Does "maybe not" equal "not necessary"?
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
16-10-2016, 09:10 AM
RE: Does "maybe not" equal "not necessary"?
The thing is our language conveys past, present & future.

Always refers to all points in time.
Before also refers to time.

The phrase "Before time existed" doesn't make sense.

And having something exist before existence, again doesn't make sense.

Only in our imagination can we place a god that has always existed, before time & existence.

You may as well believe that the universe gives birth to a god at the end of its last days and that god sends all the energy of the universe back in time to restart the process.

At least that gives us a circle, instead of a never ending line of gods creating gods.

Insanity - doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Rahn127's post
16-10-2016, 09:13 AM
RE: Does "maybe not" equal "not necessary"?
At work.

"Slpetch"

Big Grin
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-10-2016, 09:14 AM
RE: Does "maybe not" equal "not necessary"?
(16-10-2016 08:49 AM)Peebothuhul Wrote:  Sadcryface

I acknowledged/acceped the first premise.....

...... and I thought I gave a pretty good example/possibility/idea.

Thumbsup
Oh! Well if you're talking to me then I think I got to caught up with other responses since they disagreed. So then would you think the statement would be true if you plugged "God" in for 'X'? Because then you would accept the conclusion that "God doesn't require a cause" which would be your answer to "Who created God?". It also wouldn't be special pleading because God wouldn't be defined as an exception to the causation rule since causality is only a mechanism of the universe which God does not exist in. The question assumes God's existence but you'd have to accept ideas like existence outside of the universe. My brain is dying now so I'm just gonna leave it at that, hopefully that makes sense, which I know it doesn't to you peeps but hopefully it does to me in an hour or so...
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-10-2016, 09:19 AM (This post was last modified: 16-10-2016 09:29 AM by Peebothuhul.)
RE: Does "maybe not" equal "not necessary"?
At work.

No time for great reply.

I agree with the sentence/thought experiment "That 'something' does not have to have a cause."

However, any point/question/conjecture about its existence is a separate sentence/conjecture/point.

Yes

Edit: Another though/expansion/expression:

I agree that an, as yet undefined/discovered ('X') can be un-caused.

The concept of 'Diety' becomes a second conversation.

The problem with "Something can be un-caused" is that there are a whole bundle of other things/aspects that are still undefined about the idea/concept/thought experiment.

Thumbsup
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-10-2016, 09:29 AM
RE: Does "maybe not" equal "not necessary"?
(16-10-2016 09:10 AM)Rahn127 Wrote:  The phrase "Before time existed" doesn't make sense.

And having something exist before existence, again doesn't make sense.

Let's just say that I'm not certain that time and existence are solely concepts of the universe either. If you really wanna know my thoughts about it, go read my post What is Existence? - Existence as truth, relative to systems. I haven't gotten much feedback on it so I don't know exactly how batshit insane it is, but there it is.

TLBig GrinR
Chess is a "system", Minesweeper is a "system".
Pawns exist in chess, not Minesweeper.
Mines exist in Minesweeper, not chess.
Both exist in our universe.
Horses do not exist in Minesweeper nor chess.
Existence is relative to "systems".
The universe is a system.
Other universes may exist relative to an all encompassing system.
"God" can exist relative to this system, but not ours.

I'm taking a break Drinking Beverage
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-10-2016, 09:33 AM (This post was last modified: 16-10-2016 09:38 AM by Peebothuhul.)
RE: Does "maybe not" equal "not necessary"?
At work.

In regards to the above post.

There are other points/problems with the 'Game' idea/analogy

1) It presupposes 'Players'.
2) There can be 'Cheating' (Is it possible to bend, break or ignore rules, pieces, board size/shape. The permutations abound. TRON anyone?)

To be a 'Successful' kind of representation then (My thoughts) the/any 'players' must also 'be' pieces.

There are aspects about the OP's position I don't have time or keyboard to express.

Thumbsup
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-10-2016, 09:38 AM
RE: Does "maybe not" equal "not necessary"?
(16-10-2016 09:29 AM)unknowndevil666 Wrote:  
(16-10-2016 09:10 AM)Rahn127 Wrote:  The phrase "Before time existed" doesn't make sense.

And having something exist before existence, again doesn't make sense.

Let's just say that I'm not certain that time and existence are solely concepts of the universe either. If you really wanna know my thoughts about it, go read my post What is Existence? - Existence as truth, relative to systems. I haven't gotten much feedback on it so I don't know exactly how batshit insane it is, but there it is.

TLBig GrinR
Chess is a "system", Minesweeper is a "system".
Pawns exist in chess, not Minesweeper.
Mines exist in Minesweeper, not chess.
Both exist in our universe.
Horses do not exist in Minesweeper nor chess.
Existence is relative to "systems".
The universe is a system.
Other universes may exist relative to an all encompassing system.
"God" can exist relative to this system, but not ours.

I'm taking a break Drinking Beverage

If you want to place a god in its own separate existence, then its separate. It has no ties to this existence and thus irrelevant and there is no distinction between it's existence and non existence.

Insanity - doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-10-2016, 10:32 AM
RE: Does "maybe not" equal "not necessary"?
(16-10-2016 06:00 AM)Peebothuhul Wrote:  At work.

In regards to the first part. "Is it possible that ('X') does not have a cause."

My answer to such is 'Yes'.

Consider this.

I, or some one on this forum or even some some where has a 'Slpetch'. It's a small, interestingly shaped object. Can be easily held in the palm of a hand. Pleasant to touch and hold. The fingers can easily rub around its shape or be absently fondled/manipulated while the mind ponders other things. It can have chord, string or chain added to it through gaps in its material.

So... some where in the future Science(ists) finally think they've cracked the problem of Time Travel.

By massaging a Higg's bosun just the right way some amount of matter can beat Einstein's light barrier and be whisked away!

In the course of setting up the experiment. One of the technicians has been the inheritor of the 'Slpetch'. They think the item has brought them good luck and, in a moment of whimsy, slip the small widget into the package. (Much like the small piece of art smuggled to the Moon. Look it up Smile )

Unfortunately. ... something seems to go wrong and, instead of receiving telemetry from the past. Humanity finds itself with yet another device which releases 'Explosive' amounts of energy.

Shrugging their shoulders, Science(tist) bottle the power and a grand new dawn begins for Human kind.

Unknown to all, however, is that the 'Slpetch' has survived the experiment and winds up an untold amount of time 'in the past'. Only to eventually be found, passed on and eventually be placed within an experiment. Sending it back in time etc.

So, again, yes I can imagine something that it is possible for/that 'Slpetch' ('X') does not have a cause.

Big Grin

Thumbsup

Trying hard to conceive that there was not a time when the Slpetch was not brought into being from something carved, moulded or assembled from non-Slpetch.

Nope, can't quite get there yet, need to find a way to diagram this, or a matrix of some sort, similar to a logic gate truth table... Ugh, could be three dimensional to satisfy everything - not sure why, just a feeling.

Tomorrow is precious, don't ruin it by fouling up today.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Gloucester's post
16-10-2016, 10:42 AM
RE: Does "maybe not" equal "not necessary"?
At work.

(16-10-2016 10:32 AM)Gloucester Wrote:  
(16-10-2016 06:00 AM)Peebothuhul Wrote:  At work.

In regards to the first part. "Is it possible that ('X') does not have a cause."

My answer to such is 'Yes'.

Consider this.

I, or some one on this forum or even some some where has a 'Slpetch'. It's a small, interestingly shaped object. Can be easily held in the palm of a hand. Pleasant to touch and hold. The fingers can easily rub around its shape or be absently fondled/manipulated while the mind ponders other things. It can have chord, string or chain added to it through gaps in its material.

So... some where in the future Science(ists) finally think they've cracked the problem of Time Travel.

By massaging a Higg's bosun just the right way some amount of matter can beat Einstein's light barrier and be whisked away!

In the course of setting up the experiment. One of the technicians has been the inheritor of the 'Slpetch'. They think the item has brought them good luck and, in a moment of whimsy, slip the small widget into the package. (Much like the small piece of art smuggled to the Moon. Look it up Smile )

Unfortunately. ... something seems to go wrong and, instead of receiving telemetry from the past. Humanity finds itself with yet another device which releases 'Explosive' amounts of energy.

Shrugging their shoulders, Science(tist) bottle the power and a grand new dawn begins for Human kind.

Unknown to all, however, is that the 'Slpetch' has survived the experiment and winds up an untold amount of time 'in the past'. Only to eventually be found, passed on and eventually be placed within an experiment. Sending it back in time etc.

So, again, yes I can imagine something that it is possible for/that 'Slpetch' ('X') does not have a cause.

Big Grin

Thumbsup

Trying hard to conceive that there was not a time when the Slpetch was not brought into being from something carved, moulded or assembled from non-Slpetch.

Nope, can't quite get there yet, need to find a way to diagram this, or a matrix of some sort, similar to a logic gate truth table... Ugh, could be three dimensional to satisfy everything - not sure why, just a feeling.


Yay for the 'Slpetch'!

Big Grin
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-10-2016, 01:17 PM
RE: Does "maybe not" equal "not necessary"?
(16-10-2016 09:29 AM)unknowndevil666 Wrote:  
(16-10-2016 09:10 AM)Rahn127 Wrote:  The phrase "Before time existed" doesn't make sense.

And having something exist before existence, again doesn't make sense.

Let's just say that I'm not certain that time and existence are solely concepts of the universe either. If you really wanna know my thoughts about it, go read my post What is Existence? - Existence as truth, relative to systems. I haven't gotten much feedback on it so I don't know exactly how batshit insane it is, but there it is.

TLBig GrinR
Chess is a "system", Minesweeper is a "system".
Pawns exist in chess, not Minesweeper.
Mines exist in Minesweeper, not chess.
Both exist in our universe.
Horses do not exist in Minesweeper nor chess.
Existence is relative to "systems".
The universe is a system.
Other universes may exist relative to an all encompassing system.
"God" can exist relative to this system, but not ours.

I'm taking a break Drinking Beverage

Placing God in another universe or superposing him in some hierarchy above the universe(s) doesn't net much. You come back around to the same problem. Either:

(1) There is some form of space-time and logic as we understand it allowing for God's existence.

or

(2) Logic as we understand it is violated.

In the first case you are still left with the problem of a Deity that requires a cause in a completely different universe or state of existence. That you have removed the Deity and its cause from our universe is has helped the argument not at all and is a particularly beautiful example of NIMBY.

Actually it causes a whole slew of new problems. The little chunk of space-time that we lovingly refer to as the universe is expanding. If there were space-time "external" to the universe then it would necessarily be expanding into that. That situation would reasonably be expected to cause some truly ugly problems as our universe bulldozes whatever its expanding into. So now you need to bodge in some "void" between the universes and the superstructure they're contained in and hope you used enough so that the wretched things don't grow into one another. And then God will have to reach "across" the void and cause our universe at some conveniently empty non-location. Adding epicycles to special pleading doesn't improve it much.

The second case is philosophically possible but impervious to reason. Logic as we know it doesn't operate so there's no way we can use logic to examine it. The argument might as well not be made since it boils down to "coulda done but dunno". It's a bit like expecting a dedicated chess computer to be able to play minesweeper.

[Image: puzzle.png]

---
Flesh and blood of a dead star, slain in the apocalypse of supernova, resurrected by four billion years of continuous autocatalytic reaction and crowned with the emergent property of sentience in the dream that the universe might one day understand itself.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Paleophyte's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: