Philosophy Now Forum

devans99 wrote: ↑Sun Mar 03, 2019 12:13 pm

-1- wrote: ↑Sun Mar 03, 2019 6:23 am You don't start with nothing. You don't start at all. You have a world with all the matter in it that has existed forever in the past. There is no need to seek a singular, original cause.

Therefore the model is possible, but only if you divorce yourself from the Christian / Judaic / Muslim theories that the world HAD to start sometime. In fact, I don't know any world religion or any small-god religions that hadn't had the creation part as an integral, irremovable and irrevokable part in the history of matter. Therefore I suspect very strongly, that the OP, devans99, has had a religious upbringing. If not, well, then, I am wrong with the suspicion.

'All the matter in it that has existed forever in the past' is impossible if cause and effect hold (because the universe must have a cause). And cause and effect holds for the 2nd part of my argument. If cause and effect don't hold then the 1st part of my argument applies and time still has a start.

I am not religious.

The following was how others in the even ancient times relayed this possibility. The Steady State model was similarly thought of after watching a Twilight Zone movie/show of having the end its beginning. Another good one that is hard to notice unless you are a careful listener, is Pink Floyd's "The Wall". It begins with the tail end of the album with "....where we came in?" and ends on "Isn't this where..." [reference to history repeating itself but artistically related in jest.]

Scott Mayers wrote: ↑Wed Mar 20, 2019 1:03 pm The following was how others in the even ancient times relayed this possibility. The Steady State model was similarly thought of after watching a Twilight Zone movie/show of having the end its beginning. Another good one that is hard to notice unless you are a careful listener, is Pink Floyd's "The Wall". It begins with the tail end of the album with "....where we came in?" and ends on "Isn't this where..." [reference to history repeating itself but artistically related in jest.]

Chasing the Dragon's own tail.jpg

In your interpretation of the Ouroboros lies ALL of our mis-understanding.

You are interpreting it as a circle. "History repeating itself". Circles are infinite. This is why you lean towards infinitism.

When you 'break the vicious cycle" the Ouroboros doesn't represent a circle. it represents recursion. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recursion

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computability_theory

Computability theory, also known as recursion theory, is a branch of mathematical logic, of computer science, and of the theory of computation that originated in the 1930s with the study of computable functions and Turing degrees.

History may APPEAR to repeat itself, but it's a LITTLE bit different every time.

devans99 wrote: ↑Sat Mar 02, 2019 9:55 pm I’m going to use two axioms, ‘can’t get something from nothing’ and ‘can get something from nothing’ and argue that for both of these inversely related axioms, infinite time is impossible:

'Can get something from nothing'

If matter/energy is naturally created on average (and it must be because we are here) and time is infinite, we would have reached infinite matter/energy density by now. Note that the universe cannot have been expanding forever because if we trace back in time, we would find a point in time when it was not expanding; at best the universe must be oscillating, so infinite density would be reached. So this argument rules out quantum fluctuations as the cause of the universe.

Although today's theory mystifies and segregates the concepts of expansion, dark energy, and dark matter, I hold that the very expansion of space IS the causation of dark energy and matter that, necessarily keeps the density of any space constant. That is, each additional point of space has equal energy and thus expansion is equivalent to adding energy into existence. So you're assumption of infinite density isn't qualified unless you limit space to be Static.

The 'nothing' that becomes space may actually be points that 'spin' on itself, as a possibility. This makes those point unnoticed even if they are there. Without elasticity, these points would be like the effect of more dense solids to transmit information through it quicker than less dense material. In the case of points in space that could be there but perfectly spinning, information jumps through them instantaneously in the way a line with no breadth (thickness) is relatively non-existent in anything but the dimension of the line itself. A point can be 'knocked' into activity, say if to other factors already present IN the space have a direct head on head collision at the speed of light. That acts as a 'contradiction' or paradox that can initiate the dimensionless points to ADD space for the dimensions of space 'needing' them. This also matches to an explanation of 'quantum' fluctuations or gives it common link to cosmology's dark matter and energy.

'Can’t get something from nothing'

Matter/energy creation is impossible (by the ‘can’t get something from nothing’ axiom). This implies that cause and effect hold. But if the universe existed forever, it has no cause. So this model is not possible according to the ‘can’t get something from nothing’ axiom.

I showed you in my last post that the cyclic interpretation is allows. But also imagine any set of points that might define origins or ends of any number of universes. Each of these nodes suffices to be both an absolute origin OR a relative origin, like the 'points' of the present time and space, or as any succession of points that define a line, etc. [see Euclid's "Elements" for his initial notions or postulates of this nature.]

Logik wrote: ↑Wed Mar 20, 2019 1:24 pm

Scott Mayers wrote: ↑Wed Mar 20, 2019 1:03 pm The following was how others in the even ancient times relayed this possibility. The Steady State model was similarly thought of after watching a Twilight Zone movie/show of having the end its beginning. Another good one that is hard to notice unless you are a careful listener, is Pink Floyd's "The Wall". It begins with the tail end of the album with "....where we came in?" and ends on "Isn't this where..." [reference to history repeating itself but artistically related in jest.]

Chasing the Dragon's own tail.jpg

In your interpretation of the Ouroboros lies ALL of our mis-understanding.

You are interpreting it as a circle. "History repeating itself". Circles are infinite. This is why you lean towards infinitism.

When you 'break the vicious cycle" the Ouroboros doesn't represent a circle. it represents recursion. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recursion

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computability_theory

Computability theory, also known as recursion theory, is a branch of mathematical logic, of computer science, and of the theory of computation that originated in the 1930s with the study of computable functions and Turing degrees.

History may APPEAR to repeat itself, but it's a LITTLE bit different every time.

I picked this partular "Ouroboros" because it shows loops inside of loops. Also, the length of the dragon can be interpreted infinitesimally: like the infinite real numbers that exist bound between ANY two real numbers. Finite machines are limited. Your assumption doesn't count. We are discussing infinitesimals (bound infinites).

Scott Mayers wrote: ↑Wed Mar 20, 2019 1:29 pm I picked this partular "Ouroboros" because it shows loops inside of loops. Also, the length of the dragon can be interpreted infinitesimally: like the infinite real numbers that exist bound between ANY two real numbers.

Loops inside of loops need not be infinite.

You are welcome to interpret the length of the dragon infinitesimally.
In practice the width of the dragon and the thickness of its skin places a limit on how far it can eat its own tail.

But, I am sure you will be showing us a picture which represents an infinitely long and infinitely wide dragon , with infinitely thin skin swallowing its own tail infinitely.

Any moment now.

Can see how the Ouroboros relates to the Halting Problem yet?

Oh...and you can in fact add the 'imaginary' numbers for the complexity of a totality that contains all that is both real and not real. If there is no 'outside' to Totality, then not-Totality == some-Totality ....and what is non-real, relative to any part of Totality is just a part of it too. If false things are not even extant in Totality, they too would be ineffable in principle....that is, we could not even conceive of them.

Scott Mayers wrote: ↑Wed Mar 20, 2019 1:35 pm Oh...and you can in fact add the 'imaginary' numbers for the complexity of a totality that contains all that is both real and not real. If there is no 'outside' to Totality, then not-Totality == some-Totality ....and what is non-real, relative to any part of Totality is just a part of it too. If false things are not even extant in Totality, they too would be ineffable in principle....that is, we could not even conceive of them.

NEVER? That's a very dualistic way of interpreting reality.

You can conceive a finite part of infinity. Not infinity itself.
You can conceive the OBSERVABLE universe, not an INFINITE universe.

Gödel's incompleteness tells you that

Even in a finite universe you have serious problems. You can't actually tell me what proportion of it is observable from Earth.
80%? 50%? 5%? 0.0000000000000005%?


If the observable universe is 0.0000000000000005% of the total universe, any 'logical structure' you infer is a small sample fallacy.

Logik wrote: ↑Wed Mar 20, 2019 1:32 pm

Scott Mayers wrote: ↑Wed Mar 20, 2019 1:29 pm I picked this partular "Ouroboros" because it shows loops inside of loops. Also, the length of the dragon can be interpreted infinitesimally: like the infinite real numbers that exist bound between ANY two real numbers.

Loops inside of loops need not be infinite.

You are welcome to interpret the length of the dragon infinitesimally.
In practice the width of the dragon and the thickness of its skin places a limit on how far it can eat its own tail.

But, I am sure you will be showing us a picture which represents an infinitely long and infinitely wide dragon , with infinitely thin skin swallowing its own tail infinitely.

Any moment now.

Can see how the Ouroboros relates to the Halting Problem yet?

Yes. I added the point to show that you can have as many infinite loops added outside of them infinitely as well. That the discrete finite worlds can be treated as those dragons outside (larger) or inside (smaller) are also infinite concepts, this image conveys the idea they were expressing.

Another idea is to think of the paradoxes of Science fiction that presents real possibilities: if we had tech that could take the information we are made up of, break it into linear streams, as computers can do, then reconstruct it at some other end, we could also duplicate this in parallel. Thus we could ideally create duplicates of ourselves.

The paradox of using the transporter from Star Trek, for instance, presents this concern. If you COULD have such tech, would you use be afraid to use it? You might think that who you are is actually destroyed and what gets reconstructed at the transported spot is a copy. But to Totality, the reconstructed versions or copies are identical in meaning. Thus, you technically, if all possibilities exist in Totality, for every optional point in time a space, there are an infinite worlds that act as 'optional' worlds. They could be a simple finite machine 'realized' in one world. But the possibility of them to have one bit changed or one more address added to it are infinite. They are just not able to be 'realized' in any particular universe. [See Chaos theory.]

The halting problem is only like the point at which a story ends but can have an infinity of endings added onto it later. Thus we cannot determine a story as 'ending' in Totality. We have to test each story by reading them one at a time. Some will be complete and have one of an infinity of possible ends, while an even greater infinity are stories that are incomplete.

Scott Mayers wrote: ↑Wed Mar 20, 2019 1:55 pm That the discrete finite worlds can be treated as those dragons outside (larger) or inside (smaller) are also infinite concepts, this image conveys the idea they were expressing.

What? A finite OUTSIDE but an infinite inside?

How does that work?!?

Scott Mayers wrote: ↑Wed Mar 20, 2019 1:55 pm The paradox of using the transporter from Star Trek, for instance, presents this concern. If you COULD have such tech, would you use be afraid to use it? You might think that who you are is actually destroyed and what gets reconstructed at the transported spot is a copy. But to Totality, the reconstructed versions or copies are identical in meaning. Thus, you technically, if all possibilities exist in Totality,

You have copied information from A to B. Exact replica.

Requires non-zero energy....

Logik wrote: ↑Wed Mar 20, 2019 1:37 pm

Scott Mayers wrote: ↑Wed Mar 20, 2019 1:35 pm Oh...and you can in fact add the 'imaginary' numbers for the complexity of a totality that contains all that is both real and not real. If there is no 'outside' to Totality, then not-Totality == some-Totality ....and what is non-real, relative to any part of Totality is just a part of it too. If false things are not even extant in Totality, they too would be ineffable in principle....that is, we could not even conceive of them.

NEVER? That's a very dualistic way of interpreting reality.

? Where is "never" from? I was explaining that you can interpret "nothing" as a complement to "everything" IN Totality, as defined. Then if you find something 'false', it is only relatively 'false' in some given universe in Totality, but still a part of it because the definition of Totality is permanently regenerative: for anything deemed outside of it means we have to regenerate our definition to include that or Totality becomes undefined. This is the meaning of 'infinity' as an "undefined" concept.

logik wrote: What? A finite OUTSIDE but an infinite inside?

How does that work?!?

In math, this is called "bound". The sentence, 0 < x < 1, is an 'open' interval that contains an infinite number of real numbers between 0 and 1 but does not define the points 0 and 1. This is a finite 'outer' boundary but an infinite number of reals 'inside'.

Scott Mayers wrote: ↑Wed Mar 20, 2019 2:05 pm In math, this is called "bound". The sentence, 0 < x < 1, is an 'open' interval that contains an infinite number of real numbers between 0 and 1 but does not define the points 0 and 1. This is a finite 'outer' boundary but an infinite number of reals 'inside'.

You are preaching to an ultrafinitist and you are making errors.

I know precisely what bounds are. I am asking you to show me a bounded infinity.

Because in a finite framework you are stuck forever making the range-precision trade-off.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Floating-point_arithmetic

In computing, floating-point arithmetic (FP) is arithmetic using formulaic representation of real numbers as an approximation so as to support a trade-off between range and precision.

In a bounded framework 0.99999... = 1 !!!

And once you are in a finite framework, you have a statistical problem also. Called the bias-variance trade-off.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bias%E2%8 ... e_tradeoff

And do you know what the simplest interpretation of the word 'trade-off' is into English?

ARBITRARY CHOICE. *poof* goes objectivity

Logik wrote: ↑Wed Mar 20, 2019 8:19 am

uwot wrote: ↑Wed Mar 20, 2019 8:11 amYer might wanna check that. Oh it's you, Logik. All that Planck scale stuff is about what is measurable, rather than actual. It's epistemology, not ontology.

You keep telling me to "check that" but you keep failing to provide any useful feedback.

Well, twice I have suggested that 'Yer might wanna check that'. If you really need a link to a wikipedia page on the Planck scale, here ya go: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planck_units And here's a quote: "At the Planck scale, current models are not expected to be a useful guide to the cosmos, and physicists no longer have any scientific model whatsoever to suggest how the physical universe behaves."

Logik wrote: ↑Wed Mar 20, 2019 8:19 amIf you make that claim then you have necessarily measured something. That which you are measuring is called "evidence" a.k.a information.

IF you have somehow found a way/mechanism to obtain evidence for your epistemic claim that A is more probable than B then you have, in practice, falsified the "limit" Planck imposes on you.

So what is your evidence for this?

Logik wrote: ↑Wed Mar 20, 2019 5:27 am...the planck length in Physics determines the shortest possible wave-length in this universe.

That determines the smallest possible unit of time. Not as "indeterminate" as you claim.

Point: You have failed to answer the question of whether you think you can get to ontology without epistemology.

No matter. I will answer it for you by the end of this post.

uwot wrote: ↑Thu Mar 21, 2019 7:51 am Well, twice I have suggested that 'Yer might wanna check that'. If you really need a link to a wikipedia page on the Planck scale, here ya go (....)

OK and then? I understand the contents and the implications of the Wiki page - it affirms my position.

and physicists no longer have any scientific model whatsoever to suggest how the physical universe behaves

Without an epistemic model of reality, I would like you to explain to me how you could arrive at ANY "ontology", interpret anything or say anything about reality beyond phenomenology.

So you really need to be a bit more specific in pointing out the thing that you want me to "check".

uwot wrote: ↑Thu Mar 21, 2019 7:51 am

Logik wrote: ↑Wed Mar 20, 2019 8:19 amIf you make that claim then you have necessarily measured something. That which you are measuring is called "evidence" a.k.a information.

IF you have somehow found a way/mechanism to obtain evidence for your epistemic claim that A is more probable than B then you have, in practice, falsified the "limit" Planck imposes on you.

So what is your evidence for this?

1. Probability Theory: The logic of science (by E.T. Jaunes) https://www.amazon.com/Probability-Theo ... 0521592712
2. Principle of Maximum entropy follows from #1 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle ... um_entropy

The principle was first expounded by E. T. Jaynes in two papers in 1957[1][2] where he emphasized a natural correspondence between statistical mechanics and information theory. In particular, Jaynes offered a new and very general rationale why the Gibbsian method of statistical mechanics works. He argued that the entropy of statistical mechanics and the information entropy of information theory are basically the same thing. Consequently, statistical mechanics should be seen just as a particular application of a general tool of logical inference and information theory.

3.Principle of Maximum entropy (agnosticism!) applied in practice: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bayesian_inference

Bayesian inference is a method of statistical inference in which Bayes' theorem is used to update the probability for a hypothesis as more evidence or information becomes available. Bayesian inference is an important technique in statistics, and especially in mathematical statistics. Bayesian updating is particularly important in the dynamic analysis of a sequence of data

Back-referencing myself in context (my quoted post below describes the process of Bayesian Inference - e.g how scientists think):

Logik wrote: ↑Wed Mar 20, 2019 8:19 am You have two hypotheses:

A: There is an ontology beyond Planck scale
B: There is no ontology beyond Planck scale

Probability(A) = Probability(B) = 0.5
A/B = 50/50
A:B = 1:1

MeasureDecibel(A, B) = 0 dB ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decibel )

"There are ontological events beyond Planck scale" is an epistemic claim that A is more probable than B.

The take away of the above is that plausible reasoning is quantifiable (e.g MEASURABLE) on a Decibel scale.
Plausibility is a function of MEASURED information. Information is evidence and evidence is information.

This is how empiricism works.

4. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Information_theory

Information theory studies the quantification, storage, and communication of information. It was originally proposed by Claude E. Shannon in 1948 to find fundamental limits on signal processing and communication operations such as data compression, in a landmark paper entitled "A Mathematical Theory of Communication".

5. The actual paper for #4 above: http://math.harvard.edu/~ctm/home/text/ ... ntropy.pdf
6. Digital Physics is a new paradigm: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_physics
7. Physical Information is a unification of ontology AND epistemology - it produces a new language: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physical_information

8. Measurement/epistemic/ontological limits: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nyquist%E ... ng_theorem

If a function x(t) contains no frequencies higher than B hertz, it is completely determined by giving its ordinates at a series of points spaced 1/2B seconds apart.

A sufficient sample-rate is therefore anything larger than 2B samples per second. Equivalently, for a given sample rate F perfect reconstruction is guaranteed possible for a bandlimit B< F/2

IF "The Universe" is a wave function then Planck length imposes a limit on wave-length, and thus a limit on frequency: 1 / ℓ P hertz.

IF The Universe is a wave function with frequency of 1/ℓ P hertz, then in order to describe The Universe perfectly you need to sample it at 2/ℓ P e.g your measuring instrument needs to have a wave-length of HALF a planck-length. Ooops!

And so, at the deepest depths of your own mind- you are left with uncertainty. You are left with this guy rolling around in your head: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qubit whose precise value you can't quite determine.

Worse yet - what you can't determine is whether information is epistemic or ontological. The conundrum being is that in order to DECIDE whether information is epistemic or ontological you need ..... evidence to disambiguate the two cases.

Do you see it yet? If not - ask questions.

Logik wrote: ↑Wed Mar 20, 2019 1:24 pm
History may APPEAR to repeat itself, but it's a LITTLE bit different every time.

That's because events in time are timelessly infinite in expression. There is nothing behind infinity doing the number crunching.

.

Logik wrote: ↑Wed Mar 20, 2019 1:57 pm You have copied information from A to B. Exact replica.

Requires non-zero energy....

No such thing as A to B

A to A yes.

Acausal.

.