-sequitur.
The assumption of an infinite past doesn't imply that there should be somebody waiting for time to elapse.
You don't understand the concept of the infinite. Some people throughout history have been a witness to this medical condition.

It is not non-sequitur.

Of course it is.
That no one would be able to wait for the whole infinity of an infinite past is completely irrelevant to the question of an infinite past.

There should be an eternal time elapse if time was in eternal past. It is contradictory to say otherwise.

I didn't claim an infinity of time didn't elapse. I said nobody had to wait for that time to elapse.
EB

[Logik]

You don't understand the concept of the infinite. Some people throughout history have been a witness to this medical condition.

You don't undersstand it either. You only SAY that you do, but you are mistaken.

That you THINK you understand infinity is indeed a mental condition.

I'll even demonstrate to you. Here are the axioms of mathematics:

Anything multiplied by 0 is 0 e.g 0*x = 0
Anything multiplied by infinity is infinity e.g ∞ * X = ∞

What's: 0 * ∞ ?

[Speakpigeon]

Truths are epistemic, infinite reality is ontologic. Mixing them like this is nonsense, you seem to make truths ontologic too.

Therefore in no way does it follow that something must be originated in absolute nothingness

Oh, whoa, it's you just claiming it's logically impossible that reality would include an infinite past. Isn't that an ontological claim?
In other words, you are claiming the logical truth you think you know, i.e. that an infinite past is impossible, proves your ontological belief that reality doesn't include an infinite past. And now, suddenly, we shouldn't use logic to discuss the reality of the world? Should we just now shut up?
EB