Total Posts:64|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

What Vilenkin's work REALLY says

Reason_Alliance
Posts: 1,283
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/8/2012 10:15:05 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
There has been a lot of disinformation on the web about the implications of Alexander Vilenkin's work, based on out context quotations from private correspondence with
Vilenkin and misunderstanding of his answers.

To see and hear what the man himself holds, look at this video of his lecture at Cambridge University at a conference celebrating Hawking's 70th birthday. It's remarkably straightforward and clear. Nota bene his closing statement:

"For all we know, there are no models at this time that provide a satisfactory model for a universe without a beginning."
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/9/2012 7:44:05 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/8/2012 10:15:05 PM, Reason_Alliance wrote:
There has been a lot of disinformation on the web about the implications of Alexander Vilenkin's work, based on out context quotations from private correspondence with
Vilenkin and misunderstanding of his answers.

To see and hear what the man himself holds, look at this video of his lecture at Cambridge University at a conference celebrating Hawking's 70th birthday. It's remarkably straightforward and clear. Nota bene his closing statement:

"For all we know, there are no models at this time that provide a satisfactory model for a universe without a beginning."



For all we know, there are no models at this time that provide a satisfactory model for a universe without a beginning.

The Fool: What do you think this is supposed to imply? It is saying we are ignorant to such a regard, and nothing follows from ignorance,but ignorance.
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
Reason_Alliance
Posts: 1,283
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/9/2012 9:39:59 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
For all we know, there are no models at this time that provide a satisfactory model for a universe without a beginning.

The Fool: What do you think this is supposed to imply? It is saying we are ignorant to such a regard, and nothing follows from ignorance, but ignorance.

This is taken from within the context of an empirical discussion; meaning the best of our current empiricle information implies a universe with a beginning.
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/9/2012 12:19:06 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/9/2012 9:39:59 AM, Reason_Alliance wrote:
For all we know, there are no models at this time that provide a satisfactory model for a universe without a beginning.

The Fool: What do you think this is supposed to imply? It is saying we are ignorant to such a regard, and nothing follows from ignorance, but ignorance.

This is taken from within the context of an empirical discussion; meaning the best of our current empiricle information implies a universe with a beginning.

The Fool: Its not even possible for it to imply a beginning.
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
Stephen_Hawkins
Posts: 5,316
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/9/2012 12:25:01 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/9/2012 9:39:59 AM, Reason_Alliance wrote:
For all we know, there are no models at this time that provide a satisfactory model for a universe without a beginning.

The Fool: What do you think this is supposed to imply? It is saying we are ignorant to such a regard, and nothing follows from ignorance, but ignorance.

This is taken from within the context of an empirical discussion; meaning the best of our current empiricle information implies a universe with a beginning.

No, because the current data suggests a flawed universe with a beginning. Further, universe simply means the result of the expansion of the singularity. The BBT predicts eternal matter. The eternal universe is the universe being expanded. Further, the current model of the universe is well known to be flawed, because it does not fit with evidence (spacetime and a Big Bang contradict in many cases). The theory is awkward, but it is accurate at explaining many things.
Give a man a fish, he'll eat for a day. Teach him how to be Gay, he'll positively influence the GDP.

Social Contract Theory debate: http://www.debate.org...
drafterman
Posts: 18,870
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/9/2012 12:37:24 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/8/2012 10:15:05 PM, Reason_Alliance wrote:
There has been a lot of disinformation on the web about the implications of Alexander Vilenkin's work, based on out context quotations from private correspondence with
Vilenkin and misunderstanding of his answers.

To see and hear what the man himself holds, look at this video of his lecture at Cambridge University at a conference celebrating Hawking's 70th birthday. It's remarkably straightforward and clear. Nota bene his closing statement:

"For all we know, there are no models at this time that provide a satisfactory model for a universe without a beginning."



Given the incompatibility between quantum mechanics and relativity, there are no models at this time that provide a satisfactory model for a universe with a beginning.
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/9/2012 12:37:40 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/9/2012 12:25:01 PM, Stephen_Hawkins wrote:
At 7/9/2012 9:39:59 AM, Reason_Alliance wrote:
For all we know, there are no models at this time that provide a satisfactory model for a universe without a beginning.

The Fool: What do you think this is supposed to imply? It is saying we are ignorant to such a regard, and nothing follows from ignorance, but ignorance.

This is taken from within the context of an empirical discussion; meaning the best of our current empiricle information implies a universe with a beginning.

No, because the current data suggests a flawed universe with a beginning. Further, universe simply means the result of the expansion of the singularity. The BBT predicts eternal matter. The eternal universe is the universe being expanded. Further, the current model of the universe is well known to be flawed, because it does not fit with evidence (spacetime and a Big Bang contradict in many cases). The theory is awkward, but it is accurate at explaining many things.

The Fool: Its not even possible know of a flawed universe without comparing it to an perfect universe, they are not even possible claims.
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
Reason_Alliance
Posts: 1,283
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/9/2012 1:59:30 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/9/2012 12:25:01 PM, Stephen_Hawkins wrote:
At 7/9/2012 9:39:59 AM, Reason_Alliance wrote:
For all we know, there are no models at this time that provide a satisfactory model for a universe without a beginning.

The Fool: What do you think this is supposed to imply? It is saying we are ignorant to such a regard, and nothing follows from ignorance, but ignorance.

This is taken from within the context of an empirical discussion; meaning the best of our current empiricle information implies a universe with a beginning.

No, because the current data suggests a flawed universe with a beginning.

A flawed universe with a beginning? How does this equate to an argument against a beginning? What is it even that you mean by flawed here?

Further, universe simply means the result of the expansion of the singularity.

And the singularity which itself had a beginning according to the best evidence. I know you don't like it, but you'll have to come up with something more than the arguments you're giving.

The BBT predicts eternal matter.

Wrong again. It doesn't 'predict' anything, in fact it mathematically describes the past evolution of all universes with inflation. If anything, eschatology predicts 'potentially eternal' matter.

The eternal universe is the universe being expanded.

Which is potential infinity, not actual infinity.

Further, the current model of the universe is well known to be flawed, because it does not fit with evidence (spacetime and a Big Bang contradict in many cases). The theory is awkward, but it is accurate at explaining many things.

Is this why it's been favored as one of the pinnacles of science? And what flaws are you referring to that are relevant? I'm familiar with the lit and personally have seen nothing contradicting what AV said in his video.
Reason_Alliance
Posts: 1,283
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/9/2012 2:00:18 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/9/2012 12:19:06 PM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
At 7/9/2012 9:39:59 AM, Reason_Alliance wrote:
For all we know, there are no models at this time that provide a satisfactory model for a universe without a beginning.

The Fool: What do you think this is supposed to imply? It is saying we are ignorant to such a regard, and nothing follows from ignorance, but ignorance.

This is taken from within the context of an empirical discussion; meaning the best of our current empiricle information implies a universe with a beginning.

The Fool: Its not even possible for it to imply a beginning.

Poppycock.
Reason_Alliance
Posts: 1,283
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/9/2012 2:05:34 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Given the incompatibility between quantum mechanics and relativity, there are no models at this time that provide a satisfactory model for a universe with a beginning.

(Fallacy of Accent?)

The Lorenzian equations are fully compatible with the Einstienian equations and provide no contradictions of absolute space time or relative space time.

The quantum fluctuations themselves required a beginning since QM fits within the paradign Vilanken describes.

Don't atheistic complaints about theists involve the denial of science? Hmmm.
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/9/2012 2:52:44 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/9/2012 2:00:18 PM, Reason_Alliance wrote:
At 7/9/2012 12:19:06 PM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
At 7/9/2012 9:39:59 AM, Reason_Alliance wrote:
For all we know, there are no models at this time that provide a satisfactory model for a universe without a beginning.

The Fool: What do you think this is supposed to imply? It is saying we are ignorant to such a regard, and nothing follows from ignorance, but ignorance.

This is taken from within the context of an empirical discussion; meaning the best of our current empiricle information implies a universe with a beginning.

The Fool: Its not even possible for it to imply a beginning.

Poppycock.

The Fool: I think the integraty of your arguements are going down the tube here..lol
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
Reason_Alliance
Posts: 1,283
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/9/2012 2:55:03 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/9/2012 2:52:44 PM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
At 7/9/2012 2:00:18 PM, Reason_Alliance wrote:
At 7/9/2012 12:19:06 PM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
At 7/9/2012 9:39:59 AM, Reason_Alliance wrote:
For all we know, there are no models at this time that provide a satisfactory model for a universe without a beginning.

The Fool: What do you think this is supposed to imply? It is saying we are ignorant to such a regard, and nothing follows from ignorance, but ignorance.

This is taken from within the context of an empirical discussion; meaning the best of our current empiricle information implies a universe with a beginning.

The Fool: Its not even possible for it to imply a beginning.

Poppycock.

The Fool: I think the integraty of your arguements are going down the tube here..lol

I'm starting to proportion them incase you haven't noticed.
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/9/2012 2:57:20 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/9/2012 2:52:44 PM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
At 7/9/2012 2:00:18 PM, Reason_Alliance wrote:
At 7/9/2012 12:19:06 PM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
At 7/9/2012 9:39:59 AM, Reason_Alliance wrote:
For all we know, there are no models at this time that provide a satisfactory model for a universe without a beginning.

The Fool: What do you think this is supposed to imply? It is saying we are ignorant to such a regard, and nothing follows from ignorance, but ignorance.

This is taken from within the context of an empirical discussion; meaning the best of our current empiricle information implies a universe with a beginning.

The Fool: Its not even possible for it to imply a beginning.

Poppycock.

The Fool: I think the integraty of your arguements are going down the tube here..lol

Here I will make it clearer.

Since, we have no idea of knowling whether we can pick up with sense information alone all that is going on in the universe, we will never be able to conclude the beginning of the universe. All we could say, is that we don't RECOGNIZE something beyond a point. That doesn't Really mean anything to do with the beginning of ALL THAT IS. (The physical universe is a reduced, universe.) it is not the ABSOLUTE Universe of the philosopher, all that exist Period.
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/9/2012 2:58:12 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/9/2012 2:57:20 PM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
At 7/9/2012 2:52:44 PM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
At 7/9/2012 2:00:18 PM, Reason_Alliance wrote:
At 7/9/2012 12:19:06 PM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
At 7/9/2012 9:39:59 AM, Reason_Alliance wrote:
For all we know, there are no models at this time that provide a satisfactory model for a universe without a beginning.

The Fool: What do you think this is supposed to imply? It is saying we are ignorant to such a regard, and nothing follows from ignorance, but ignorance.

This is taken from within the context of an empirical discussion; meaning the best of our current empiricle information implies a universe with a beginning.

The Fool: Its not even possible for it to imply a beginning.

Poppycock.

The Fool: I think the integraty of your arguements are going down the tube here..lol

Here I will make it clearer.

Since, we have no idea of knowling whether we can pick up with sense information alone all that is going on in the universe, we will never be able to conclude the beginning of the universe. All we could say, is that we don't RECOGNIZE something beyond a point. That doesn't Really mean anything to do with the beginning of ALL THAT IS. (The physical universe is a reduced, universe.) it is not the ABSOLUTE Universe of the philosopher, all that exist Period.

The Fool: Can you refute this or not?????? Good LUCK!!
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
Reason_Alliance
Posts: 1,283
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/9/2012 6:33:19 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/9/2012 2:57:20 PM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:

Since, we have no idea of knowling whether we can pick up with sense information alone all that is going on in the universe, we will never be able to conclude the beginning of the universe.

And that's fine if you want to take the skeptics line with that. But the best (most currently enhanced) of our sense information tells us the universe had a beginning. Also, there are rational arguments which vindicate such conclusions as well. The scales are simply, and obviously, tipped in favor of a cosmos with a beginning.

All we could say, is that we don't RECOGNIZE something beyond a point.

Mathematical extrapolations don't show that conclusion. Did you even watch the video? Your arguments sound like they're all coming from a PopSci magazine.

That doesn't Really mean anything to do with the beginning of ALL THAT IS. (The physical universe is a reduced, universe.) it is not the ABSOLUTE Universe of the philosopher, all that exist Period.

Again, this view is consistent with the universe having a beginning.
Reason_Alliance
Posts: 1,283
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/9/2012 6:36:40 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/9/2012 2:58:12 PM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:

The Fool: Can you refute this or not?????? Good LUCK!!

... That's your "flagship" argument with which you declare victory?? Haha!

At best, even if I grant you all the premises, it still doesn't follow that the universe isn't described with coming into being, nor does it refute in the least bit what Vilenkin's work says... for your argument's sake watch the video sir :-)
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/9/2012 7:06:09 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/9/2012 6:33:19 PM, Reason_Alliance wrote:
At 7/9/2012 2:57:20 PM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:

The Fool: We didn't know that we had radiation at one time, but we do know, the same goes for many other things. That is we do know for sure that we don't percieve everything with our senses. Accordng to the physical universe we don't exist. That is your mind doesn't exist. We don't recognize that with physical senses. So you are in contradiction with your other understandings.

Secondly, we don't know Non-existence because it doesn't exist, let alone know that was the case. It could be cyclical.

The Fool: : Since, we have no idea of knowling whether we can pick up with sense information alone all that is going on in the universe, we will never be able to conclude the beginning of the universe.

Reason_Alliance: And that's fine if you want to take the skeptics line with that. But the best (most currently enhanced) of our sense information tells us the universe had a beginning. Also, there are rational arguments which vindicate such conclusions as well.

The Fool: its the LOGICAL AND RATIONAL LINE!. and you KNOW IT!> Our sense information tell us we don't exist, also. DO you believe that too?

Reason_Alliance: The scales are simply, and obviously, tipped in favor of a cosmos with a beginning.

The Fool: No they are not, that is only regarding, the current state of physical existence.

Again its not the ABSOLUTE UNIVERSE. Only a reduced form. All we could say, is that we don't RECOGNIZE something beyond a point.

Mathematical extrapolations don't show that conclusion. Did you even watch the video? Your arguments sound like they're all coming from a PopSci magazine.

The Fool: Come on you know me better then that. I have refuteed you logically and you have not refuted me. you are just appealing to popularity. Mathatical garbage. They are using probability out of nothing. There is nothing for them to compare what the probability is out of. RIght?

That doesn't Really mean anything to do with the beginning of ALL THAT IS. (The physical universe is a reduced, universe.) it is not the ABSOLUTE Universe of the philosopher, all that exist Period.

Again, this view is consistent with the universe having a beginning.

The Fool: I refuted it! it doesn't matter. You can appeal to popularity or authority, but you are philosophically WRONG!. Whether you like it or not.

Shame! . So much for being Rational!. Let it burn in your SouL!!>
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
Reason_Alliance
Posts: 1,283
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/9/2012 7:13:37 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Wow... I'm wondering if such drivel warrants my response or not... let me think about spending my precious time on your post while also contemplating if you're a troll. Rumor has it you are.
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/9/2012 7:21:57 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/9/2012 7:13:37 PM, Reason_Alliance wrote:
Wow... I'm wondering if such drivel warrants my response or not... let me think about spending my precious time on your post while also contemplating if you're a troll. Rumor has it you are.

The Fool: Ah, Liebniz is rolling in his grave... After hearing you responding like that. You are running from refutation. Rational refutation. Who cares, what anybody says, if the logic is there, though shall not yield.
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
Reason_Alliance
Posts: 1,283
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/9/2012 7:35:15 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/9/2012 7:21:57 PM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
At 7/9/2012 7:13:37 PM, Reason_Alliance wrote:
Wow... I'm wondering if such drivel warrants my response or not... let me think about spending my precious time on your post while also contemplating if you're a troll. Rumor has it you are.

The Fool: Ah, Liebniz is rolling in his grave... After hearing you responding like that. You are running from refutation. Rational refutation. Who cares, what anybody says, if the logic is there, though shall not yield.

Haha, Leibniz wouldn't get your grammar. Relax, I'll respond when I'm not busy. It'll be easy.
Reason_Alliance
Posts: 1,283
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/10/2012 8:09:50 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/9/2012 7:06:09 PM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
At 7/9/2012 6:33:19 PM, Reason_Alliance wrote:
At 7/9/2012 2:57:20 PM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:

The Fool: We didn't know that we had radiation at one time, but we do know, the same goes for many other things. That is we do know for sure that we don't percieve everything with our senses. Accordng to the physical universe we don't exist. That is your mind doesn't exist. We don't recognize that with physical senses. So you are in contradiction with your other understandings.

By your own argument you ought to doubt the list of discoveries up there. Your verificationist principle collapsed back in the 60's as a bad philosophy. In fact it collapsed under it's own weight.

Not only that, but yes we didn't know about radiation at one time... guess what, now we do! Also we didn't know at one time the universe had a beginning, guess what...

Secondly, we don't know Non-existence because it doesn't exist, let alone know that was the case. It could be cyclical.

I'm waiting for this supposed 'knock down message' of yours to carry any logical weight except for arguments from ignorance & irrlevevancies. I never mentioned non-existence I actually happen to think there's a cause behind the universe. Since the universe can't come from nothing as nothing has no potentialities.

The Fool: : Since, we have no idea of knowling whether we can pick up with sense information alone all that is going on in the universe, we will never be able to conclude the beginning of the universe.

How about the impossibility of an infinite regress? Even if you were right that should remain agnostic regarding empiricle discoveries, your conclusion doesn't follow in the face of rational arguments against a past eternal universe.

Reason_Alliance: And that's fine if you want to take the skeptics line with that. But the best (most currently enhanced) of our sense information tells us the universe had a beginning. Also, there are rational arguments which vindicate such conclusions as well.

The Fool: its the LOGICAL AND RATIONAL LINE!. and you KNOW IT!> Our sense information tell us we don't exist, also. DO you believe that too?

You sound troubled. First our sense information tells us we do exist, for who's there to sense even if our senses could be illusory? Second that's not at all a irrational line. If pro tanto evidence says x, than it's our epistemic duty to grant x barring any defeaters for x.

Reason_Alliance: The scales are simply, and obviously, tipped in favor of a cosmos with a beginning.

The Fool: No they are not, that is only regarding, the current state of physical existence.

Yes, exactly, but saying that the universe is eternal because of what we don't know what future evidence will dictate, is yet another argument from ignorance. You're not saying anything interesting.

Again its not the ABSOLUTE UNIVERSE. Only a reduced form. All we could say, is that we don't RECOGNIZE something beyond a point.

Vilanken was not only referring to our local universe, but any space-time continua complete with inflation. Positing a make-believe multiverse without inflation not only doesn't work whatsoever & displays your ignorance, but is, yet again, one large argument from ignorance.

Mathematical extrapolations don't show that conclusion. Did you even watch the video? Your arguments sound like they're all coming from a PopSci magazine.

The Fool: Come on you know me better then that. I have refuteed you logically and you have not refuted me.

Laughable.

you are just appealing to popularity. Mathatical garbage.

You're rejecting the ability of mathematics to describe the physical world, which is itself a foundation of science.. and I'm irrational? I think our discourse is finished here.

They are using probability out of nothing. There is nothing for them to compare what the probability is out of. RIght?

You're arguing from Hume's 'uniqueness' argument, which has been shown to be false & too restrictive.

That doesn't Really mean anything to do with the beginning of ALL THAT IS. (The physical universe is a reduced, universe.) it is not the ABSOLUTE Universe of the philosopher, all that exist Period.

Again, this view is consistent with the universe having a beginning.

The Fool: I refuted it! it doesn't matter. You can appeal to popularity or authority, but you are philosophically WRONG!. Whether you like it or not.

You sound very emotional about this, I suggest going back and actually thinking logically about the issue while not just throwing empty, and completely vacuous, claims around dresssed up as philosophy or anything having to do with good logic.

Shame! . So much for being Rational!. Let it burn in your SouL!!>

OK, you've convinced me you're a troll.
DanteAlighieri
Posts: 42
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/10/2012 11:08:00 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
I'm not particularly interested in Vilenkin's position (I agree with him that, plausibly, all of spacetime had a begnning). However, what I am curious in is your repeated assertion that infinite regresses are impossible. What exactly makes you believe this?
Reason_Alliance
Posts: 1,283
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/10/2012 4:15:34 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/10/2012 11:08:00 AM, DanteAlighieri wrote:
I'm not particularly interested in Vilenkin's position (I agree with him that, plausibly, all of spacetime had a begnning). However, what I am curious in is your repeated assertion that infinite regresses are impossible. What exactly makes you believe this?

See Hilberts hotel, and I've been quite convinced upon reading Kasner's & Newman's critiques on Cantor's set theory: they say,

"the infinite certainly does not exist in the same sense that we say, there are fish in the sea."
Reason_Alliance
Posts: 1,283
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/10/2012 6:40:18 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/10/2012 6:16:17 PM, DanteAlighieri wrote:
What exactly do you take out of Hilbert's Hotel as to imply the impossibility of an infinite past?

The absurd implications that follow from an actually infinite set.
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/10/2012 8:24:28 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
The Fool:

Argument 1
The Absolute Universe is all things that exist'; that is including God or out sides, physical or mental. Absolutely all. (This is the Real, Original philosophers universe) Therefore God cannot be the Cause nor can there a beginning.
Q.E.D.

Argument 2
All experience is within a frame work of consciousness/mind.
Physical experience is only of a particular portion of our entire consciousness; therefore it could never be a full account of the universe because it only covers a smaller portion, of the possible existence.
Q.E.D.

Argument 3
We have found out that things such as radiation, magnetism and now possibly dark matter exist. There no reason to think we have finished discovering many more physical entities. Thus until then we could never conclude when the physical universe begain, because we can't conclude that we know of what it exist of.
Q.E.D.

Argument 4
Consciousness is only Recognition not necessary all of Reality. Recognition=/=Reality.
Q.E.D.

Are you able to actually refute anything this time, Nothing you said was related o what I was saying. You Failed to demonstrate anything. Calling me a Troll is ad hominem. Avoiding because of Grammer is failure of POC, and a Redherring.

Natural science is verificationism, its only self refuting when you get rid of the mind. Obviously you are not familiar which the history of it. Its only self refuting with when its considered as the only truth. <(XD)
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
Reason_Alliance
Posts: 1,283
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/10/2012 8:37:38 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/10/2012 6:45:53 PM, DanteAlighieri wrote:
Could you perhaps provide an actual argument? I'm not sure why you just keep re-asserting the same idea.

It's on you to look up and aquatint yourself with Hilbert's Hotel if you're interested. My job isn't to teach you while you lay back and racket up straw man criticisms without engaging the material I have engaged with. You asked & I answered who's work I've looked at that convinced me of the impossibility of an actually infinite set of things.
Reason_Alliance
Posts: 1,283
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/10/2012 8:42:01 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/10/2012 8:24:28 PM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
The Fool:

Argument 1
The Absolute Universe is all things that exist'; that is including God or out sides, physical or mental. Absolutely all. (This is the Real, Original philosophers universe) Therefore God cannot be the Cause nor can there a beginning.
Q.E.D.

Argument 2
All experience is within a frame work of consciousness/mind.
Physical experience is only of a particular portion of our entire consciousness; therefore it could never be a full account of the universe because it only covers a smaller portion, of the possible existence.
Q.E.D.

Argument 3
We have found out that things such as radiation, magnetism and now possibly dark matter exist. There no reason to think we have finished discovering many more physical entities. Thus until then we could never conclude when the physical universe begain, because we can't conclude that we know of what it exist of.
Q.E.D.

Argument 4
Consciousness is only Recognition not necessary all of Reality. Recognition=/=Reality.
Q.E.D.


Are you able to actually refute anything this time, Nothing you said was related o what I was saying. You Failed to demonstrate anything. Calling me a Troll is ad hominem. Avoiding because of Grammer is failure of POC, and a Redherring.

Natural science is verificationism, its only self refuting when you get rid of the mind. Obviously you are not familiar which the history of it. Its only self refuting with when its considered as the only truth. <(XD)

Sorry, Fool- this isn't really worthy of an in depth response. If the absolute universe had a beginning it had a transcendent cause. WHy? That makes it a contingent creation, stop invoking mysticism.

Verficationism collapsed, we're all about justificationism now with science. You claim that I don't know a whit about the history of philosophy? Well it seems my professors are doing a bad job then, since that's one of my majors. Please.
DanteAlighieri
Posts: 42
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/10/2012 8:43:00 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
I'm not sure why you are doing this. Isn't the point of these boards to engage in philosophical discussion? I am well aware of Hilbert's Hotel - I am simply asking you as far as what you find so impressive about it so we can have a discussion about it. Citing quotations or assertions at each other isn't much of a conversation.