Total Posts:31|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Kalam CA

Envisage
Posts: 3,646
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/18/2015 4:07:53 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
I just had this pop into my head, so thought I would best write this down.

Well-known objection to the KCA is that it only works assuming A-Series of Time, whereas one could assert B-Series invalidates it.

Now, regardless of whether of not the B-Series is actually true, my point is that it is impossible to affirm there to be an absolute beginning to the universe via. cosmology since:

1. The ability to do cosmology is entirely predicated on the principle of the uniformity of nature
2. The neo-Lorentzian interpretation (the only interpretation compatible with A-Series of time) is in incompatible with this assumption

Essentially, GR posits that the laws of physics and speed of light are both constant no matter where you measure it, whereas NL posits there to be an aether, with a standard frame of reference.

Regarding point #1, it would be interesting to see objections to this from both proponents and opponents to the argument.
Illegalcombatant
Posts: 4,008
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/18/2015 7:54:14 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/18/2015 4:07:53 AM, Envisage wrote:
I just had this pop into my head, so thought I would best write this down.

Well-known objection to the KCA is that it only works assuming A-Series of Time, whereas one could assert B-Series invalidates it.

Now, regardless of whether of not the B-Series is actually true, my point is that it is impossible to affirm there to be an absolute beginning to the universe via. cosmology since:

1. The ability to do cosmology is entirely predicated on the principle of the uniformity of nature
2. The neo-Lorentzian interpretation (the only interpretation compatible with A-Series of time) is in incompatible with this assumption

Essentially, GR posits that the laws of physics and speed of light are both constant no matter where you measure it, whereas NL posits there to be an aether, with a standard frame of reference.

Regarding point #1, it would be interesting to see objections to this from both proponents and opponents to the argument.

Well before you have to resort to all that to refute the claim that the universe began to exist how about...........X begins to exist if and only if X exists and there was a time prior to X existence where it did not exist.

Eg, You exist, yet if we would go back 1000 years this would be a time prior to your existence where you did not exist ergo you had a beginning to your existence.

Since there is no temporal relations absent the universe there is no "before" where the universe did not exist ergo the universe did not begin to exist.
"Seems like another attempt to insert God into areas our knowledge has yet to penetrate. You figure God would be bigger than the gaps of our ignorance." Drafterman 19/5/12
Envisage
Posts: 3,646
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/18/2015 8:18:25 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/18/2015 7:54:14 AM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
At 6/18/2015 4:07:53 AM, Envisage wrote:
I just had this pop into my head, so thought I would best write this down.

Well-known objection to the KCA is that it only works assuming A-Series of Time, whereas one could assert B-Series invalidates it.

Now, regardless of whether of not the B-Series is actually true, my point is that it is impossible to affirm there to be an absolute beginning to the universe via. cosmology since:

1. The ability to do cosmology is entirely predicated on the principle of the uniformity of nature
2. The neo-Lorentzian interpretation (the only interpretation compatible with A-Series of time) is in incompatible with this assumption

Essentially, GR posits that the laws of physics and speed of light are both constant no matter where you measure it, whereas NL posits there to be an aether, with a standard frame of reference.

Regarding point #1, it would be interesting to see objections to this from both proponents and opponents to the argument.

Well before you have to resort to all that to refute the claim that the universe began to exist how about...........X begins to exist if and only if X exists and there was a time prior to X existence where it did not exist.

Eg, You exist, yet if we would go back 1000 years this would be a time prior to your existence where you did not exist ergo you had a beginning to your existence.

Since there is no temporal relations absent the universe there is no "before" where the universe did not exist ergo the universe did not begin to exist.

I think you misunderstand my OP. The point is that one cannot use cosmology to affirm an absolute beginning to the universe since the validity presupposes something that falsifies the A Series of time.
Philocat
Posts: 728
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/18/2015 9:09:48 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
I agree that we cannot use cosmology to affirm an absolute beginning of the universe (for largely the same reasons that you have written).

Instead, I would argue that the universe has an absolute beginning by demonstrating the incoherency of asserting that the universe has an infinite past.
DanneJeRusse
Posts: 12,630
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/18/2015 12:33:16 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/18/2015 4:07:53 AM, Envisage wrote:
I just had this pop into my head, so thought I would best write this down.

Well-known objection to the KCA is that it only works assuming A-Series of Time, whereas one could assert B-Series invalidates it.

Now, regardless of whether of not the B-Series is actually true, my point is that it is impossible to affirm there to be an absolute beginning to the universe via. cosmology since:

1. The ability to do cosmology is entirely predicated on the principle of the uniformity of nature
2. The neo-Lorentzian interpretation (the only interpretation compatible with A-Series of time) is in incompatible with this assumption

Essentially, GR posits that the laws of physics and speed of light are both constant no matter where you measure it, whereas NL posits there to be an aether, with a standard frame of reference.

Regarding point #1, it would be interesting to see objections to this from both proponents and opponents to the argument.

A fine example of the counter-intuitive nature of physics.

The primary difference between the Galilean and Lorentz transformations is that the Galilean will take its measurements from the fixed frame's position along the x axis in relationship to a moving frame (moving frame velocity is in direction of x-axis), which works well enough from our "at rest" plotting coordinates on the surface of the earth, but it fails in cosmology as it cannot establish experimentally that fixed frame within the universe from which all measurements would be taken.

The only two reference points where Galilean and Lorentz will agree is where t=0, which would be at the beginning of the universe when there was no space and no other co-moving frames of reference.

The question then is finding an accurate reference frame where t=0 and that is something that could be accomplished with both transformations. It would therefore be the only frame where Neo-Lorentzian and Relativity would agree, hence both would invalidate A-series time.
Marrying a 6 year old and waiting until she reaches puberty and maturity before having consensual sex is better than walking up to
a stranger in a bar and proceeding to have relations with no valid proof of the intent of the person. Muhammad wins. ~ Fatihah
If they don't want to be killed then they have to subdue to the Islamic laws. - Uncung
Without God, you are lower than sh!t. ~ SpiritandTruth
Envisage
Posts: 3,646
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/18/2015 2:04:26 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/18/2015 12:33:16 PM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 6/18/2015 4:07:53 AM, Envisage wrote:
I just had this pop into my head, so thought I would best write this down.

Well-known objection to the KCA is that it only works assuming A-Series of Time, whereas one could assert B-Series invalidates it.

Now, regardless of whether of not the B-Series is actually true, my point is that it is impossible to affirm there to be an absolute beginning to the universe via. cosmology since:

1. The ability to do cosmology is entirely predicated on the principle of the uniformity of nature
2. The neo-Lorentzian interpretation (the only interpretation compatible with A-Series of time) is in incompatible with this assumption

Essentially, GR posits that the laws of physics and speed of light are both constant no matter where you measure it, whereas NL posits there to be an aether, with a standard frame of reference.

Regarding point #1, it would be interesting to see objections to this from both proponents and opponents to the argument.

A fine example of the counter-intuitive nature of physics.

The primary difference between the Galilean and Lorentz transformations is that the Galilean will take its measurements from the fixed frame's position along the x axis in relationship to a moving frame (moving frame velocity is in direction of x-axis), which works well enough from our "at rest" plotting coordinates on the surface of the earth, but it fails in cosmology as it cannot establish experimentally that fixed frame within the universe from which all measurements would be taken.

The only two reference points where Galilean and Lorentz will agree is where t=0, which would be at the beginning of the universe when there was no space and no other co-moving frames of reference.

The question then is finding an accurate reference frame where t=0 and that is something that could be accomplished with both transformations. It would therefore be the only frame where Neo-Lorentzian and Relativity would agree, hence both would invalidate A-series time.

This is the single most valuable thing I have seen you write on these forums. Please do more of posts like these in future.
popculturepooka
Posts: 7,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/18/2015 4:57:20 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
I forget who it was (on youtube) but they (claimed) to have a version of the KCA that was compatible with b series.
At 10/3/2016 11:49:13 PM, thett3 wrote:
BLACK LIVES MATTER!
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/20/2015 1:05:34 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/18/2015 4:57:20 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
I forget who it was (on youtube) but they (claimed) to have a version of the KCA that was compatible with b series.

I can't see how that could even be possible. If B-Theory is true then the universe is tenselessly eternal, still, and static even if it has a finite "backwards" direction that leads to a Big Bang point. Dr. Craig uses the analogy of an eternal ruler...An eternal ruler still has a beginning in the sense that it has a first inch, but the ruler never came into being. Similarly, if B-Theory is true when we have a static universe without temporal passage, it just exists and is static even if it has an "edge", or "beginning" which we would refer to as The Big Bang. This is why Dr. Craig has so many papers defending the A-Theory of time because even he knows the idea of the universe coming into being under B-Theory is nonsensical.
tejretics
Posts: 6,090
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/20/2015 3:48:37 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/18/2015 9:09:48 AM, Philocat wrote:
I agree that we cannot use cosmology to affirm an absolute beginning of the universe (for largely the same reasons that you have written).

Instead, I would argue that the universe has an absolute beginning by demonstrating the incoherency of asserting that the universe has an infinite past.

The problem with this is, even if the universe had a starting point in time, it no more "begins to exist" than a ruler does with its first inch, via. B-series ...
"Where justice is denied, where poverty is enforced, where ignorance prevails, and where any one class is made to feel that society is an organized conspiracy to oppress, rob and degrade them, neither persons nor property will be safe." - Frederick Douglass
Philocat
Posts: 728
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/20/2015 4:53:42 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/20/2015 3:48:37 AM, tejretics wrote:
At 6/18/2015 9:09:48 AM, Philocat wrote:
I agree that we cannot use cosmology to affirm an absolute beginning of the universe (for largely the same reasons that you have written).

Instead, I would argue that the universe has an absolute beginning by demonstrating the incoherency of asserting that the universe has an infinite past.

The problem with this is, even if the universe had a starting point in time, it no more "begins to exist" than a ruler does with its first inch, via. B-series ...

Only under the B theory of time. Hence this is why debates on the KCA always seem to revert back to the A vs B theories of time. I personally know too little about the philosophy of time to succeed in a debate over the KCA.
Philocat
Posts: 728
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/20/2015 4:54:11 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/20/2015 3:48:37 AM, tejretics wrote:
At 6/18/2015 9:09:48 AM, Philocat wrote:
I agree that we cannot use cosmology to affirm an absolute beginning of the universe (for largely the same reasons that you have written).

Instead, I would argue that the universe has an absolute beginning by demonstrating the incoherency of asserting that the universe has an infinite past.

The problem with this is, even if the universe had a starting point in time, it no more "begins to exist" than a ruler does with its first inch, via. B-series ...

Only under the B theory of time. Hence this is why debates on the KCA always seem to revert back to the A vs B theories of time debate. I personally know too little about the philosophy of time to succeed in a debate over the KCA.
popculturepooka
Posts: 7,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/20/2015 9:36:09 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/20/2015 1:05:34 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 6/18/2015 4:57:20 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
I forget who it was (on youtube) but they (claimed) to have a version of the KCA that was compatible with b series.

I can't see how that could even be possible. If B-Theory is true then the universe is tenselessly eternal, still, and static even if it has a finite "backwards" direction that leads to a Big Bang point. Dr. Craig uses the analogy of an eternal ruler...An eternal ruler still has a beginning in the sense that it has a first inch, but the ruler never came into being. Similarly, if B-Theory is true when we have a static universe without temporal passage, it just exists and is static even if it has an "edge", or "beginning" which we would refer to as The Big Bang. This is why Dr. Craig has so many papers defending the A-Theory of time because even he knows the idea of the universe coming into being under B-Theory is nonsensical.

Gonna see if I can find it. I do know that the guy was a smart guy, so hes not likely to make any obviously dumb mistakes.
At 10/3/2016 11:49:13 PM, thett3 wrote:
BLACK LIVES MATTER!
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/20/2015 12:58:01 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/20/2015 9:36:09 AM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 6/20/2015 1:05:34 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 6/18/2015 4:57:20 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
I forget who it was (on youtube) but they (claimed) to have a version of the KCA that was compatible with b series.

I can't see how that could even be possible. If B-Theory is true then the universe is tenselessly eternal, still, and static even if it has a finite "backwards" direction that leads to a Big Bang point. Dr. Craig uses the analogy of an eternal ruler...An eternal ruler still has a beginning in the sense that it has a first inch, but the ruler never came into being. Similarly, if B-Theory is true when we have a static universe without temporal passage, it just exists and is static even if it has an "edge", or "beginning" which we would refer to as The Big Bang. This is why Dr. Craig has so many papers defending the A-Theory of time because even he knows the idea of the universe coming into being under B-Theory is nonsensical.

Gonna see if I can find it. I do know that the guy was a smart guy, so hes not likely to make any obviously dumb mistakes.

Sounds good, I'm curious now.
popculturepooka
Posts: 7,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/20/2015 6:33:51 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/20/2015 9:36:09 AM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 6/20/2015 1:05:34 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 6/18/2015 4:57:20 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
I forget who it was (on youtube) but they (claimed) to have a version of the KCA that was compatible with b series.

I can't see how that could even be possible. If B-Theory is true then the universe is tenselessly eternal, still, and static even if it has a finite "backwards" direction that leads to a Big Bang point. Dr. Craig uses the analogy of an eternal ruler...An eternal ruler still has a beginning in the sense that it has a first inch, but the ruler never came into being. Similarly, if B-Theory is true when we have a static universe without temporal passage, it just exists and is static even if it has an "edge", or "beginning" which we would refer to as The Big Bang. This is why Dr. Craig has so many papers defending the A-Theory of time because even he knows the idea of the universe coming into being under B-Theory is nonsensical.

Gonna see if I can find it. I do know that the guy was a smart guy, so hes not likely to make any obviously dumb mistakes.

Can't find it yet but I found this:

https://milesandrews.files.wordpress.com...
At 10/3/2016 11:49:13 PM, thett3 wrote:
BLACK LIVES MATTER!
popculturepooka
Posts: 7,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/20/2015 6:37:24 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/20/2015 12:58:01 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 6/20/2015 9:36:09 AM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 6/20/2015 1:05:34 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 6/18/2015 4:57:20 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
I forget who it was (on youtube) but they (claimed) to have a version of the KCA that was compatible with b series.

I can't see how that could even be possible. If B-Theory is true then the universe is tenselessly eternal, still, and static even if it has a finite "backwards" direction that leads to a Big Bang point. Dr. Craig uses the analogy of an eternal ruler...An eternal ruler still has a beginning in the sense that it has a first inch, but the ruler never came into being. Similarly, if B-Theory is true when we have a static universe without temporal passage, it just exists and is static even if it has an "edge", or "beginning" which we would refer to as The Big Bang. This is why Dr. Craig has so many papers defending the A-Theory of time because even he knows the idea of the universe coming into being under B-Theory is nonsensical.

Gonna see if I can find it. I do know that the guy was a smart guy, so hes not likely to make any obviously dumb mistakes.

Sounds good, I'm curious now.

Accidentally quoted myself but meant to quote you. lol

Can't find the video yet but I found this:

https://milesandrews.files.wordpress.com...
At 10/3/2016 11:49:13 PM, thett3 wrote:
BLACK LIVES MATTER!
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/20/2015 10:11:50 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/20/2015 6:37:24 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 6/20/2015 12:58:01 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 6/20/2015 9:36:09 AM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 6/20/2015 1:05:34 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 6/18/2015 4:57:20 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
I forget who it was (on youtube) but they (claimed) to have a version of the KCA that was compatible with b series.

I can't see how that could even be possible. If B-Theory is true then the universe is tenselessly eternal, still, and static even if it has a finite "backwards" direction that leads to a Big Bang point. Dr. Craig uses the analogy of an eternal ruler...An eternal ruler still has a beginning in the sense that it has a first inch, but the ruler never came into being. Similarly, if B-Theory is true when we have a static universe without temporal passage, it just exists and is static even if it has an "edge", or "beginning" which we would refer to as The Big Bang. This is why Dr. Craig has so many papers defending the A-Theory of time because even he knows the idea of the universe coming into being under B-Theory is nonsensical.

Gonna see if I can find it. I do know that the guy was a smart guy, so hes not likely to make any obviously dumb mistakes.

Sounds good, I'm curious now.

Accidentally quoted myself but meant to quote you. lol

Can't find the video yet but I found this:

https://milesandrews.files.wordpress.com...

He's basically redefining what it means to begin to exist in order to make The KCA compatible with the B-Theory of time. The price of this is now the first premise of the KCA has weak legs to stand on because all the support for the first premise seems to assume the A-Theory of time. For example, the notion that we don't see things "pop into existence" at all all assumes temporal becoming... Ex Nihilo Nihil Fit is a principle stating that out of nothing, nothing comes. Basically, if you start with nothing, then nothing is all that will remain. However, under B-Theory there is no starting with nothing as we are talking about a tenselessly eternal block. If we saw things pop into existence with no cause all the time then ontologically it would be true that they were locked there in the frozen state and it only seemed that reality didn't contain the item, and then it did. Now, he stated something in this article that struck me as odd:

"It appears to me that tenseless existence does not entail eternal existence"

If time is tenseless then the universe just exists in a frozen state. It wouldn't exist for an infinite amount of time so it would be finite in that regard, but it would be eternal in the sense that it never came into being, it's just there frozen in tenselessness. I think tenseless existence certainly entails eternal existence, just not eternal in the sense of existing for an infinite amount of time in the past.

In conclusion, the author here may have succeeded at making the KCA compatible with the B-Theory of time but at the huge price of losing the intuitive power of the first premise, and giving it weak legs to stand on as the common support for it all seem to presuppose temporal becoming. Either way, B-Theory puts the KCA into question.
Mhykiel
Posts: 5,987
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/21/2015 12:39:17 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/18/2015 2:04:26 PM, Envisage wrote:
At 6/18/2015 12:33:16 PM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 6/18/2015 4:07:53 AM, Envisage wrote:
I just had this pop into my head, so thought I would best write this down.

Well-known objection to the KCA is that it only works assuming A-Series of Time, whereas one could assert B-Series invalidates it.

Now, regardless of whether of not the B-Series is actually true, my point is that it is impossible to affirm there to be an absolute beginning to the universe via. cosmology since:

1. The ability to do cosmology is entirely predicated on the principle of the uniformity of nature
2. The neo-Lorentzian interpretation (the only interpretation compatible with A-Series of time) is in incompatible with this assumption

Essentially, GR posits that the laws of physics and speed of light are both constant no matter where you measure it, whereas NL posits there to be an aether, with a standard frame of reference.

Regarding point #1, it would be interesting to see objections to this from both proponents and opponents to the argument.

A fine example of the counter-intuitive nature of physics.

The primary difference between the Galilean and Lorentz transformations is that the Galilean will take its measurements from the fixed frame's position along the x axis in relationship to a moving frame (moving frame velocity is in direction of x-axis), which works well enough from our "at rest" plotting coordinates on the surface of the earth, but it fails in cosmology as it cannot establish experimentally that fixed frame within the universe from which all measurements would be taken.

The only two reference points where Galilean and Lorentz will agree is where t=0, which would be at the beginning of the universe when there was no space and no other co-moving frames of reference.


The question then is finding an accurate reference frame where t=0 and that is something that could be accomplished with both transformations. It would therefore be the only frame where Neo-Lorentzian and Relativity would agree, hence both would invalidate A-series time.

How would finding a frame of reference t=0 invalidate A series of time?


This is the single most valuable thing I have seen you write on these forums. Please do more of posts like these in future.
Mhykiel
Posts: 5,987
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/21/2015 12:43:07 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/20/2015 3:48:37 AM, tejretics wrote:
At 6/18/2015 9:09:48 AM, Philocat wrote:
I agree that we cannot use cosmology to affirm an absolute beginning of the universe (for largely the same reasons that you have written).

Instead, I would argue that the universe has an absolute beginning by demonstrating the incoherency of asserting that the universe has an infinite past.

The problem with this is, even if the universe had a starting point in time, it no more "begins to exist" than a ruler does with its first inch, via. B-series ...

Where did the ruler come from?
tejretics
Posts: 6,090
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/21/2015 12:45:01 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/21/2015 12:43:07 AM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 6/20/2015 3:48:37 AM, tejretics wrote:
At 6/18/2015 9:09:48 AM, Philocat wrote:
I agree that we cannot use cosmology to affirm an absolute beginning of the universe (for largely the same reasons that you have written).

Instead, I would argue that the universe has an absolute beginning by demonstrating the incoherency of asserting that the universe has an infinite past.

The problem with this is, even if the universe had a starting point in time, it no more "begins to exist" than a ruler does with its first inch, via. B-series ...

Where did the ruler come from?

The ruler began to exist, no doubt - but it didn't "begin to exist" from its first inch, no? So if the universe had a starting-point in time, it doesn't mean the universe began to exist, via. eternalism.
"Where justice is denied, where poverty is enforced, where ignorance prevails, and where any one class is made to feel that society is an organized conspiracy to oppress, rob and degrade them, neither persons nor property will be safe." - Frederick Douglass
Mhykiel
Posts: 5,987
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/21/2015 12:53:58 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/21/2015 12:45:01 AM, tejretics wrote:
At 6/21/2015 12:43:07 AM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 6/20/2015 3:48:37 AM, tejretics wrote:
At 6/18/2015 9:09:48 AM, Philocat wrote:
I agree that we cannot use cosmology to affirm an absolute beginning of the universe (for largely the same reasons that you have written).

Instead, I would argue that the universe has an absolute beginning by demonstrating the incoherency of asserting that the universe has an infinite past.

The problem with this is, even if the universe had a starting point in time, it no more "begins to exist" than a ruler does with its first inch, via. B-series ...

Where did the ruler come from?

The ruler began to exist, no doubt - but it didn't "begin to exist" from its first inch, no? So if the universe had a starting-point in time, it doesn't mean the universe began to exist, via. eternalism.

St. Augustine was an eternalist.

If B theory is true. How do you account for gravity and speed causing time dilation?
tejretics
Posts: 6,090
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/21/2015 1:35:54 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/21/2015 12:53:58 AM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 6/21/2015 12:45:01 AM, tejretics wrote:
At 6/21/2015 12:43:07 AM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 6/20/2015 3:48:37 AM, tejretics wrote:
At 6/18/2015 9:09:48 AM, Philocat wrote:
I agree that we cannot use cosmology to affirm an absolute beginning of the universe (for largely the same reasons that you have written).

Instead, I would argue that the universe has an absolute beginning by demonstrating the incoherency of asserting that the universe has an infinite past.

The problem with this is, even if the universe had a starting point in time, it no more "begins to exist" than a ruler does with its first inch, via. B-series ...

Where did the ruler come from?

The ruler began to exist, no doubt - but it didn't "begin to exist" from its first inch, no? So if the universe had a starting-point in time, it doesn't mean the universe began to exist, via. eternalism.

St. Augustine was an eternalist.

If B theory is true. How do you account for gravity and speed causing time dilation?

Time dilation *vindicates* B-theory, since it demonstrates that the passage of time is relative to observation.
"Where justice is denied, where poverty is enforced, where ignorance prevails, and where any one class is made to feel that society is an organized conspiracy to oppress, rob and degrade them, neither persons nor property will be safe." - Frederick Douglass
Fkkize
Posts: 2,149
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/22/2015 11:34:38 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/21/2015 1:35:54 AM, tejretics wrote:
At 6/21/2015 12:53:58 AM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 6/21/2015 12:45:01 AM, tejretics wrote:
At 6/21/2015 12:43:07 AM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 6/20/2015 3:48:37 AM, tejretics wrote:
At 6/18/2015 9:09:48 AM, Philocat wrote:
I agree that we cannot use cosmology to affirm an absolute beginning of the universe (for largely the same reasons that you have written).

Instead, I would argue that the universe has an absolute beginning by demonstrating the incoherency of asserting that the universe has an infinite past.

The problem with this is, even if the universe had a starting point in time, it no more "begins to exist" than a ruler does with its first inch, via. B-series ...

Where did the ruler come from?

The ruler began to exist, no doubt - but it didn't "begin to exist" from its first inch, no? So if the universe had a starting-point in time, it doesn't mean the universe began to exist, via. eternalism.

St. Augustine was an eternalist.

If B theory is true. How do you account for gravity and speed causing time dilation?

Time dilation *vindicates* B-theory, since it demonstrates that the passage of time is relative to observation.

If naturalism is true. How do you account for heads on peoples shoulders?

lol, it's not like SR, which our current understanding of gravity is predicated on, supports the B-theory. This seems like a pretty redundant question.
: At 7/2/2016 3:05:07 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
:
: space contradicts logic
bluesteel
Posts: 12,301
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/24/2015 12:34:36 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/18/2015 4:07:53 AM, Envisage wrote:
I just had this pop into my head, so thought I would best write this down.

Well-known objection to the KCA is that it only works assuming A-Series of Time, whereas one could assert B-Series invalidates it.

Now, regardless of whether of not the B-Series is actually true, my point is that it is impossible to affirm there to be an absolute beginning to the universe via. cosmology since:

1. The ability to do cosmology is entirely predicated on the principle of the uniformity of nature
2. The neo-Lorentzian interpretation (the only interpretation compatible with A-Series of time) is in incompatible with this assumption

Essentially, GR posits that the laws of physics and speed of light are both constant no matter where you measure it, whereas NL posits there to be an aether, with a standard frame of reference.

Regarding point #1, it would be interesting to see objections to this from both proponents and opponents to the argument.

Interested to discuss this, but you started in the middle. What version of the KCA? What is A and B series of time?

Personally, I don't find the refutation that "you fail the BoP to prove that the universe must have a beginning." Inflation is a fact, which entails some sort of beginning. I find the refutation more convincing that it's an oversimplification to say "everything must have a cause." You can't generalize from "who killed Roger Rabbit" to "who created time and space." Causation requires the passage of time. Our brains at this point are simply not capable of comprehending what it would mean for space-time not to exist yet. To even express the concept, I have to use a word like "yet," which connotes time. But time didn't exist prior to the Big Bang.

Something, something simultaneous causation => presumes maximal omnipotence, which is disproven through other tongue twisters (could God create a stone so heavy even he could not lift it?).
You can't reason someone out of a position they didn't reason themselves into - Jonathan Swift (paraphrase)
bluesteel
Posts: 12,301
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/24/2015 12:35:17 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
*I don't find it convincing
You can't reason someone out of a position they didn't reason themselves into - Jonathan Swift (paraphrase)
DanneJeRusse
Posts: 12,630
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/24/2015 10:48:57 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/21/2015 12:53:58 AM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 6/21/2015 12:45:01 AM, tejretics wrote:
At 6/21/2015 12:43:07 AM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 6/20/2015 3:48:37 AM, tejretics wrote:
At 6/18/2015 9:09:48 AM, Philocat wrote:
I agree that we cannot use cosmology to affirm an absolute beginning of the universe (for largely the same reasons that you have written).

Instead, I would argue that the universe has an absolute beginning by demonstrating the incoherency of asserting that the universe has an infinite past.

The problem with this is, even if the universe had a starting point in time, it no more "begins to exist" than a ruler does with its first inch, via. B-series ...

Where did the ruler come from?

The ruler began to exist, no doubt - but it didn't "begin to exist" from its first inch, no? So if the universe had a starting-point in time, it doesn't mean the universe began to exist, via. eternalism.

St. Augustine was an eternalist.

If B theory is true. How do you account for gravity and speed causing time dilation?

Time dilation is accounted for in Relativity between observers/clocks either moving at different velocities to one another or in two different gravitational positions and not B theory of time.
Marrying a 6 year old and waiting until she reaches puberty and maturity before having consensual sex is better than walking up to
a stranger in a bar and proceeding to have relations with no valid proof of the intent of the person. Muhammad wins. ~ Fatihah
If they don't want to be killed then they have to subdue to the Islamic laws. - Uncung
Without God, you are lower than sh!t. ~ SpiritandTruth
tejretics
Posts: 6,090
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/23/2015 6:55:36 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/24/2015 12:34:36 AM, bluesteel wrote:
At 6/18/2015 4:07:53 AM, Envisage wrote:
I just had this pop into my head, so thought I would best write this down.

Well-known objection to the KCA is that it only works assuming A-Series of Time, whereas one could assert B-Series invalidates it.

Now, regardless of whether of not the B-Series is actually true, my point is that it is impossible to affirm there to be an absolute beginning to the universe via. cosmology since:

1. The ability to do cosmology is entirely predicated on the principle of the uniformity of nature
2. The neo-Lorentzian interpretation (the only interpretation compatible with A-Series of time) is in incompatible with this assumption

Essentially, GR posits that the laws of physics and speed of light are both constant no matter where you measure it, whereas NL posits there to be an aether, with a standard frame of reference.

Regarding point #1, it would be interesting to see objections to this from both proponents and opponents to the argument.

Interested to discuss this, but you started in the middle. What version of the KCA? What is A and B series of time?

They are philosophical concepts created by J.M.E. McTaggart in his paper "The Unreality of Time". They are described well in this article [https://en.wikipedia.org...].

Under the A-series, "events are ordered by way of the non-relational singular predicates "is past", "is present" and "is future". When we speak of time in this way, we are speaking in terms of a series of positions which run from the remote past through the recent past to the present, and from the present through the near future all the way to the remote future. The essential characteristic of this descriptive modality is that one must think of the series of temporal positions as being in continual transformation, in the sense that an event is first part of the future, then part of the present, and then past. Moreover, the assertions made according to this modality imply the temporal perspective of the person who utters them."

The B-series, instead, states that the passage of time is illusory, and is a 'tenseless' ontology, the idea that "tenses" are concepts that don't exist. It posits that the past, present, and future are all equally real, and that time is another spatial dimension. It is backed by modern physics.


Personally, I don't find the refutation that "you fail the BoP to prove that the universe must have a beginning." Inflation is a fact, which entails some sort of beginning.

A past-finite universe only 'begins' so much as a scale 'begins' with its first inch. Craig concedes this in "The Blackwell Companion to Natural Theology". And inflation only posits the universe was once in a high-density state, not that it was non-existent once.

I find the refutation more convincing that it's an oversimplification to say "everything must have a cause." You can't generalize from "who killed Roger Rabbit" to "who created time and space." Causation requires the passage of time. Our brains at this point are simply not capable of comprehending what it would mean for space-time not to exist yet. To even express the concept, I have to use a word like "yet," which connotes time. But time didn't exist prior to the Big Bang.

Craig has actually faced this refutation before, and tries to refute it with simultaneous causality, but I don't buy into this refutation. I think this one is expressed in the IronChariots Wiki, though I particularly love your phrasing of it =)


Something, something simultaneous causation => presumes maximal omnipotence, which is disproven through other tongue twisters (could God create a stone so heavy even he could not lift it?).

A good way to refute the simultaneous causality thing would be to say that if SC were possible, the universe could have caused itself. I think Q. Smith brought that up against the KCA in a debate of his against Craig.
"Where justice is denied, where poverty is enforced, where ignorance prevails, and where any one class is made to feel that society is an organized conspiracy to oppress, rob and degrade them, neither persons nor property will be safe." - Frederick Douglass
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/23/2015 10:03:16 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/22/2015 11:34:38 AM, Fkkize wrote:
At 6/21/2015 1:35:54 AM, tejretics wrote:
At 6/21/2015 12:53:58 AM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 6/21/2015 12:45:01 AM, tejretics wrote:
At 6/21/2015 12:43:07 AM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 6/20/2015 3:48:37 AM, tejretics wrote:
At 6/18/2015 9:09:48 AM, Philocat wrote:
I agree that we cannot use cosmology to affirm an absolute beginning of the universe (for largely the same reasons that you have written).

Instead, I would argue that the universe has an absolute beginning by demonstrating the incoherency of asserting that the universe has an infinite past.

The problem with this is, even if the universe had a starting point in time, it no more "begins to exist" than a ruler does with its first inch, via. B-series ...

Where did the ruler come from?

The ruler began to exist, no doubt - but it didn't "begin to exist" from its first inch, no? So if the universe had a starting-point in time, it doesn't mean the universe began to exist, via. eternalism.

St. Augustine was an eternalist.

If B theory is true. How do you account for gravity and speed causing time dilation?

Time dilation *vindicates* B-theory, since it demonstrates that the passage of time is relative to observation.

If naturalism is true. How do you account for heads on peoples shoulders?

lol, it's not like SR, which our current understanding of gravity is predicated on, supports the B-theory. This seems like a pretty redundant question.

Are you being sarcastic? Because the Minkowskian Interpretation of SR does indeed support B-Theory.
Fkkize
Posts: 2,149
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/23/2015 11:39:46 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/23/2015 10:03:16 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
Are you being sarcastic? Because the Minkowskian Interpretation of SR does indeed support B-Theory.
However one can interpret my muddled up sentence, I sure agree with you.
: At 7/2/2016 3:05:07 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
:
: space contradicts logic
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/24/2015 12:04:22 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/23/2015 11:39:46 PM, Fkkize wrote:
At 7/23/2015 10:03:16 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
Are you being sarcastic? Because the Minkowskian Interpretation of SR does indeed support B-Theory.
However one can interpret my muddled up sentence, I sure agree with you.

One interesting experiment showed that time is actually emergent from quantum entanglement. This means that time isn't a fundamental aspect of reality at all and that quantum states exist independent of time. This fits nice with the Wheeler-DeWitt equation, and doesn't require ad hoc solutions to it to get a fundamental time unit plugged into it.

I'm not an Atheist anymore (I was two years ago), but I still don't find the Kalam Cosmological Argument convincing (The Leibniz cosmological argument experiment may have some power to it).

Anyway, the experiment shows that the universe could not have come into being. This is because a "coming into being" requires temporal becoming to be fundamental. However, since time emerges from quantum entanglement; it is not.