Paradox of existence: Philosophy Forums

Calendar

Quick Links open

New Posts Member List

Help

Philosophy Forums » Metaphysics and Epistemology » Paradox of existence » Paradox of existence

Paradox of existence

Page: 1 2 3

Paradox of existence

J.D.
Student

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 13, 2008
Total Topics: 4
Total Posts: 72

Posted 04/20/08 - 10:28 PM: Subject: Paradox of existence	#1
After starting my thread in the "Philosophy of Religion" section, I began to think about this. Transcendence as well as infinity, or uncaused existence all seem impossible. The universe exists, but unless infinity is possible, it can't be eternal. If it had a beginning, it seems that unless causality is violated, it had a cause. My other thread was suggesting a transcendent cause, but it seems impossible that anything can exist outside of time. So basically all these seem impossible. We must either choose which seems most likely, or wait for a new explanation that makes sense, unless one is skeptical of the very existence of the universe. If we assume everything we perceive is true, then we can prove the universe does not exist. For example... -An infinite past is impossible, therefore time began. -Everything that begins has a cause, therefore time had a cause. -Cause requires duration, therefore it is impossible to cause time. -Therefore, the existence of time is impossible. -Without time, there can be no animate matter, therefore the existence of the universe is impossible. So, ONE of our perceptions must be deceiving us. Some say it is causality, I say transcendence would make the most sense...
_____________________ "I am, I exist, is necessarily true whenever it is put forward by me or conceived in my mind." -René Descartes, Cogito ergo sum

Baudin
Initiate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 18, 2008
Total Topics: 2
Total Posts: 17

Posted 04/21/08 - 02:27 AM:	#2
Very interesting topic. I have a few questions and doubts to share myself concerning this set of problems. May we doubt that cause always precedes the effect? Why would the universe have a beginning? Science has discovered a point of expansion, but no one has hard proof that the universe did not exist before that. It is actually a lot easier to conceive an infinite universe than a universe with an external cause..... It might be possible that the universe is its own cause. That the universe is the one true Perpetuum Mobile. I myself am a big fan of this theory. It would explain so much and it is a very easy assumption. Even Ockham would be proud A second point you make is that without time there can be no animate matter. Again it is easier to define time in terms of movement then movement in terms of time. Look at it from this point of view, what if: "Without animate matter there can be no time." With the previous assumption of an infinite universe there should always have been movement. Ergo, always time. Your paradox is only so because we do not doubt our premises enough. Look at the history of how we perceive the earth and its neighbouring heavenly bodies. We still use the term "Copernican revolution" to indicate a completely new set of thoughts. I really don;t know if my solution is correct and I will always doubt my own words.But at least the paradox had vanished. :P

reincarnated
Graduate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jan 30, 2006
Total Topics: 4
Total Posts: 207

Posted 04/21/08 - 08:44 AM:	#3
J.D. wrote: -An infinite past is impossible, therefore time began. Why is an infinite past impossible? J.D. wrote: -Everything that begins has a cause, therefore time had a cause. Quantum mechanics would seem to suggest that cause and effect are macroscopic illusions
_____________________ �If one pays attention to the concepts being employed, rather than the words being used, the resolution of this problem is simple.� (Stuart Burns)

CypressMoon
growth

Usergroup: Members
Joined: May 16, 2007
Location: in between you and me
Total Topics: 71
Total Posts: 753

Posted 04/21/08 - 09:01 AM:	#4
reincarnated wrote: Why is an infinite past impossible? Infinite possibilites have expressed themselves through time. So, an infinite time-span would be impossible, if Infinite possibilites are the source of our finite universe... (?) reincarnated wrote: Quantum mechanics would seem to suggest that cause and effect are macroscopic illusions Would you mind elaborating on this? This Idea is new to me this morning.
_____________________ "We stand before the world, not in it." - Rilke "MAD, adj. Affected with a high degree of intellectual independence; not conforming to standards of thought, speech and action derived by the conformants from study of themselves; at odds with the majority; in short, unusual." - Ambrose Bierce (The Devil's Dictionary) If you have a small child, gently pull the mask over them first, and pull at the ends to tighten the straps.

despinozist
Student

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Mar 18, 2008
Total Topics: 6
Total Posts: 55

Posted 04/21/08 - 10:08 AM:	#5
Look, "time" is just a mode of thinking, for measuring duration. Our usage of the concept "time" to make "infinity" intelligible is a horrible category mistake. By definition, "infinity" is used to explain "time"; therefore, to use "time" to explain "infinity" presupposes that "infinity" is finite with respect to time. But by definition, "infinity" is beyond time. Time is not something which exists in the same way that "rock" or "cat" exist. You're committing a category mistake. Time is a concept and a word. It would be like saying "love exists"; but where is love? If you believe that concepts "exist" then you are accepting some form of realism. Now, before you go on to refute existence, you should understand the problem of universals (platonic forms). Furthermore, "time" is defined in terms of "motion," "matter," and "space." It's not as if time preceded the others; they are all defined in terms of each other. If you take away time, you take away everything else. But this does not mean that time is more important. Time and Existence have nothing essentially to do with each other. Therefore, time cannot explain existence essentially. Speaking that it is "impossible that anything can exist outside of time" abuses the word and its meaning. Time, Space, Matter, Motion are terms which are used to make existence meaningful to us within the framework of space-time theory; this does not convey any truth about existence itself. You cannot explain existence or refute it solely in terms of time alone. Time doesn't "begin" in the same way that "rock" or "cat" or "I" begin. "love began"; when did love begin? This question is nonsense. Edited by despinozist on 04/21/08 - 10:13 AM
_____________________ Understanding is the first and only basis of virtue.

J.D.
Student

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 13, 2008
Total Topics: 4
Total Posts: 72

Posted 04/21/08 - 01:51 PM:	#6
I'll uh, have to respond more in depth later, kinda busy at the moment. I'll say this much though, don't get me wrong, I wasn't supposing these were facts, just common things that most people perceive and accept as true. Infinity for example, is unfathomable for the usual person. It may still exist though, despite our inability to understand it. So yeah, more in depth later, lol...
_____________________ "I am, I exist, is necessarily true whenever it is put forward by me or conceived in my mind." -René Descartes, Cogito ergo sum

Floyd
Cool

Usergroup: Sponsors
Joined: Dec 16, 2003
Total Topics: 31
Total Posts: 1964

Last Blog: Poverty Book of the Day: The Support Economy

Posted 04/21/08 - 07:56 PM:	#7
How can time begin? Isn't the idea of beginning clearly time-dependent? It seems to me that the ideas of time, space and thinghood itself refer to relations between the parts of the universe.
_____________________ Short and to the point. \| Online Philosophy Club \| Book & Reading Forums \| My Philosophy Articles "Only the descent into the hell of self-knowledge can pave the way to godliness." ~Immanuel Kant

J.D.
Student

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 13, 2008
Total Topics: 4
Total Posts: 72

Posted 04/21/08 - 08:08 PM:	#8
Floyd wrote: How can time begin? Isn't the idea of beginning clearly time-dependent? It seems to me that the ideas of time, space and thinghood itself refer to relations between the parts of the universe. Exactly, that's why if we assume that all of our perceptions are actually true, then existence would be impossible. It contradicts itself. Edited by J.D. on 04/21/08 - 08:22 PM
_____________________ "I am, I exist, is necessarily true whenever it is put forward by me or conceived in my mind." -René Descartes, Cogito ergo sum

despinozist
Student

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Mar 18, 2008
Total Topics: 6
Total Posts: 55

Posted 04/21/08 - 08:18 PM:	#9
Floyd wrote: How can time begin? Isn't the idea of beginning clearly time-dependent? It seems to me that the ideas of time, space and thinghood itself refer to relations between the parts of the universe. Right. The word "begin" and the concept of "beginning" presuppose a conceptual framework which give them their meaning. The statement "it begins" has a semantic dependency on time itself. Time makes "beginning" intelligible, not the other way around. Further, asking "When did time begin?" or asserting "Time had to begin" is meaningless. Simply because the words, arranged in a certain way, yield a grammatically valid statement, proposition or question, that does not necessarily mean that the statement, proposition or question is semantically valid. You're abusing the terms by asserting "everything has a beginning; time has a beginning because it is a thing". No, time is not a "thing"; "time" "exists" as an meta-entity which makes all experiential things intelligible to our senses. The same goes for space, matter, and motion. Asking "when did time begin" is like asking "how did matter come from non-matter" (ex nihilo)? The question cannot be asked. Matter and non-matter are terms which only make sense when defined in terms of each other; therefore, they cannot refute one another. Quite different with time and beginning; as said, the concept "time" gives "beginning" its sense.
_____________________ Understanding is the first and only basis of virtue.

despinozist
Student

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Mar 18, 2008
Total Topics: 6
Total Posts: 55

Posted 04/21/08 - 08:20 PM:	#10
J.D. wrote: Exactly, that's why if we assume that all of our perceptions are assumed to be true, then existence would be impossible. It contradicts itself. What does it mean to say a "perception is true"? Truth and falsity apply to propositions. "My girlfriend appears to love me" cannot be a true statement. "My girlfriend said yesterday 'I love you'" can be a true statement.
_____________________ Understanding is the first and only basis of virtue.

J.D.
Student

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 13, 2008
Total Topics: 4
Total Posts: 72

Posted 04/21/08 - 08:29 PM:	#11
despinozist wrote: What does it mean to say a "perception is true"? Truth and falsity apply to propositions. "My girlfriend appears to love me" cannot be a true statement. "My girlfriend said yesterday 'I love you'" can be a true statement. Yeah...lol. I said assuming our perception is true. "My girlfriend appears to love me" is exactly that, a perception. I'm saying that our perceptions must be deceiving us if we expect the beginning to be possible. We know our perceptions to be true in some cases, but not in all. In other words- -If perceptions are always true, the universe must be impossible -The universe exists, therefore our perceptions are not always true From there it's so open-ended because any of them could be considered false. We are truly clueless about the beginning, but it can be fascinating to debate which might have been false, and which might have stayed true.
_____________________ "I am, I exist, is necessarily true whenever it is put forward by me or conceived in my mind." -René Descartes, Cogito ergo sum

reincarnated
Graduate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jan 30, 2006
Total Topics: 4
Total Posts: 207

Posted 04/21/08 - 10:03 PM:	#12
CypressMoon wrote: Infinite possibilites have expressed themselves through time. So, an infinite time-span would be impossible, if Infinite possibilites are the source of our finite universe... (?) Is the universe (where we define "universe" as "all that exists") finite? I don't think this has been established? Even if the universe is finite, an infinite time would simply mean that states of the universe are recurring, it does not follow that an infinite timescale is impossible. CypressMoon wrote: Would you mind elaborating on this? This Idea is new to me this morning. examples : When a radioactive nucleus decays, there is apparently no "cause" for the decay - there is simply a probability that the decay will happen within a certain period of time. In a perfect vacuum, virtual particle-antiparticle pairs are created and annihilated at random, without apparent cause. At the quantum level, there seems to be no simple cause and effect, everything seems to happen according to probabilistic rules only. Ultimately, everything that happens is based on quantum mecahnical processes, and many of the properties of macroscopic world that we observe, including the alleged macroscopic rules of cause and effect, are thus emergent proerties which apparently do not exist at the quantum level.
_____________________ �If one pays attention to the concepts being employed, rather than the words being used, the resolution of this problem is simple.� (Stuart Burns)

Baldinho
Initiate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 21, 2008
Total Topics: 2
Total Posts: 4

Posted 04/21/08 - 11:11 PM: Subject: JD wrote:Exactly, that's why if we assume that all of our perceptions are actually true, then existence would be impossible. It contradicts itself.	#13
we should not say that we assume we exist but, rather that we know we exist and can assume. existence is possible. assumptions make an ass out of you and me. if we keep making assumptions of assumptions, the probability decreases ever time we make an assumption, based on assumption. Edited by Baldinho on 04/21/08 - 11:37 PM

Baudin
Initiate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 18, 2008
Total Topics: 2
Total Posts: 17

Posted 04/22/08 - 03:14 AM:	#14
despinozist wrote: No, time is not a "thing"; "time" "exists" as an meta-entity which makes all experiential things intelligible to our senses. The same goes for space, matter, and motion. 1st, motion is defined in terms of space and time. 2e, matter is defined in terms of motion and energy 3e, enery is defined in terms of wave functions and qm so here again we come to space and time. So your meta-enties would only be: time and space. Asking which one precedes the other IS a valid question albeit not overly well stated. The way I would phrase it would be like this: "Do time and space have meta-meta-entities in common?" The question "When did time begin?" is equally valid although just as badly written. What wou should ask is: "How should the meta-meta-entities be ordened to form the construct time?". One last thing, I think it is a mistake to associate infinity with time. These are two concepts which can "work" on an entity but they are by themselves relationless (unless there are some meta-meta-entities who correlate).

despinozist
Student

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Mar 18, 2008
Total Topics: 6
Total Posts: 55

Posted 04/22/08 - 03:26 AM:	#15
Baudin wrote: 1st, motion is defined in terms of space and time. 2e, matter is defined in terms of motion and energy 3e, enery is defined in terms of wave functions and qm so here again we come to space and time. So your meta-enties would only be: time and space. Asking which one precedes the other IS a valid question albeit not overly well stated. The way I would phrase it would be like this: "Do time and space have meta-meta-entities in common?" The question "When did time begin?" is equally valid although just as badly written. What wou should ask is: "How should the meta-meta-entities be ordened to form the construct time?". One last thing, I think it is a mistake to associate infinity with time. These are two concepts which can "work" on an entity but they are by themselves relationless (unless there are some meta-meta-entities who correlate). Philosophy's goal is to make things clear; simply because a question can be formed and considered [grammatically] valid does not mean we should bend over backwards to form it into a philosophically valid inquiry. It might sound reasonable to postulate "meta-meta-entities," but this leads to infinite regress; we would then have to postulate "meta-meta-meta-entities" which sufficiently explain all their constituents. This is clearly absurd. We have a word "time" and its concept. We understand "beginning." To say the question "when did time begin" means "how did the ontological nature of Time formulate" gives a question undue status. The question does not ask about "beginning" but the necessary elucidation of an ontology's essential characteristics. What is the ontological status of the concept time? "infinity" itself is a bad term. We should stick to time because it at least is a mode of thinking. There is nothing beyond modes of thought for us and the valid grammar we use to clarify how those modes of thinking make relations possible and intelligible. Infinity is not a mode of thinking but the thing which makes all modes possible. "infinity" cannot be defined "in terms" of anything else other than itself. Nor can it be refuted in terms of anything else.
_____________________ Understanding is the first and only basis of virtue.

Baudin
Initiate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 18, 2008
Total Topics: 2
Total Posts: 17

Posted 04/22/08 - 04:22 AM:	#16
despinozist wrote: It might sound reasonable to postulate "meta-meta-entities," but this leads to infinite regress; we would then have to postulate "meta-meta-meta-entities" which sufficiently explain all their constituents. This is clearly absurd. I do not see how this is absurd. Here's a bit of reasoning: Space can be seen as a "container" and time can be seen as an "ordener". This is clearly a (mathematical) set. We know in mathematics we have relations between sets. These relations would constitute as meta-meta-entities. This reasoning is not very far fetched and would be an agrument supporting infinite regression of meta-entities. I think that the postulate of an infinite regression on meta-entities is not as absurd as you perpose. I think it is not even improbable. I agree completely whith your statement that we should stick to time in this thread, but I do think that infinity is a concept which superimposes itself onto time. (a meta-property if you will) For when we look at time we can ask ourselves "what is the smalest time period? Can we keep "halving" a certain time span?". But in the context of the initial subject of this thread these are indeed questions we should avoid. btw despinozist, I want to complement you on how clear your writing is. It is fun replying for I know which points you make and from there I can try and formulate a counter argument. Cheers.

The Escapist
Supreme Being (retired)

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Mar 26, 2008
Total Topics: 4
Total Posts: 92

Posted 04/23/08 - 04:51 AM:	#17
reincarnated wrote: Ultimately, everything that happens is based on quantum mecahnical processes, and many of the properties of macroscopic world that we observe, including the alleged macroscopic rules of cause and effect, are thus emergent proerties which apparently do not exist at the quantum level. I don't think everything that happens is based on quantum mechanical processes. Quantum mechanics is a model, not reality itself.
_____________________ Putting someone else's smart arsed quote into your signature does not make you any smarter. - D.K

reincarnated
Graduate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jan 30, 2006
Total Topics: 4
Total Posts: 207

Posted 04/23/08 - 06:28 AM:	#18
The Escapist wrote: I don't think everything that happens is based on quantum mechanical processes. Quantum mechanics is a model, not reality itself. We don't have access to "reality itself" - the only thing we have access to is models of reality.
_____________________ �If one pays attention to the concepts being employed, rather than the words being used, the resolution of this problem is simple.� (Stuart Burns)

Tritium
Initiate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Mar 23, 2008
Total Topics: 1
Total Posts: 11

Posted 04/23/08 - 09:29 PM:	#19
despinozist wrote: "infinity" cannot be defined "in terms" of anything else other than itself. Nor can it be refuted in terms of anything else. Infinity can be defined by the combination of terms "not" and "finite". Though this concept is harder to grasp in the human mind than the combination of its parts, it is still a definitive concept that holds validity. The Escapist wrote: I don't think everything that happens is based on quantum mechanical processes. Quantum mechanics is a model, not reality itself. Quantum Mechanics can give insight on reality, even though it is a model. Concepts such as superposition and mixed/pure state can be applied to reality itself before any subjective interference or observation.

Wosret
Yuri ga daisuki desu!

Usergroup: Sponsors
Joined: Mar 29, 2007
Location: New Brunswich Canada
Total Topics: 11
Total Posts: 1745

Posted 04/23/08 - 10:34 PM:	#20
Infinity is a mathematical construct that cannot (to my knowledge) be accurately applied to reality in any meaningful way. Also, since we know the universe to be at an increasing rate of expansion, this implies that the universe is finite, yet boundless. Casuality on the macroscopic scale is still observer dependent. Both in the sense of it being relative to an observes position in space, but it also requires a mind to order events into chronological order. Without a mind with knowledge of the past, and the ability to infer the future, causality is meaningless. All that is happening in reality, removed from agents, is events. Things effecting other things in real time. We observe the relation between events, and based on past iterations can often accurately predict future iterations of similar events. This fact in no way implies that they must behave in that way, and can't behave in another way. All we can accurately say is that they do behave that way, not that they must. Invoking causality has as unviolatable prescription that necessitates certain behaviours of interactions between things in reality is absurd, and fundamentally misunderstands how science is done, and how physics works. So, even without the imput and discoveries of quatum mechanics, premise two is not only logically unintelligible, but it is an unjustifiable and untestable assertion, that evidence could never be gathered for.
_____________________ "cute girls really should stick with other cute girls, hm?" - Morinaga Milk

despinozist
Student

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Mar 18, 2008
Total Topics: 6
Total Posts: 55

Posted 04/24/08 - 12:05 AM:	#21
Tritium wrote: Infinity can be defined by the combination of terms "not" and "finite". Though this concept is harder to grasp in the human mind than the combination of its parts, it is still a definitive concept that holds validity. Quantum Mechanics can give insight on reality, even though it is a model. Concepts such as superposition and mixed/pure state can be applied to reality itself before any subjective interference or observation. Negation is not a term like "finite"; it is an operator, a method for looking at a thing. To say "infinity" can be defined in terms of "not" and "finite" is to restate the word "infinity" is a childschool way. "In-" is a prefix that is another way of wording "not" or "non-"; "finite" is not a term that is different from infinity. "finite" is a term of "infinity." In order to even give the word any sense whatsoever, "finite" must be understood and so "infinite" is also understood. It would be like saying "let us talk about his unhappiness in new terms" and we necessarily believe that saying "okay, so he is not happy" introduces a new sense.--or worse, that we've somehow started talking about "sadness" "in new terms" means to talk about an established concept or notion in words which introduce a different sense from the old words or the reflexive terms; logical operators are not "terms" with any sense in themselves, and as a prefix of grammatical negation, nothing is more so understood by saying "I was unhappy yesterday." This does not give me insight into the concept of happiness. Edited by despinozist on 04/24/08 - 12:20 AM
_____________________ Understanding is the first and only basis of virtue.

J.D.
Student

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 13, 2008
Total Topics: 4
Total Posts: 72

Posted 04/24/08 - 11:52 AM:	#22
Wosret wrote: Infinity is a mathematical construct that cannot (to my knowledge) be accurately applied to reality in any meaningful way. Also, since we know the universe to be at an increasing rate of expansion, this implies that the universe is finite, yet boundless. Casuality on the macroscopic scale is still observer dependent. Both in the sense of it being relative to an observes position in space, but it also requires a mind to order events into chronological order. Without a mind with knowledge of the past, and the ability to infer the future, causality is meaningless. All that is happening in reality, removed from agents, is events. Things effecting other things in real time. We observe the relation between events, and based on past iterations can often accurately predict future iterations of similar events. This fact in no way implies that they must behave in that way, and can't behave in another way. All we can accurately say is that they do behave that way, not that they must. Invoking causality has as unviolatable prescription that necessitates certain behaviours of interactions between things in reality is absurd, and fundamentally misunderstands how science is done, and how physics works. So, even without the imput and discoveries of quatum mechanics, premise two is not only logically unintelligible, but it is an unjustifiable and untestable assertion, that evidence could never be gathered for. Well, events outside time may be untestable, but then again causality is testable. Granted, we are talking events outside time, but we can still test causality in everyday life. That much we know. If we were to talk about testable and untestable, we'd have to rule out all the possibilities, because none are truly testable. I just have a hard time thinking the universe "just is," then letting it go.
_____________________ "I am, I exist, is necessarily true whenever it is put forward by me or conceived in my mind." -René Descartes, Cogito ergo sum

Wosret
Yuri ga daisuki desu!

Usergroup: Sponsors
Joined: Mar 29, 2007
Location: New Brunswich Canada
Total Topics: 11
Total Posts: 1745

Posted 04/24/08 - 06:00 PM:	#23
You can't test the proposition of the necessity of causality. We can only say that things on the macroscoptic scale react causally. Not that they must, just that they do. The fundamental mistake you are making is not knowing how induction works. It can never ever necessitate our conclusions, only ever imply them. The only accurate thing you can say about causality is that "we have observed that events react to each other in a predictable fashion based on observation of past events. If they continue to react the same was to each other as they have in the past, then there is a high probability that such and such an event will result with such and such an effect." Science offers probability, not certainty. Description, not prescription. Science does rule out all the untestable possibilities, because they are useless to us. Without anyway to varify or falsify a hypothesis, there is absolutely no way to ever tell whether it is true or not, and thus it is useless. It is rejected for this reason. What you put forward, similar to things like Intelligent Design, isn't even wrong. If it were wrong, that would be an improvement. It's like answering the question "does 2 + 2 equal 4 or 5?" with "yes". It isn't a wrong answer, it is merely a completely useless one, that tells us nothing, and can't tell us anything about the question asked. It's a non-answer. Edited by Wosret on 04/24/08 - 06:04 PM
_____________________ "cute girls really should stick with other cute girls, hm?" - Morinaga Milk

J.D.
Student

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 13, 2008
Total Topics: 4
Total Posts: 72

Posted 04/24/08 - 08:27 PM:	#24
Wosret wrote: You can't test the proposition of the necessity of causality. We can only say that things on the macroscoptic scale react causally. Not that they must, just that they do. With that mindset, nothing is truly testable, nor ever confirmed through tests. You can't test the necessity of gravity for orbit, you can't test the necessity of heat from fire, you can't test the necessity of lemons in lemonade. We don't know that these must be, only that they are. Wosret wrote: Science does rule out all the untestable possibilities, because they are useless to us. Without anyway to varify or falsify a hypothesis, there is absolutely no way to ever tell whether it is true or not, and thus it is useless. It is rejected for this reason. So, this means you are not interested in the beginning at all? No theory of the beginning of time is testable, therefore according to your definition of science, speculation of the beginning is useless. If you jump to agree, then I have to ask why you joined me in speculation of what could or couldn't have happened? It's ultimately useless conversation to you, right? I speculate because I want to, whether it's useful or not. I'm a philosopher, not a scientist.
_____________________ "I am, I exist, is necessarily true whenever it is put forward by me or conceived in my mind." -René Descartes, Cogito ergo sum

Wosret
Yuri ga daisuki desu!

Usergroup: Sponsors
Joined: Mar 29, 2007
Location: New Brunswich Canada
Total Topics: 11
Total Posts: 1745

Posted 04/24/08 - 09:14 PM:	#25
J.D. wrote: With that mindset, nothing is truly testable, nor ever confirmed through tests. You can't test the necessity of gravity for orbit, you can't test the necessity of heat from fire, you can't test the necessity of lemons in lemonade. We don't know that these must be, only that they are. Other than the lemon one that is correct. Lemonade requires lemons by definition. It's not a mind set, it is simply a fact of the limitation of the means in which we aquire knowledge about the objective world. One that has been known about, and demonstrated for a very long time. Look up "the problem of induction". J.D. wrote: So, this means you are not interested in the beginning at all? No theory of the beginning of time is testable, therefore according to your definition of science, speculation of the beginning is useless. If you jump to agree, then I have to ask why you joined me in speculation of what could or couldn't have happened? It's ultimately useless conversation to you, right? I speculate because I want to, whether it's useful or not. I'm a philosopher, not a scientist. No that isn't what that means. I am very much interested in the beginning, and people can speculate all they want. I don't, I'm not a scientist, I leave it up to those qualitied to speculate about scientific issues. Though it is just speculation, not anything that is to be believed or disbelieved. Just brain candy. I think it is a useless conversation when your postulates involve things that are necessarily and fundamentally unfalsifiable and untestable. Scientific postulates are at least in principle faslifiable and testable, we just lack the means to do so. They are currently building a machine that will be finished soon that will allow them to recreate the conditions of the big bang, and also do lots of stuff with particles, that will answer many of our questions. The questions that are asked, and the answered proposed must be at least in principle testable, as they are. They also must adhere to current scientific understanding of the universe. Ideas that depart from this are useless. As history has attested to. With the advances of science showing that it works, and the complete lack of any advancing in the realm of wild and whimsical untestable imagination. They make good books, but poor science. Also, philosophy is the study, and discussion of the proper application of knowledge. Not wild speculation and imagination. That's called theology. Edited by Wosret on 04/24/08 - 09:36 PM
_____________________ "cute girls really should stick with other cute girls, hm?" - Morinaga Milk

Page: 1 2 3

You don't have permission to post.

Please login or register.