Total Posts:70|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

B-Theory of Time and its implications

SNP1
Posts: 2,403
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/28/2015 10:25:45 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
The more I read about metaphysics and study it the more I learn about just what the B-Theory of Time entails.

The Tenseless Cosmological Argument (my own creation):
P1) If God created the universe, the universe has a cause.
P2) The universe can only have a cause if tensed facts exist.
P3) Tensed facts do not exist.
C1) The universe does not have a cause (follows from P2 and P3).
C2) God did not create the universe (follows from P1 and C1).

Argument from Tenseless Experience (my own creation based on the paper linked under it):
P1) Humans experience a flow of time/arrow of time.
P2) The experience of the flow of time/arrow of time can be explained by:
A) The A-Theory of Time (thus the flow of time/arrow of time is actual).
B) B/C-Theory of Time under physicalism (the paper linked explains why under the B-Theory of Time and physicalism we would experience such a thing).
P3) It is not the case that the A-Theory of Time is correct.
C) Physicalism is true.
https://www.google.com...

Unnamed argument against afterlife (my own again):
P1) In order for an afterlife to exist there has to be an absolute end to one's life.
P2) Absolute beginnings and endings only exist if tensed facts exist.
P3) Tensed facts do not exist.
C1) Absolute beginnings and endings do not exist.
C2) An afterlife does not exist.

It seems more and more (to me at least) like the B-Theory of Time is showing theistic claims to be incorrect.
#TheApatheticNihilistPartyofAmerica
#WarOnDDO
SNP1
Posts: 2,403
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/29/2015 1:30:42 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
bump (I want people's views about this).
#TheApatheticNihilistPartyofAmerica
#WarOnDDO
Mhykiel
Posts: 5,987
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/29/2015 2:16:58 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/28/2015 10:25:45 PM, SNP1 wrote:
The more I read about metaphysics and study it the more I learn about just what the B-Theory of Time entails.

The Tenseless Cosmological Argument (my own creation):
P1) If God created the universe, the universe has a cause.
P2) The universe can only have a cause if tensed facts exist.
P3) Tensed facts do not exist.
C1) The universe does not have a cause (follows from P2 and P3).
C2) God did not create the universe (follows from P1 and C1).

Tensed facts are non-inertial frame of reference. God is in an inertial frame of reference. Problem solved. http://arxiv.org...


Argument from Tenseless Experience (my own creation based on the paper linked under it):
P1) Humans experience a flow of time/arrow of time.
P2) The experience of the flow of time/arrow of time can be explained by:
A) The A-Theory of Time (thus the flow of time/arrow of time is actual).
B) B/C-Theory of Time under physicalism (the paper linked explains why under the B-Theory of Time and physicalism we would experience such a thing).
P3) It is not the case that the A-Theory of Time is correct.
C) Physicalism is true.
https://www.google.com...

Before I continue I'm unsure how you got your conclusion "physicalism is true" even after I read the linked paper.


Unnamed argument against afterlife (my own again):
P1) In order for an afterlife to exist there has to be an absolute end to one's life.
P2) Absolute beginnings and endings only exist if tensed facts exist.
P3) Tensed facts do not exist.
C1) Absolute beginnings and endings do not exist.
C2) An afterlife does not exist.

1RP1. "Afterlife" doesn't need an absolute end. It could be the continue states of the life we are aware of.

2RP2. I don't follow. Even in a tenseless B-theory of time we can still identify arrangements that exist in more states than other arrangements.


It seems more and more (to me at least) like the B-Theory of Time is showing theistic claims to be incorrect.
SNP1
Posts: 2,403
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/29/2015 3:42:30 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/29/2015 2:16:58 AM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 7/28/2015 10:25:45 PM, SNP1 wrote:
The more I read about metaphysics and study it the more I learn about just what the B-Theory of Time entails.

The Tenseless Cosmological Argument (my own creation):
P1) If God created the universe, the universe has a cause.
P2) The universe can only have a cause if tensed facts exist.
P3) Tensed facts do not exist.
C1) The universe does not have a cause (follows from P2 and P3).
C2) God did not create the universe (follows from P1 and C1).

Tensed facts are non-inertial frame of reference. God is in an inertial frame of reference. Problem solved. http://arxiv.org...

How is it "problem solved" exactly?
If tensed facts do not exist (if the B-Theory of Time is true), then the universe has always existed (even if it is a finite block of time).

Argument from Tenseless Experience (my own creation based on the paper linked under it):
P1) Humans experience a flow of time/arrow of time.
P2) The experience of the flow of time/arrow of time can be explained by:
A) The A-Theory of Time (thus the flow of time/arrow of time is actual).
B) B/C-Theory of Time under physicalism (the paper linked explains why under the B-Theory of Time and physicalism we would experience such a thing).
P3) It is not the case that the A-Theory of Time is correct.
C) Physicalism is true.
https://www.google.com...

Before I continue I'm unsure how you got your conclusion "physicalism is true" even after I read the linked paper.

The paper defended the view that just because we have the experience of an arrow of time does not mean that an arrow of time existed. It argued that we would experience an arrow of time if:
1) The A-Theory of Time is true.
2) The B-Theory of Time AND physicalism are true.

By ruling out the A-Theory of Time (by showing the B-Theory of Time is true) it confirms that physicalism is true.

Unnamed argument against afterlife (my own again):
P1) In order for an afterlife to exist there has to be an absolute end to one's life.
P2) Absolute beginnings and endings only exist if tensed facts exist.
P3) Tensed facts do not exist.
C1) Absolute beginnings and endings do not exist.
C2) An afterlife does not exist.

1RP1. "Afterlife" doesn't need an absolute end. It could be the continue states of the life we are aware of.

LIFE needs to have an absolute end in order for a coherent AFTERlife to exist as an afterlife is, by definition, after life ends.

2RP2. I don't follow. Even in a tenseless B-theory of time we can still identify arrangements that exist in more states than other arrangements.

As William Lane Craig said, for there to be an absolute beginning of e at t:
(i) e exists at t
(ii) t is the first time at which e exists
(iii) there is no state of affairs in the actual world in which e exists timelessly
(iv) e"s existing at t is a tensed fact

Similarly, one can argue for there to be an absolute end of e at t:
(i) e exists at t
(ii) t is the last time at which e exists.
(iii) there is no state of affairs in the actual world in which e exists timelessly
(iv) e"s existing at t is a tensed fact

In both cases iv is falsified by the B-Theory of Time, and thus there is no absolute beginning or absolute ending under the B-Theory of Time.

It seems more and more (to me at least) like the B-Theory of Time is showing theistic claims to be incorrect.
#TheApatheticNihilistPartyofAmerica
#WarOnDDO
Mhykiel
Posts: 5,987
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/29/2015 4:53:57 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/29/2015 3:42:30 AM, SNP1 wrote:
At 7/29/2015 2:16:58 AM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 7/28/2015 10:25:45 PM, SNP1 wrote:
The more I read about metaphysics and study it the more I learn about just what the B-Theory of Time entails.

The Tenseless Cosmological Argument (my own creation):
P1) If God created the universe, the universe has a cause.
P2) The universe can only have a cause if tensed facts exist.
P3) Tensed facts do not exist.
C1) The universe does not have a cause (follows from P2 and P3).
C2) God did not create the universe (follows from P1 and C1).

Tensed facts are non-inertial frame of reference. God is in an inertial frame of reference. Problem solved. http://arxiv.org...

How is it "problem solved" exactly?
If tensed facts do not exist (if the B-Theory of Time is true), then the universe has always existed (even if it is a finite block of time).

Always existed is a tensed fact.


Argument from Tenseless Experience (my own creation based on the paper linked under it):
P1) Humans experience a flow of time/arrow of time.
P2) The experience of the flow of time/arrow of time can be explained by:
A) The A-Theory of Time (thus the flow of time/arrow of time is actual).
B) B/C-Theory of Time under physicalism (the paper linked explains why under the B-Theory of Time and physicalism we would experience such a thing).
P3) It is not the case that the A-Theory of Time is correct.
C) Physicalism is true.
https://www.google.com...

Before I continue I'm unsure how you got your conclusion "physicalism is true" even after I read the linked paper.

The paper defended the view that just because we have the experience of an arrow of time does not mean that an arrow of time existed. It argued that we would experience an arrow of time if:
1) The A-Theory of Time is true.
2) The B-Theory of Time AND physicalism are true.

By ruling out the A-Theory of Time (by showing the B-Theory of Time is true) it confirms that physicalism is true.

No I didn't read that. Copy and paste the line please. because I think you are reading into it what you want.


Unnamed argument against afterlife (my own again):
P1) In order for an afterlife to exist there has to be an absolute end to one's life.
P2) Absolute beginnings and endings only exist if tensed facts exist.
P3) Tensed facts do not exist.
C1) Absolute beginnings and endings do not exist.
C2) An afterlife does not exist.

1RP1. "Afterlife" doesn't need an absolute end. It could be the continue states of the life we are aware of.

LIFE needs to have an absolute end in order for a coherent AFTERlife to exist as an afterlife is, by definition, after life ends.

That may be how you define it. But the dictionary defines it as "life after death" or "later life". Hence the afterlife is a "life". And most who believe in an afterlife consider death to be a transitional phase like birth. This could be called the "beforelife" which I define as "life after birth".

An afterlife expressly denies an end to life. While a few that we parish and exist no more is the view that espouses an absolute end to life.

And that's my rebuttal to your P1.


2RP2. I don't follow. Even in a tenseless B-theory of time we can still identify arrangements that exist in more states than other arrangements.

As William Lane Craig said, for there to be an absolute beginning of e at t:
(i) e exists at t
(ii) t is the first time at which e exists
(iii) there is no state of affairs in the actual world in which e exists timelessly
(iv) e"s existing at t is a tensed fact

Similarly, one can argue for there to be an absolute end of e at t:
(i) e exists at t
(ii) t is the last time at which e exists.
(iii) there is no state of affairs in the actual world in which e exists timelessly
(iv) e"s existing at t is a tensed fact

In both cases iv is falsified by the B-Theory of Time, and thus there is no absolute beginning or absolute ending under the B-Theory of Time.

It seems more and more (to me at least) like the B-Theory of Time is showing theistic claims to be incorrect.

Okay before I could not follow, but you are doing what I thought. Semantics. There is no beginning because there is no time when e did not exist. Yeah never heard that one before.

U is a Universal set.
t is contained in U.
At no t<sub>i</sub> does U exist. (so far sounds brilliant)

Now either U exists and is filled with elements like t.
Or U is created with all elements like t.

The assumption you make of course is that U is not contained by any other set containing t. Let's call that set MU

In that case MU could create U even if U is tenseless.

Your argument is the same old hat. And all it demonstrates is that the time inside the universe could not be the temporal coordinate that coincides with the creation of the universe. And then you want to twist this to a tenseless Universe. Fine. but tense or not you haven't gotten away from creative event. Probably because you have forgotten the question a creative event attempts to answer. "Why is there something instead of nothing".
SNP1
Posts: 2,403
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/30/2015 12:25:08 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
How is it "problem solved" exactly?
If tensed facts do not exist (if the B-Theory of Time is true), then the universe has always existed (even if it is a finite block of time).

Always existed is a tensed fact.

How?
Because of the concept of it or the way that we word it?

Before I continue I'm unsure how you got your conclusion "physicalism is true" even after I read the linked paper.

The paper defended the view that just because we have the experience of an arrow of time does not mean that an arrow of time existed. It argued that we would experience an arrow of time if:
1) The A-Theory of Time is true.
2) The B-Theory of Time AND physicalism are true.

By ruling out the A-Theory of Time (by showing the B-Theory of Time is true) it confirms that physicalism is true.

No I didn't read that. Copy and paste the line please. because I think you are reading into it what you want.

The paper establishes a dichotomy that I use.
The paper's established dichotomy is simple.
If T then A or B+P.

T=experience of the flow/arrow of time.
A=A-Theory of Time.
B=B-Theory of Time.
P=Physicalism.

That is the extent of the paper. I then use that dichotomy to make my argument.

1RP1. "Afterlife" doesn't need an absolute end. It could be the continue states of the life we are aware of.

LIFE needs to have an absolute end in order for a coherent AFTERlife to exist as an afterlife is, by definition, after life ends.

That may be how you define it. But the dictionary defines it as "life after death" or "later life". Hence the afterlife is a "life". And most who believe in an afterlife consider death to be a transitional phase like birth. This could be called the "beforelife" which I define as "life after birth".

An afterlife expressly denies an end to life. While a few that we parish and exist no more is the view that espouses an absolute end to life.

And that's my rebuttal to your P1.

There are TWO forms of an afterlife one can posit.
1) Continued existence of the mind within the universe after death.
2) Continued existence of the mind outside the universe after death.

1 is refuted with the argument that entails physicalism from the B-Theory of Time (as it would require dualism to be correct).
2 would require an absolute end to life within the universe (which cannot exist in a tenseless universe).

2RP2. I don't follow. Even in a tenseless B-theory of time we can still identify arrangements that exist in more states than other arrangements.

As William Lane Craig said, for there to be an absolute beginning of e at t:
(i) e exists at t
(ii) t is the first time at which e exists
(iii) there is no state of affairs in the actual world in which e exists timelessly
(iv) e"s existing at t is a tensed fact

Similarly, one can argue for there to be an absolute end of e at t:
(i) e exists at t
(ii) t is the last time at which e exists.
(iii) there is no state of affairs in the actual world in which e exists timelessly
(iv) e"s existing at t is a tensed fact

In both cases iv is falsified by the B-Theory of Time, and thus there is no absolute beginning or absolute ending under the B-Theory of Time.

It seems more and more (to me at least) like the B-Theory of Time is showing theistic claims to be incorrect.

Okay before I could not follow, but you are doing what I thought. Semantics. There is no beginning because there is no time when e did not exist. Yeah never heard that one before.

I am using William Lane Craig's (an extremely religious philosopher) own argument for what it means for there to be an absolute beginning. I am then using that to also form what it means for there to be an absolute end.

This is the same thing that is presupposed when using the Kalam Cosmological Argument.

How is this semantics?

U is a Universal set.
t is contained in U.
At no t<sub>i</sub> does U exist. (so far sounds brilliant)

Now either U exists and is filled with elements like t.
Or U is created with all elements like t.

The assumption you make of course is that U is not contained by any other set containing t. Let's call that set MU

In that case MU could create U even if U is tenseless.

Care to explain how?

Your argument is the same old hat. And all it demonstrates is that the time inside the universe could not be the temporal coordinate that coincides with the creation of the universe.

1) The universe is described as all of space and time. This is a definition that YOU have used in previous discussions with me.
2) Experiments in quantum physics show that without quantum entanglement, the universe would appear completely static. The "flow of time" is an illusion caused by quantum entanglement. If there was a flow of time outside of the universe, then why would the universe appear static and not dynamic from an outside observation (if such an observation is even possible)?

And then you want to twist this to a tenseless Universe.

Expand on this. As it is, it almost seems like an ad hom.

Fine. but tense or not you haven't gotten away from creative event.

How so?

Probably because you have forgotten the question a creative event attempts to answer. "Why is there something instead of nothing".

Causal agents cannot be necessary as it entails paradoxes, and so god (who is usually considered a necessary being) cannot be the cause of the universe.

LONG logical argument to explain the paradox (inspired by n7):
P1) That which is necessary has no explanation for its existence.
P2) That which exists in all possible worlds is necessary.
C1) That which exists in all possible worlds has no explanation for its existence.
P3) God exists in all possible worlds and is the creator of the universe.
P4) God must (by definition) create a universe in every possible world.
C2) A universe exists in all possible worlds.
C3) A universe is necessary.
C4) A universe cannot have a cause (paradox).
To solve the paradox:
P5) Either God is not the cause of the universe or god is contingent.
P6) If god is not contingent then either god needs an explanation for its existence or contingent things do not necessarily have an explanation for their existence.
***This next part all goes based on god still being defined as the cause of the universe)***
P7) If god needs an explanation for its existence infinite regress will follow (based on the paradox).
C5) God does not need an explanation for its existence.
C6) Contingent things do not necessarily need an explanation for their existence.
C7) The universe does not necessarily need an explanation for its existence.
C8) It is more parsimonious (especially with the introduction of the TCA) that the universe does not have an explanation of its existence.
***This next part all goes based on god not being the cause of the universe***
P8) Either the cause of the universe (if it has one) has to be necessary or contingent.
P9) A necessary cause of the universe entails the paradox above.
C9) The cause would have to be contingent.
P10) If this cause needs an explanation for its existence infinite regress will follow (based on the paradox).
C10) Contingent things do not necessarily need an explanation for their existence.
C11) The universe does not necessarily need an explanation for its existence.
C12) It is more parsimonious (especially with the introduction of the TCA) that the universe does not have an explanation of its existence.
***based on the above 2 points***
P11) In either case it is more parsimonious that the universe does not have an explanation for its existence.
C13) It is more parsimonious that the universe just exists without cause/explanation.
#TheApatheticNihilistPartyofAmerica
#WarOnDDO
Mhykiel
Posts: 5,987
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/30/2015 2:27:50 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/30/2015 12:25:08 AM, SNP1 wrote:
How is it "problem solved" exactly?
If tensed facts do not exist (if the B-Theory of Time is true), then the universe has always existed (even if it is a finite block of time).

Always existed is a tensed fact.

How?
Because of the concept of it or the way that we word it?

I can only formulate the concept based on your words. So maybe you need to reword it. But as it is written that is a contradiction or inconsistency. HOW can a tenseless universe "always exist"? It, with all the time it composed of, just exists.

It exists for as long as time is running from the perspective inside the universe. And from outside there is no time to say it is eternal.


Before I continue I'm unsure how you got your conclusion "physicalism is true" even after I read the linked paper.

The paper defended the view that just because we have the experience of an arrow of time does not mean that an arrow of time existed. It argued that we would experience an arrow of time if:
1) The A-Theory of Time is true.
2) The B-Theory of Time AND physicalism are true.

By ruling out the A-Theory of Time (by showing the B-Theory of Time is true) it confirms that physicalism is true.

No I didn't read that. Copy and paste the line please. because I think you are reading into it what you want.

The paper establishes a dichotomy that I use.
The paper's established dichotomy is simple.
If T then A or B+P.

T=experience of the flow/arrow of time.
A=A-Theory of Time.
B=B-Theory of Time.
P=Physicalism.

That is the extent of the paper. I then use that dichotomy to make my argument.


Okay if you won't copy-paste the relevant sentences to support that, as I had asked. I'll just ignore you on this point.

1RP1. "Afterlife" doesn't need an absolute end. It could be the continue states of the life we are aware of.

LIFE needs to have an absolute end in order for a coherent AFTERlife to exist as an afterlife is, by definition, after life ends.

That may be how you define it. But the dictionary defines it as "life after death" or "later life". Hence the afterlife is a "life". And most who believe in an afterlife consider death to be a transitional phase like birth. This could be called the "beforelife" which I define as "life after birth".

An afterlife expressly denies an end to life. While a few that we parish and exist no more is the view that espouses an absolute end to life.

And that's my rebuttal to your P1.

There are TWO forms of an afterlife one can posit.
1) Continued existence of the mind within the universe after death.
2) Continued existence of the mind outside the universe after death.


3. a continued existence in a different body in this universe after death.

1 is refuted with the argument that entails physicalism from the B-Theory of Time (as it would require dualism to be correct).
2 would require an absolute end to life within the universe (which cannot exist in a tenseless universe).


As I tried to explain. Even in a tense less universe, there would be arrangements of information that are discernible from the whole of the universe. So while there is not a temporal end to a life, there is an arrangement that is localized in the space of the universe. So while we can't describe things as start to finish we can describe things as localized or consistent throughout the universe.

But My rebuttal is that a believe in an afterlife is that life continues through transitions. And so stating that a believe in an afterlife requires ends-and beginnings is a bad premise made on a bad definition of "afterlife". And an "absolute end" is the farthest thing away from an "afterlife' concept. You don't know what the "afterlife" concept is about.

I directed you to a dictionary, and suggest you read some literature on "afterlife" and reincarnation.

I suspect you don't know what a tenseless universe concept is about either.
August_Burns_Red
Posts: 1,253
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/30/2015 2:37:58 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/28/2015 10:25:45 PM, SNP1 wrote:
The more I read about metaphysics and study it the more I learn about just what the B-Theory of Time entails.

The Tenseless Cosmological Argument (my own creation):
P1) If God created the universe, the universe has a cause.
P2) The universe can only have a cause if tensed facts exist.
P3) Tensed facts do not exist.
C1) The universe does not have a cause (follows from P2 and P3).
C2) God did not create the universe (follows from P1 and C1).

Argument from Tenseless Experience (my own creation based on the paper linked under it):
P1) Humans experience a flow of time/arrow of time.
P2) The experience of the flow of time/arrow of time can be explained by:
A) The A-Theory of Time (thus the flow of time/arrow of time is actual).
B) B/C-Theory of Time under physicalism (the paper linked explains why under the B-Theory of Time and physicalism we would experience such a thing).
P3) It is not the case that the A-Theory of Time is correct.
C) Physicalism is true.
https://www.google.com...

Unnamed argument against afterlife (my own again):
P1) In order for an afterlife to exist there has to be an absolute end to one's life.
P2) Absolute beginnings and endings only exist if tensed facts exist.
P3) Tensed facts do not exist.
C1) Absolute beginnings and endings do not exist.
C2) An afterlife does not exist.

It seems more and more (to me at least) like the B-Theory of Time is showing theistic claims to be incorrect.

LOL. But you know what the Biggest Flaw to your overly-convoluted and decidedly non-syllogisitc paradigm is?

That God doesn't care! He knows, as St.Paul also spoke, that oft-times what mankind (and woman-futilely-attempting-to-show-off-scientific acumen --think of as knowledge is, alas, mere Folly.
And I think it is safe to say that God the Creator's Opinion trumps your post.

If you wish to know Truth, forget your B-Theory. Go with the "A-Theory of All Creation"

Which is to pray to God for His Knowledge. And His presence in your life. For then you will see that your pedantry is constricting your Soul and your Eternal knowledge.

God Bless.
Tomorrow's forecast: God reigns and the Son shines!
kp98
Posts: 729
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/30/2015 2:39:44 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
You don't know what the "afterlife" concept is about.
I know what the afterlife is.... it's called 'death', defined as that wonderful time when everything becomes someone else's problem.
SNP1
Posts: 2,403
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/30/2015 2:48:29 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/30/2015 2:27:50 AM, Mhykiel wrote:
I can only formulate the concept based on your words. So maybe you need to reword it. But as it is written that is a contradiction or inconsistency. HOW can a tenseless universe "always exist"? It, with all the time it composed of, just exists.

It exists for as long as time is running from the perspective inside the universe. And from outside there is no time to say it is eternal.

Using William Lane Craig's 4 points of absolute beginning/coming into existence, the universe has no absolute beginning/did not come into being.

Okay if you won't copy-paste the relevant sentences to support that, as I had asked. I'll just ignore you on this point.

What part of the paper are you even referring to?

3. a continued existence in a different body in this universe after death.

That would be a subset of 1, wouldn't it?

As I tried to explain. Even in a tense less universe, there would be arrangements of information that are discernible from the whole of the universe. So while there is not a temporal end to a life, there is an arrangement that is localized in the space of the universe. So while we can't describe things as start to finish we can describe things as localized or consistent throughout the universe.

But My rebuttal is that a believe in an afterlife is that life continues through transitions. And so stating that a believe in an afterlife requires ends-and beginnings is a bad premise made on a bad definition of "afterlife". And an "absolute end" is the farthest thing away from an "afterlife' concept. You don't know what the "afterlife" concept is about.

Okay, define an AFTERlife without any implied beginnings/endings.

I directed you to a dictionary, and suggest you read some literature on "afterlife" and reincarnation.

I suspect you don't know what a tenseless universe concept is about either.

Another possible ad hom?
I am majoring in philosophy (and history, double major). I do understand enough about the metaphysics of time.
#TheApatheticNihilistPartyofAmerica
#WarOnDDO
Mhykiel
Posts: 5,987
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/30/2015 2:49:42 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/30/2015 12:25:08 AM, SNP1 wrote:
2RP2. I don't follow. Even in a tenseless B-theory of time we can still identify arrangements that exist in more states than other arrangements.

As William Lane Craig said, for there to be an absolute beginning of e at t:
(i) e exists at t
(ii) t is the first time at which e exists
(iii) there is no state of affairs in the actual world in which e exists timelessly
(iv) e"s existing at t is a tensed fact

Similarly, one can argue for there to be an absolute end of e at t:
(i) e exists at t
(ii) t is the last time at which e exists.
(iii) there is no state of affairs in the actual world in which e exists timelessly
(iv) e"s existing at t is a tensed fact

In both cases iv is falsified by the B-Theory of Time, and thus there is no absolute beginning or absolute ending under the B-Theory of Time.

It seems more and more (to me at least) like the B-Theory of Time is showing theistic claims to be incorrect.

Okay before I could not follow, but you are doing what I thought. Semantics. There is no beginning because there is no time when e did not exist. Yeah never heard that one before.

I am using William Lane Craig's (an extremely religious philosopher) own argument for what it means for there to be an absolute beginning. I am then using that to also form what it means for there to be an absolute end.

This is the same thing that is presupposed when using the Kalam Cosmological Argument.

How is this semantics?

Because the defeat of the argument is by virtue of inefficient verbiage.


U is a Universal set.
t is contained in U.
At no t<sub>i</sub> does U exist. (so far sounds brilliant)

Now either U exists and is filled with elements like t.
Or U is created with all elements like t.

The assumption you make of course is that U is not contained by any other set containing t. Let's call that set MU

In that case MU could create U even if U is tenseless.

Care to explain how?

Really? I thought it would be obvious. MU has a flow of space and time, which is the time in which the creation event occurs. The result being the Universe we live in with time having a beginning.

If we remove time, and only consider an eternalism of space we have static universe that still has discernible boundaries and amounts. And the question is "why is there something rather than nothing?" Debating that there is no creation still doesn't answer the question posed that the Kalam attempted to answer.


Your argument is the same old hat. And all it demonstrates is that the time inside the universe could not be the temporal coordinate that coincides with the creation of the universe.

1) The universe is described as all of space and time. This is a definition that YOU have used in previous discussions with me.

I don't think so. I hate that definition because it means the universe grows to encompass every new discovery. If another membrane of space-time was discovered it would become part of our universe. A multiverse could be our universe. But this started due to a historical discussion when mankind discovered another galaxy.

2) Experiments in quantum physics show that without quantum entanglement, the universe would appear completely static. The "flow of time" is an illusion caused by quantum entanglement. If there was a flow of time outside of the universe, then why would the universe appear static and not dynamic from an outside observation (if such an observation is even possible)?

I posted and sent you the link describing that. And I can tell you have no reading comprehension about it.

1. The scientist found that due to entanglement being the cause of time, actions inside an entangled universe will appear and operate as if dynamic.

2. The universe is static to those observers NOT entangled with inside the universe. So the observer would observe a static universe but could still have time of his own.

The paper directly supports what I told you. That outside the universe could be a inertial frame of reference and inside a non=inertial frame of reference. Making two completely different scenarios reconcile through relative transformations.


And then you want to twist this to a tenseless Universe.

Expand on this. As it is, it almost seems like an ad hom.

No. I stated what you were doing. Saying you are wrong because you are an idiot. is an ad hominen. Relating the validity of your claims to you as the source fo them is an ad hom.


Fine. but tense or not you haven't gotten away from creative event.

How so?

I'll rephrase you haven't answered the question, "why something instead of nothing"


Probably because you have forgotten the question a creative event attempts to answer. "Why is there something instead of nothing".

Causal agents cannot be necessary as it entails paradoxes, and so god (who is usually considered a necessary being) cannot be the cause of the universe.

LONG logical argument to explain the paradox (inspired by n7):
P1) That which is necessary has no explanation for its existence.
P2) That which exists in all possible worlds is necessary.
C1) That which exists in all possible worlds has no explanation for its existence.
P3) God exists in all possible worlds and is the creator of the universe.
P4) God must (by definition) create a universe in every possible world.

Non sequitor. God can exist as a necessary being without making a universe. This prescription to make a universe is attempted from the earlier definition, " and is the creator of the universe." This definition is a description of God making one universe. It is a non sequitor to state that God has to make universes, or always makes a universe.

C2) A universe exists in all possible worlds.
C3) A universe is necessary.
C4) A universe cannot have a cause (paradox).
To solve the paradox:
P5) Either God is not the cause of the universe or god is contingent.

Or God does not have to make a universe in all possible worlds. Making a universe contingent.

P6) If god is not contingent then either god needs an explanation for its existence or contingent things do not necessarily have an explanation for their existence.
***This next part all goes based on god still being defined as the cause of the universe)***

Right, a definition by describing God. But not a definition prescriptive of God. this mistake would be clearer if you defined God as "A being that always makes a universe". This entire collection of premises and conclusions is utter trash.

...
P11) In either case it is more parsimonious that the universe does not have an explanation for its existence.
C13) It is more parsimoni
Mhykiel
Posts: 5,987
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/30/2015 3:02:52 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/30/2015 2:48:29 AM, SNP1 wrote:
At 7/30/2015 2:27:50 AM, Mhykiel wrote:
I can only formulate the concept based on your words. So maybe you need to reword it. But as it is written that is a contradiction or inconsistency. HOW can a tenseless universe "always exist"? It, with all the time it composed of, just exists.

It exists for as long as time is running from the perspective inside the universe. And from outside there is no time to say it is eternal.

Using William Lane Craig's 4 points of absolute beginning/coming into existence, the universe has no absolute beginning/did not come into being.

We have already debated this and it is obvious to me you don't understand what you are saying. You want to use terms like tenseless universe, then turn around and call it eternal.

Eternal is a temporal adjective. That's one point of mine is the blatant self refutation in your argument.

The next contention I have is what I clearly stated. That the argument only shows that a creative event could not coincide with a temporal line contained in the universe. It says nothing about a creative event that occurs in another time line UN-entangled in this one.


Okay if you won't copy-paste the relevant sentences to support that, as I had asked. I'll just ignore you on this point.

What part of the paper are you even referring to?


This isn't hard. You said the paper supported a dichotomy that held b-theory is true therefore physicalism is true. I ask for you to copy links from the paper supporting this. because I didn't read it that way.

3. a continued existence in a different body in this universe after death.

That would be a subset of 1, wouldn't it?

No. Because 3 can infer that the mind is an emergent phenomenon from body and therefore a new body is required for the continued existence of a mind.


As I tried to explain. Even in a tense less universe, there would be arrangements of information that are discernible from the whole of the universe. So while there is not a temporal end to a life, there is an arrangement that is localized in the space of the universe. So while we can't describe things as start to finish we can describe things as localized or consistent throughout the universe.

But My rebuttal is that a believe in an afterlife is that life continues through transitions. And so stating that a believe in an afterlife requires ends-and beginnings is a bad premise made on a bad definition of "afterlife". And an "absolute end" is the farthest thing away from an "afterlife' concept. You don't know what the "afterlife" concept is about.

Okay, define an AFTERlife without any implied beginnings/endings.

In a tenseless universe what we experience as life, is a collection of informational points throughout the universe. The exact arrangement is different in different localizations but a common pattern is repetitive throughout.


I directed you to a dictionary, and suggest you read some literature on "afterlife" and reincarnation.

I suspect you don't know what a tenseless universe concept is about either.

Another possible ad hom?

No I'm arguing the validity of your argument is false based on non-sequitors and self refutation. I'm in addition asserting you don't know what the hell your talking about. Maybe you need to look up the word in a dictionary before throwing it around.

I am majoring in philosophy (and history, double major). I do understand enough about the metaphysics of time.

They used to teach rhetoric, you know back in the day when they taught students how to think not what to think. Maybe you should take a creative writing class, because it really hurts your argument to say the universe has no time and therefore has existed forever.
Mhykiel
Posts: 5,987
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/30/2015 3:22:24 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/30/2015 2:39:44 AM, kp98 wrote:
You don't know what the "afterlife" concept is about.
I know what the afterlife is.... it's called 'death', defined as that wonderful time when everything becomes someone else's problem.

I took the definition of "afterlife" from the dictionary. It is defined as life after death or latter life.

You are equating words that are not synonymous.
Dogknox
Posts: 5,043
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/30/2015 3:26:43 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/29/2015 1:30:42 AM, SNP1 wrote:
bump (I want people's views about this).

Philosophers are divided as to whether the tensed or tense-less mode of expressing temporal fact is fundamental.
To assert that both are equally fundamental is to land in McTaggart's Paradox, since it would require of any event that it is both present and future, which is contradictory.

McTaggart's paradox is, similarly as the Russel's Paradox known from the set theory, one of the most fascinating problems lying somewhere on the boundary of philosophy and science. It witnesses that both disciplines have the same origins. And that good philosophy is not far from science and vice versa. The paradox of John Mc Taggart is very often interpreted as an (controversial) argument for a conclusion that "there is no time at all" or "time is unreal".
Mhykiel
Posts: 5,987
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/30/2015 11:25:06 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/30/2015 3:26:43 AM, Dogknox wrote:
At 7/29/2015 1:30:42 AM, SNP1 wrote:
bump (I want people's views about this).

Philosophers are divided as to whether the tensed or tense-less mode of expressing temporal fact is fundamental.
To assert that both are equally fundamental is to land in McTaggart's Paradox, since it would require of any event that it is both present and future, which is contradictory.

McTaggart's paradox is, similarly as the Russel's Paradox known from the set theory, one of the most fascinating problems lying somewhere on the boundary of philosophy and science. It witnesses that both disciplines have the same origins. And that good philosophy is not far from science and vice versa. The paradox of John Mc Taggart is very often interpreted as an (controversial) argument for a conclusion that "there is no time at all" or "time is unreal".

Seems like everything Scientist are having a hard time understanding gets defined as illusion or unreal.
SNP1
Posts: 2,403
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/30/2015 5:13:29 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/30/2015 2:49:42 AM, Mhykiel wrote:
Because the defeat of the argument is by virtue of inefficient verbiage.

So, because people have a hard time verbalizing ideas without tense (including me), then it is a moot argument? That is extremely stupid.

Really? I thought it would be obvious. MU has a flow of space and time, which is the time in which the creation event occurs. The result being the Universe we live in with time having a beginning.

I wanted you to elaborate your thoughts as I have had different, similar discussions where people have made similar arguments but still fundamentally different. I wanted to know YOUR argument.

If we remove time, and only consider an eternalism of space we have static universe that still has discernible boundaries and amounts. And the question is "why is there something rather than nothing?" Debating that there is no creation still doesn't answer the question posed that the Kalam attempted to answer.

The TCA is a response to the KCA AGAINST a creation event using the same 4 points presupposed by the KCA.

It is quite simple, the KCA requires the A-Theory of Time. The TCA uses the B-Theory of Time.

I don't think so. I hate that definition because it means the universe grows to encompass every new discovery. If another membrane of space-time was discovered it would become part of our universe. A multiverse could be our universe. But this started due to a historical discussion when mankind discovered another galaxy.

Personally, I didn't like the idea at first but have grown to like it. The reason why is that in order to discover another universe there would have to be observation of it. Quantum physics shows that by observing a system you become entangled with it. Of course, I reject the multiverse for my own metaphysical model of 2D eternalism.

I posted and sent you the link describing that. And I can tell you have no reading comprehension about it.

I read the paper a long time ago. It shows time is emergent via quantum mechanics and, via the law of parsimony, it is more likely that the B-Theory of Time is correct.

Furthermore, you haven't even tried to directly refute the argument OR the 4 points of WLC of what it means to have an absolute beginning/come into being. Point out which of the 4 points is flawed or which premise of the argument is flawed and explain how.

So far you are simply saying that a tenseless reality can be made within another reality. That is a great assertion and all, but you have provided no reason to believe that.

1. The scientist found that due to entanglement being the cause of time, actions inside an entangled universe will appear and operate as if dynamic.

Correct. When entangled with the system it will appear as if time is flowing (despite it not, noumenally, doing so).

2. The universe is static to those observers NOT entangled with inside the universe. So the observer would observe a static universe but could still have time of his own.

To observe is to become entangled. From a thought experiment type of view, yes, it would be static from an outside view (if such a view is possible).

The paper directly supports what I told you. That outside the universe could be a inertial frame of reference and inside a non=inertial frame of reference. Making two completely different scenarios reconcile through relative transformations.

So, in order to defend a creation event you are appealing to a meta-universe? If it is connected to our universe then it and our universe would be the same universe. If it wasn't, then it could not influence our universe.

No. I stated what you were doing. Saying you are wrong because you are an idiot. is an ad hominen. Relating the validity of your claims to you as the source fo them is an ad hom.

I'll rephrase you haven't answered the question, "why something instead of nothing"

Which isn't even what the KCA or TCA deal with. The EXTENDED KCA deals with it (by appealing to god), but the base KCA only supports the existence of an origin of the universe (while the base TCA would only support the non-existence of an origin of the universe).

Furthermore, it completely depends on how you define "nothing" for if this is even a valid question.

If "nothing" also include no laws of logic, then I can say that a unicorn farted something into existence and it would be just as valid as any other explanation (as there is no logic in that type of nothing).

LONG logical argument to explain the paradox (inspired by n7):
P1) That which is necessary has no explanation for its existence.
P2) That which exists in all possible worlds is necessary.
C1) That which exists in all possible worlds has no explanation for its existence.
P3) God exists in all possible worlds and is the creator of the universe.
P4) God must (by definition) create a universe in every possible world.

Non sequitor. God can exist as a necessary being without making a universe. This prescription to make a universe is attempted from the earlier definition, " and is the creator of the universe." This definition is a description of God making one universe. It is a non sequitor to state that God has to make universes, or always makes a universe.

Let's say, for the sake of argument, that there exist 5 possible worlds.

God exists in all possible worlds.
God is a creator god.
In 4 possible worlds God creates a universe.
In 1 possible world God does not.
Guess what? The god in that 1 universe is DIFFERENT from the god(s) in the other 4. This destroys god as a necessary being and creates 2 gods (at least) that are contingent beings.

If god is a creator god and necessary, then god MUST be a creator god in all possible worlds.

C2) A universe exists in all possible worlds.
C3) A universe is necessary.
C4) A universe cannot have a cause (paradox).
To solve the paradox:
P5) Either God is not the cause of the universe or god is contingent.

Or God does not have to make a universe in all possible worlds. Making a universe contingent.

Again, that makes 2 gods, both contingent.

P6) If god is not contingent then either god needs an explanation for its existence or contingent things do not necessarily have an explanation for their existence.
***This next part all goes based on god still being defined as the cause of the universe)***

Right, a definition by describing God. But not a definition prescriptive of God. this mistake would be clearer if you defined God as "A being that always makes a universe". This entire collection of premises and conclusions is utter trash.

Calling the argument "utter trash" by making a piss poor argument against it does not help your case out at all.

...
P11) In either case it is more parsimonious that the universe does not have an explanation for its existence.
C13) It is more parsimoni
#TheApatheticNihilistPartyofAmerica
#WarOnDDO
SNP1
Posts: 2,403
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/30/2015 5:36:30 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/30/2015 3:02:52 AM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 7/30/2015 2:48:29 AM, SNP1 wrote:
At 7/30/2015 2:27:50 AM, Mhykiel wrote:
I can only formulate the concept based on your words. So maybe you need to reword it. But as it is written that is a contradiction or inconsistency. HOW can a tenseless universe "always exist"? It, with all the time it composed of, just exists.

It exists for as long as time is running from the perspective inside the universe. And from outside there is no time to say it is eternal.

Using William Lane Craig's 4 points of absolute beginning/coming into existence, the universe has no absolute beginning/did not come into being.

We have already debated this and it is obvious to me you don't understand what you are saying. You want to use terms like tenseless universe, then turn around and call it eternal.

Eternal is a temporal adjective. That's one point of mine is the blatant self refutation in your argument.

The next contention I have is what I clearly stated. That the argument only shows that a creative event could not coincide with a temporal line contained in the universe. It says nothing about a creative event that occurs in another time line UN-entangled in this one.

1) Verbiage is not the measure of if an idea is sound or not, the concept it.
2) I used "eternal" due to lack of a better word. Using the 4 points and the TCA our universe never came into being, never had an absolute beginning, etc. For lack of a better word, it therefore is eternal.

Okay if you won't copy-paste the relevant sentences to support that, as I had asked. I'll just ignore you on this point.

What part of the paper are you even referring to?


This isn't hard. You said the paper supported a dichotomy that held b-theory is true therefore physicalism is true. I ask for you to copy links from the paper supporting this. because I didn't read it that way.

How did you read it?

Here are 3 of the 4 areas where the word "physicalism" shows up.

"But on any physicalist or supervenience theory of the mind the nature of experience is determined entirely by the physical state of the world - experience could not be different without the physical state of the world being different. Now our understanding of the role of time in physical science suggests that the putative flow of time has no role in determining the physical state of the world. It follows from this that the flow of time could have no role in determining the nature of experience. "

"Now on any physicalist or supervenience theory of the mind the way things seem to the subject is determined by some aspect of the brain state; consequently if there are such things as mind-independent tenses they must have a role in determining brain states."

" It shows that given a physicalist or supervenience theory of the mind nothing that is reflected in experience can belong within the realm of metaphysics. The dualism of the A- and B-series - like the Cartesian dualism of physical and mental substance - comes unstuck through a combination of the impossibility of explaining how the two sides could interact and the unintelligibility of claiming that they don"t. A modern understanding of the place of the mind in the natural world thus shows the flow of time to be nothing more than a last imaginary ghost in nature"s machinery"

The most important one is that last paragraph.

3. a continued existence in a different body in this universe after death.

That would be a subset of 1, wouldn't it?

No. Because 3 can infer that the mind is an emergent phenomenon from body and therefore a new body is required for the continued existence of a mind.

This just gets into a different metaphysical problem.

If I cloned you perfectly, including your memories and experiences, then killed you and left the clone (who is in a state that it thinks it is you), then is it you?

What if I left you both alive without knowledge of the other?

As I tried to explain. Even in a tense less universe, there would be arrangements of information that are discernible from the whole of the universe. So while there is not a temporal end to a life, there is an arrangement that is localized in the space of the universe. So while we can't describe things as start to finish we can describe things as localized or consistent throughout the universe.

But My rebuttal is that a believe in an afterlife is that life continues through transitions. And so stating that a believe in an afterlife requires ends-and beginnings is a bad premise made on a bad definition of "afterlife". And an "absolute end" is the farthest thing away from an "afterlife' concept. You don't know what the "afterlife" concept is about.

Okay, define an AFTERlife without any implied beginnings/endings.

In a tenseless universe what we experience as life, is a collection of informational points throughout the universe. The exact arrangement is different in different localizations but a common pattern is repetitive throughout.


I directed you to a dictionary, and suggest you read some literature on "afterlife" and reincarnation.

I suspect you don't know what a tenseless universe concept is about either.

Another possible ad hom?

No I'm arguing the validity of your argument is false based on non-sequitors and self refutation. I'm in addition asserting you don't know what the hell your talking about. Maybe you need to look up the word in a dictionary before throwing it around.

There has been no self-refutation. The problem you have is that how things get worded is with words that "imply" tense. There is no actual issue here.

And you have not supported there being any non-sequitors.

I am majoring in philosophy (and history, double major). I do understand enough about the metaphysics of time.

They used to teach rhetoric, you know back in the day when they taught students how to think not what to think. Maybe you should take a creative writing class, because it really hurts your argument to say the universe has no time and therefore has existed forever.

It is for lack of a better word as I am unaware of any other way of describing it. Anyone who is honest in the slightest would be able to understand the concept instead of attacking the wording.
#TheApatheticNihilistPartyofAmerica
#WarOnDDO
UniversalTheologian
Posts: 1,078
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/30/2015 6:20:46 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
I don't think I understand what you say The "B-Theory of Time" is supposed to disprove.
"There are trivial truths and the great truths. The opposite of a trivial truth is plainly false. The opposite of a great truth is also true." ~ Niels Bohr

"All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident." ~ Arthur Schopenhauer
UniversalTheologian
Posts: 1,078
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/30/2015 8:06:38 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/30/2015 7:20:15 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
Are you mentally impaired?

I hope you aren't talking to me.

If you are, well...

At least I'm asking for clarification.
"There are trivial truths and the great truths. The opposite of a trivial truth is plainly false. The opposite of a great truth is also true." ~ Niels Bohr

"All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident." ~ Arthur Schopenhauer
Mhykiel
Posts: 5,987
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/30/2015 8:36:30 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/30/2015 8:06:38 PM, UniversalTheologian wrote:
At 7/30/2015 7:20:15 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
Are you mentally impaired?

I hope you aren't talking to me.

If you are, well...

At least I'm asking for clarification.

No snp1
SNP1
Posts: 2,403
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/30/2015 9:38:13 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/30/2015 7:20:15 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
Are you mentally impaired?

Now, that one is an ad hom.

And no, but considering how you had to resort to this, I suspect that either you are, you do not hace comprehensive abilities, or my pain meds are making it harder to articulate my points. I suspect one of the first 2 (when considering previous discussions we have had).
#TheApatheticNihilistPartyofAmerica
#WarOnDDO
Mhykiel
Posts: 5,987
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/30/2015 9:49:39 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/30/2015 9:38:13 PM, SNP1 wrote:
At 7/30/2015 7:20:15 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
Are you mentally impaired?

Now, that one is an ad hom.

No that was a rhetorical question. Again I'll explain to you that it is not an ad hom if I'm not stating the validity of the claim with it.


And no, but considering how you had to resort to this, I suspect that either you are, you do not hace comprehensive abilities, or my pain meds are making it harder to articulate my points. I suspect one of the first 2 (when considering previous discussions we have had).

I'm thinking your arguments are ill attempts at sophistry.
SNP1
Posts: 2,403
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/30/2015 9:56:00 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/30/2015 9:49:39 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
No that was a rhetorical question. Again I'll explain to you that it is not an ad hom if I'm not stating the validity of the claim with it.

Technically, on DDO at least, rhetorical questions that include insult (like yours) is a personal attack. I almost got banned a few months back for doing that.

I'm thinking your arguments are ill attempts at sophistry.

Not even close to true.
#TheApatheticNihilistPartyofAmerica
#WarOnDDO
August_Burns_Red
Posts: 1,253
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/30/2015 10:07:26 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/30/2015 5:13:29 PM, SNP1 wrote:
At 7/30/2015 2:49:42 AM, Mhykiel wrote:
Because the defeat of the argument is by virtue of inefficient verbiage.

So, because people have a hard time verbalizing ideas without tense (including me), then it is a moot argument? That is extremely stupid.

Really? I thought it would be obvious. MU has a flow of space and time, which is the time in which the creation event occurs. The result being the Universe we live in with time having a beginning.

I wanted you to elaborate your thoughts as I have had different, similar discussions where people have made similar arguments but still fundamentally different. I wanted to know YOUR argument.

If we remove time, and only consider an eternalism of space we have static universe that still has discernible boundaries and amounts. And the question is "why is there something rather than nothing?" Debating that there is no creation still doesn't answer the question posed that the Kalam attempted to answer.

The TCA is a response to the KCA AGAINST a creation event using the same 4 points presupposed by the KCA.

It is quite simple, the KCA requires the A-Theory of Time. The TCA uses the B-Theory of Time.

I don't think so. I hate that definition because it means the universe grows to encompass every new discovery. If another membrane of space-time was discovered it would become part of our universe. A multiverse could be our universe. But this started due to a historical discussion when mankind discovered another galaxy.

Personally, I didn't like the idea at first but have grown to like it. The reason why is that in order to discover another universe there would have to be observation of it. Quantum physics shows that by observing a system you become entangled with it. Of course, I reject the multiverse for my own metaphysical model of 2D eternalism.

I posted and sent you the link describing that. And I can tell you have no reading comprehension about it.

I read the paper a long time ago. It shows time is emergent via quantum mechanics and, via the law of parsimony, it is more likely that the B-Theory of Time is correct.

Furthermore, you haven't even tried to directly refute the argument OR the 4 points of WLC of what it means to have an absolute beginning/come into being. Point out which of the 4 points is flawed or which premise of the argument is flawed and explain how.

So far you are simply saying that a tenseless reality can be made within another reality. That is a great assertion and all, but you have provided no reason to believe that.

1. The scientist found that due to entanglement being the cause of time, actions inside an entangled universe will appear and operate as if dynamic.

Correct. When entangled with the system it will appear as if time is flowing (despite it not, noumenally, doing so).

2. The universe is static to those observers NOT entangled with inside the universe. So the observer would observe a static universe but could still have time of his own.

To observe is to become entangled. From a thought experiment type of view, yes, it would be static from an outside view (if such a view is possible).

The paper directly supports what I told you. That outside the universe could be a inertial frame of reference and inside a non=inertial frame of reference. Making two completely different scenarios reconcile through relative transformations.

So, in order to defend a creation event you are appealing to a meta-universe? If it is connected to our universe then it and our universe would be the same universe. If it wasn't, then it could not influence our universe.

No. I stated what you were doing. Saying you are wrong because you are an idiot. is an ad hominen. Relating the validity of your claims to you as the source fo them is an ad hom.

I'll rephrase you haven't answered the question, "why something instead of nothing"

Which isn't even what the KCA or TCA deal with. The EXTENDED KCA deals with it (by appealing to god), but the base KCA only supports the existence of an origin of the universe (while the base TCA would only support the non-existence of an origin of the universe).

Furthermore, it completely depends on how you define "nothing" for if this is even a valid question.

If "nothing" also include no laws of logic, then I can say that a unicorn farted something into existence and it would be just as valid as any other explanation (as there is no logic in that type of nothing).

Non sequitor. God can exist as a necessary being without making a universe. This prescription to make a universe is attempted from the earlier definition, " and is the creator of the universe." This definition is a description of God making one universe. It is a non sequitor to state that God has to make universes, or always makes a universe.

Let's say, for the sake of argument, that there exist 5 possible worlds.

God exists in all possible worlds.
God is a creator god.
In 4 possible worlds God creates a universe.
In 1 possible world God does not.
Guess what? The god in that 1 universe is DIFFERENT from the god(s) in the other 4. This destroys god as a necessary being and creates 2 gods (at least) that are contingent beings.

If god is a creator god and necessary, then god MUST be a creator god in all possible worlds.

C2) A universe exists in all possible worlds.
C3) A universe is necessary.
C4) A universe cannot have a cause (paradox).
To solve the paradox:
P5) Either God is not the cause of the universe or god is contingent.

Or God does not have to make a universe in all possible worlds. Making a universe contingent.

Again, that makes 2 gods, both contingent.

P6) If god is not contingent then either god needs an explanation for its existence or contingent things do not necessarily have an explanation for their existence.
***This next part all goes based on god still being defined as the cause of the universe)***

Right, a definition by describing God. But not a definition prescriptive of God. this mistake would be clearer if you defined God as "A being that always makes a universe". This entire collection of premises and conclusions is utter trash.

Calling the argument "utter trash" by making a piss poor argument against it does not help your case out at all.

...
P11) In either case it is more parsimonious that the universe does not have an explanation for its existence.
C13) It is more parsimoni

You sound like you are a former believer in God who has become angry at Him. Perhaps he did not give you what you want? Or at least that's what you percieved? You seem to be on a mission to disprove Him with your empty and overly-convoluted formulae and syllogistic paradigms. (yeah I can use b ig words too. LOL)
It's not working, my sister. Save yourself some time. when you post on DDO you are only manipulating some electrons on an electronic device so as to create printed alph-numeric symbols on a screen. This does nothing to alter His Existence. If you're doing this for entertainment purporse, so be it. Have fun. More power to ya. But if you really think you are changing even a quark's worth of Reality, or even giving us Believers a shred of pause for doubt with our Beliefs, than, well, you are only--not to put too fine a point on it---pisssing in the Wind.
I say this not out of anger or derision. And no offense is intended, I am simply suggesting you not deplete too much Spirit on futilely running on that Hamster Wheel known as Existentialism. One hour worth of praying or meditating, sincerely, to God will give you more answers then a month of doing what you're doing.
God Bless.
Tomorrow's forecast: God reigns and the Son shines!
Kozu
Posts: 381
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/30/2015 10:28:39 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/28/2015 10:25:45 PM, SNP1 wrote:
The more I read about metaphysics and study it the more I learn about just what the B-Theory of Time entails.

The Tenseless Cosmological Argument (my own creation):
P1) If God created the universe, the universe has a cause.
P2) The universe can only have a cause if tensed facts exist.
P3) Tensed facts do not exist.
C1) The universe does not have a cause (follows from P2 and P3).
C2) God did not create the universe (follows from P1 and C1).

I'v been learning more about eternalism recently due wanting to judge a certain debate. I understand that eternalism implies that the universe has "always existed", but how does that conform with the big bang theory? Unless were in a cyclic universe, I don't really understand what the practical implications are when we say it's "always existed". I really just don't see how the BB fits with eternalism.
August_Burns_Red
Posts: 1,253
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/30/2015 10:42:40 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/29/2015 1:30:42 AM, SNP1 wrote:
bump (I want people's views about this).

More accurately............

"bump (I want more attention to my sophistry!)."
Tomorrow's forecast: God reigns and the Son shines!
Kozu
Posts: 381
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/30/2015 10:58:38 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/30/2015 10:42:40 PM, August_Burns_Red wrote:
At 7/29/2015 1:30:42 AM, SNP1 wrote:
bump (I want people's views about this).

More accurately............

"bump (I want more attention to my sophistry!)."

What an excellent contribution to the thread.
n7
Posts: 1,358
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/30/2015 11:39:15 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/30/2015 10:58:38 PM, Kozu wrote:
At 7/30/2015 10:42:40 PM, August_Burns_Red wrote:
At 7/29/2015 1:30:42 AM, SNP1 wrote:
bump (I want people's views about this).

More accurately............

"bump (I want more attention to my sophistry!)."

What an excellent contribution to the thread.
Everyone in this thread is now smarter for having read it!
404 coherent debate topic not found. Please restart the debate with clear resolution.


Uphold Marxist-Leninist-Maoist-Sargonist-n7ism.
n7
Posts: 1,358
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/30/2015 11:40:12 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/30/2015 10:28:39 PM, Kozu wrote:
At 7/28/2015 10:25:45 PM, SNP1 wrote:
The more I read about metaphysics and study it the more I learn about just what the B-Theory of Time entails.

The Tenseless Cosmological Argument (my own creation):
P1) If God created the universe, the universe has a cause.
P2) The universe can only have a cause if tensed facts exist.
P3) Tensed facts do not exist.
C1) The universe does not have a cause (follows from P2 and P3).
C2) God did not create the universe (follows from P1 and C1).

I'v been learning more about eternalism recently due wanting to judge a certain debate. I understand that eternalism implies that the universe has "always existed", but how does that conform with the big bang theory? Unless were in a cyclic universe, I don't really understand what the practical implications are when we say it's "always existed". I really just don't see how the BB fits with eternalism.

The big bang wouldn't be an ontological beginning. It would be like inch one on a ruler that has existed forever.
404 coherent debate topic not found. Please restart the debate with clear resolution.


Uphold Marxist-Leninist-Maoist-Sargonist-n7ism.