Philosophy Now Forum

Harbal wrote: ↑Sat Aug 24, 2024 6:57 pm

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sat Aug 24, 2024 6:31 pm

Harbal wrote: ↑Sat Aug 24, 2024 6:13 pm
Of course there could be no first number, or it wouldn't be infinite regress, would it?

If it’s so simple to see, why fight it the way you’re doing?

I am fighting your assertion that maths shows infinite regress to be impossible. And I am obviously right to fight it, because the maths seem to show that infinite regress is perfectly possible.

You’ve forgotten the key element: prerequisites. “Causes” are, by definition, prerequisites for effects. If the integers represent prerequisites (i.e. causes), then the sequence can never start.

Get it yet? If the backward sequence of causal prerequisites are infinite, then nothing would exist. It couldn’t. It couldn’t ever start, precisely because the need for prerequisites would recede infinitely.

Are you there, yet?

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sat Aug 24, 2024 7:20 pm

Harbal wrote: ↑Sat Aug 24, 2024 6:57 pm

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sat Aug 24, 2024 6:31 pm
If it’s so simple to see, why fight it the way you’re doing?

I am fighting your assertion that maths shows infinite regress to be impossible. And I am obviously right to fight it, because the maths seem to show that infinite regress is perfectly possible.

You’ve forgotten the key element: prerequisites. “Causes” are, by definition, prerequisites for effects. If the integers represent prerequisites (i.e. causes), then the sequence can never start.

So we are abandoning maths now, and switching to what the numbers represent. But that is correct, the sequence would go back into infinity, and as incredible as that might seem, I am aware of no plausible alternative option.

Get it yet?

The only thing I'm getting is your determination to scupper the idea of an eternal universe. It seems very important to you that no one believes it a possibility.

If the backward sequence of causal prerequisites are infinite, then nothing would exist. It couldn’t. It couldn’t ever start, precisely because the need for prerequisites would recede infinitely.

Perhaps there is something about time that makes it possible for something to have always existed. What do the maths say about that?

Are you there, yet?

No.

Harbal wrote: ↑Sat Aug 24, 2024 7:45 pm

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sat Aug 24, 2024 7:20 pm

Harbal wrote: ↑Sat Aug 24, 2024 6:57 pm
I am fighting your assertion that maths shows infinite regress to be impossible. And I am obviously right to fight it, because the maths seem to show that infinite regress is perfectly possible.

You’ve forgotten the key element: prerequisites. “Causes” are, by definition, prerequisites for effects. If the integers represent prerequisites (i.e. causes), then the sequence can never start.

So we are abandoning maths now, and switching to what the numbers represent.

Numbers are always used to represent something.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sat Aug 24, 2024 3:55 pm

Fairy wrote: ↑Sat Aug 24, 2024 3:25 pm

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sat Aug 24, 2024 2:56 pm
“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.

I’m not mistaking the case, I’m simply trying to understand what you are showing me.
What I understand from your knowledge so far, is that there is no possibility of a regress of “going backwards” into the past to find the cause of a beginning, nor is there any knowledge of an “infinite progression” of causes. So what knowledge do you have that can explain when the universe began exactly?
As in having a “beginning point”as you claiming to be the case?

If I’m mistaking the case of what you are saying to me, then maybe I just don’t understand what you are attempting to explain.

Carry on.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sat Aug 24, 2024 7:52 pm

Harbal wrote: ↑Sat Aug 24, 2024 7:45 pm

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sat Aug 24, 2024 7:20 pm
You’ve forgotten the key element: prerequisites. “Causes” are, by definition, prerequisites for effects. If the integers represent prerequisites (i.e. causes), then the sequence can never start.

So we are abandoning maths now, and switching to what the numbers represent.

Numbers are always used to represent something.

Yes, you are right about that, which is probably why it's the only part of my last post that you've quoted.

Fairy wrote: ↑Sat Aug 24, 2024 7:54 pm What I understand from your knowledge so far, is that there is no possibility of a regress of “going backwards” into the past to find the cause of a beginning, nor is there any knowledge of an “infinite progression” of causes.

Not quite. There is no possibility of an actual infinite regress of causes. Every word in that claim is important, because the idea of an infinitely old universe would require us to believe that an actual infinite regress of causes was not only theoretically possible, but was actually a description of how we got here.

And that just doesn’t work. It defies what mathematics show us can be true.

So what knowledge do you have that can explain when the universe began exactly?

That’s an additional question, one that is not addressed by the mere fact that an actual infinite regress of causes is impossible. All that argument can tell us is that our universe HAD to have a beginning: it doesn’t tell us what that beginning was, or when, or by what, and doesn’t even try to do any of that.

To answer that follow-up question of yours, we’d have to turn to different arguments. That can be done, but isn’t part of the present discussion between me and Harbal.

Harbal wrote: ↑Sat Aug 24, 2024 7:59 pm

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sat Aug 24, 2024 7:52 pm

Harbal wrote: ↑Sat Aug 24, 2024 7:45 pm
So we are abandoning maths now, and switching to what the numbers represent.

Numbers are always used to represent something.

Yes, you are right about that, which is probably why it's the only part of my last post that you've quoted.

Then you should get the point. And since you’re a reasonably intelligent fellow, I’m fairly confident you CAN get it, supposing you’re willing to do so. So I can let the point rest there, I think.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sat Aug 24, 2024 8:05 pm

Fairy wrote: ↑Sat Aug 24, 2024 7:54 pm What I understand from your knowledge so far, is that there is no possibility of a regress of “going backwards” into the past to find the cause of a beginning, nor is there any knowledge of an “infinite progression” of causes.

Not quite. There is no possibility of an actual infinite regress of causes. Every word in that claim is important, because the idea of an infinitely old universe would require us to believe that an actual infinite regress of causes was not only theoretically possible, but was actually a description of how we got here.

And that just doesn’t work. It defies what mathematics show us can be true.

So what knowledge do you have that can explain when the universe began exactly?

That’s an additional question, one that is not addressed by the mere fact that an actual infinite regress of causes is impossible. All that argument can tell us is that our universe HAD to have a beginning: it doesn’t tell us what that beginning was, or when, or by what, and doesn’t even try to do any of that.

ok, I understand now.

And yes, I have to agree with you based on your explanations. Yes, the universe HAD to have a beginning. I get it.

Fairy wrote: ↑Sat Aug 24, 2024 8:17 pm
ok, I understand now.

And yes, I have to agree with you based on your explanations. Yes, the universe HAD to have a beginning. I get it.

Very good. Well, the answer to your next question will have to come from a different sort of argument. We can prove from mathematics that an actual infinite regress of causes is not possible. We can prove, therefore, that the universe HAD to have a beginning. But we can’t yet say what the nature of that beginning was. And maths can’t tell us that.

So what can we use? What sort of argument is appropriate to figuring out exactly what it was in the beginning that made the universe possible? That’s the next question that needs settling.

Any ideas?

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sat Aug 24, 2024 8:06 pm

Harbal wrote: ↑Sat Aug 24, 2024 7:59 pm

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sat Aug 24, 2024 7:52 pm
Numbers are always used to represent something.

Yes, you are right about that, which is probably why it's the only part of my last post that you've quoted.

Then you should get the point. And since you’re a reasonably intelligent fellow, I’m fairly confident you CAN get it, supposing you’re willing to do so. So I can let the point rest there, I think.

Yes, you can let the point rest there, safe in the knowledge that you have succeeded in leaving my original opinion completely unchanged.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sat Aug 24, 2024 8:25 pm We can prove, therefore, that the universe HAD to have a beginning. But we can’t yet say what the nature of that beginning was. And maths can’t tell us that.

So what can we use?

If only we had a book of ancient wisdom, giving us the answers.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sat Aug 24, 2024 8:25 pm

Fairy wrote: ↑Sat Aug 24, 2024 8:17 pm
ok, I understand now.

And yes, I have to agree with you based on your explanations. Yes, the universe HAD to have a beginning. I get it.

Very good. Well, the answer to your next question will have to come from a different sort of argument. We can prove from mathematics that an actual infinite regress of causes is not possible. We can prove, therefore, that the universe HAD to have a beginning. But we can’t yet say what the nature of that beginning was. And maths can’t tell us that.

So what can we use? What sort of argument is appropriate to figuring out exactly what it was in the beginning that made the universe possible? That’s the next question that needs settling.

Any ideas?

I can’t say how or what caused the beginning of the universe to happen. How can a temporal being like ourself ever know something like that? That being obvious, the beginning will remain a mystery to us, don’t you think?

What’s your guess if any, do you have any idea, what caused the beginning of the universe?

Fairy wrote: ↑Sat Aug 24, 2024 8:38 pm

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sat Aug 24, 2024 8:25 pm

Fairy wrote: ↑Sat Aug 24, 2024 8:17 pm
ok, I understand now.

And yes, I have to agree with you based on your explanations. Yes, the universe HAD to have a beginning. I get it.

Very good. Well, the answer to your next question will have to come from a different sort of argument. We can prove from mathematics that an actual infinite regress of causes is not possible. We can prove, therefore, that the universe HAD to have a beginning. But we can’t yet say what the nature of that beginning was. And maths can’t tell us that.

So what can we use? What sort of argument is appropriate to figuring out exactly what it was in the beginning that made the universe possible? That’s the next question that needs settling.

Any ideas?

I can’t say how or what caused the beginning of the universe to happen. How can a temporal being like ourself ever know something like that? That being obvious, the beginning will remain a mystery to us, don’t you think?

What’s your guess if any, do you have any idea, what caused the beginning of the universe?

Well, whatever it is, it’s not going to be a mathematical proof, like disproving the actual infinite causal regress was. But that’s not the only kind of evidence there is. There is, for example, inductive arguments, which are based on things like the evidence we have within the universe, and lead not to incontrovertible proofs, but rather to the kinds of arguments that rest on probability and preponderance of evidence. And most arguments are of that kind. So how about looking at the universe, and estimating what is the most probable cause of what you see?

And we could begin by breaking the possible candidates down into two: either the universe “just happened,” or it was produced by a super-intelligent First Cause. The first candidate, in other words, is random chance, and the second is some sort of intentionality.

How does the evidence look to you?

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sat Aug 24, 2024 11:39 pmWell, whatever it is, it’s not going to be a mathematical proof, like disproving the actual infinite causal regress was. But that’s not the only kind of evidence there is. There is, for example, inductive arguments, which are based on things like the evidence we have within the universe, and lead not to incontrovertible proofs, but rather to the kinds of arguments that rest on probability and preponderance of evidence. And most arguments are of that kind. So how about looking at the universe, and estimating what is the most probable cause of what you see?

So do you believe that a man regarded as God spoke the universe into existence?

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sat Aug 24, 2024 11:39 pm So how about looking at the universe, and estimating what is the most probable cause of what you see?

Well lets ponder the thoughts about that idea for a minute. The answer is going to require some thought.
And notice, that these thoughts are being generated in the here and now, which just happen to be capable of projecting a time when the universe began, and also what probable cause could have caused the universe to begin.
Notice how it's possible to think about this beginning of a universe, right now, in realtime? that's very interesting to me personally.
It feels almost like 'thoughts' appearing in the here and now realtime or spacetime, are responsible for creating the beginning of the universe. As if, the creation is known, only when 'thought' thinks about that. Yeah? or Nay? is it the phenomena of 'thought' that appears to be the cause of a projected future or past, that can only be known now and only now, rendering all past or future times, an illusory phenomena happening now.
What do you think about that? To me, it seems I cannot get beyond the instantaneous moment of awareness here now. No more than I can jump over my shadow to get a ahead of myself, to get a peek up my own skirt so to speak.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sat Aug 24, 2024 11:39 pmAnd we could begin by breaking the possible candidates down into two: either the universe “just happened,” or it was produced by a super-intelligent First Cause. The first candidate, in other words, is random chance, and the second is some sort of intentionality.

How does the evidence look to you?

So lets think about this now. It is obviously clear that there does appear to be an intelligence at work here. Indeed, there are right now manifesting ''thoughts'' being generated about the idea there could be a super-intelligence that is capable of intent. Maybe an intelligence that generates meaning, purpose and specific design plans. Yes, it does seem like that is the case. However, this evidence can only be known now, in space and time. So, that still leaves the question of how this intelligence was possible at all. Do you see the problem? isn't the HOW just more of the hard question of consciousness. And yes, it is obviously self-evident without doubt or error that there is some consciousness capable of understanding the concepts of intention, meaning, purpose, and design. But is this self-awareness actually present at it's own conception of itself, was the actual cause of the universe known to itself in the exact moment of conception, was the universe aware of the very beginning of it's own birth, was there conscious awareness at the very beginning of the universe that was aware the universe had indeed happened?
I think that is what you were implying IC, when you mentioned a 'first candidate' must have been present to have caused the birth of the universe?