Wisdom of the Infinite Regress

[Dennis Mahar]

it's supposed to be a discussion about ultimate reality as opposed to a frat party.

all these distinctions: infinite, finite, totality, past, future, ,here, then, beginningless, eternal, endless
I'm pretty sure Quinn and Dan regard them as applicable to phenomenal reality, as conventional designations, and fail to make the grade ultimately.
If that's what you're trying to say in the thread,
wtf are you arguing about.

if you realise emptiness,
you realise your buddy isn't someone to be put up with, beholden to, stuck with, an accidental occurrence,
you realise you are consciously creating the friendship in a participatory mode,
that it's not permanent, just for now,
that realisation injects a zest, a zing, and a thrill for the ages.

[guest_of_logic]

Expectations not being met, huh Dennis? Perhaps you could see it as an opportunity to practice non-attachment...

OK, that's a little cheeky, but really, the thread's perfectly topical, the forum founders all promote an infinite past - why should you object to me challenging this notion? If you think my challenge fails, then go ahead and explain why - but you're not doing that at the moment, instead you're trying to re-frame the conversation. If you want to have a different conversation, then by all means start one in your own thread. I don't mean that unkindly, it's just that I'd prefer to stay on-topic in this thread.

[SeekerOfWisdom]

Damn Rowden. I should have known better.

[SeekerOfWisdom]

it's supposed to be a discussion about ultimate reality as opposed to a frat party.

I've said this many times to you with the question, why stop, is discussion limited to what's already been discussed 100 times, is it impossible to continue? Do you see emptiness as the end.

[Dennis Mahar]

your premise is ratshit Laird because time has no objective existence.
infinite: not a thing, not solid.

You don't like QRS.
that's the point.
where you're coming from.
emotional.
so what?

[Dan Rowden]

Damn Rowden. I should have known better.

But you don't know anything, so how could you?

[Dan Rowden]

...the forum founders all promote an infinite past - why should you object to me challenging this notion?

Maybe because we advocate no such thing! An "infinite past" is a silly, made-up notion. Your belief that it forms a part of the "forum founders'" philosophy only goes to show you have never understood it at any time.

[guest_of_logic]

OK, so, you might not use that exact phrase, you might instead refer to it as a "beginningless" past, but what alternative implication of the quotes from PFTH in that post is there than "the past is infinite"? Seriously, I'd like to know.

[Dan Rowden]

"The Past" is a concept of convenience. The Infinite can't be carved up that way in reality (it's just us creating arbitrary mathematical sets to help us out). I'll explain it more tomorrow. Crownies are on special at the local Dan Murphy's so I'm indulging. You know the drill.

[Diebert van Rhijn]

"The" infinite? Are you talking about the infinite past, as WLC and I are, or are you talking about "the" Totality?

The conception of a past as a collection of discrete time units stretched out is just not very interesting, in case you were talking about that. Were you? Any theory framed scientifically or mathematically is provisional. What's on the line here is the philosophical stand which transcends those domains. Truth as axiom after all is the base of any system of science, philosophy or math. So this is about what we can actually know to be true in the most simple, direct, thoughtful way. It's no rocket equation.

... an infinite number of causes could only be suggested if the universe is infinite in physical extent/mass/energy, or in history.

But it's not the amount of causes which should be counted. The infinite exists by the fact that anything appears through its causes. Meaning causality is real, not the universe, the cause, the energy, the mass, etc. You are suggesting to put the horse behind the carriage (starting with asserting "a" cause, "a" mass, "a" time etc.).

If, as I believe, WLC and I have successfully argued against the possibility of an infinite past, then "the whole causal chain of any actual event" is finite, and the size of the paper needed to record those finite causes is irrelevant.

It's irrelevant because you only need your mind to work it out, no paper! Just take something simple and work out its causes: energies, events, timings, materials and such. Then take each of them and repeat.You'll see you'd end up with an idea beyond time and place but still at best a shadow of the totality. Even time itself ends up being nothing but a way of measuring, a relative model to work with but not any philosophical model in a context of any absolute.

[Diebert van Rhijn]

General thought on the subject:

The inquiry into causality has the main benefit of completely annihilating -- if done properly and all the way -- any importance god, spirit, creator, devil, magic, consciousness, intelligence or cosmic self would have in the conceptual space of our existential functioning. This frees up the drain from any clogs and now finally the dishes might get done.

[Dan Rowden]

Cause and effect isn't ultimately real, so trying to make metaphysical arguments based on "amounts" of it is entirely worthless.

[SeekerOfWisdom]

Cause and effect isn't ultimately real, so trying to make metaphysical arguments based on "amounts" of it is entirely worthless.

I agree, one could not say an appearance is the cause of the following appearance.

If anything consciousness is the cause/'platform' for appearances and is not dependent on any particular manifestations for continued existence. Meaning it isn't caused by anything, definitely not appearances.

[Leyla Shen]

You do?

Then why attempt a metaphysical argument for cause and effect as an argument against metaphysical arguments for cause and effect:

If anything consciousness is the cause/'platform' for appearances and is not dependent on any particular manifestations for continued existence.

?

[SeekerOfWisdom]

I didn't attempt an argument for cause and effect, I agreed cause and effect is not ultimately real as it is a dualistic perspective.

To differentiate between appearances and then say one brought the other about, when in actual fact the only thing which can be attributed as the source of these, or 'where they come from' is consciousness. Saying appearances arise or are situated in consciousness has nothing to do with the apparent cause and effect witnessed conventionally.

[Leyla Shen]

I see.

Can you explain to me how consciousness is ultimately real? That is, unlike cause and effect, how it is not:

[...] a dualistic perspective.

Saying appearances arise or are situated in consciousness has nothing to do with the apparent cause and effect witnessed conventionally.

Why? Because you just have to kind of pull it out of your arse to say it?

How do you arrive at that conclusion without assuming the essential duality underlying appearances (something appearing to some other thing)?

[SeekerOfWisdom]

Of course consciousness is ultimately real. Reality is that which we experience. Is experience not ultimately real? How would consciousness differ?

There is no essential duality underlying appearances as something is not appearing to some other (separate) thing.

That which appears is what makes up consciousness, without experience there is no consciousness. These are equated and hence it is not the case that something appears to something else, the experience itself is consciousness.



Could you answer why you would rather find out what you disagree on before actually discovering what you agree on?

How do you 'see' consciousness, if not something that ultimately exists, what is it then?

[Leyla Shen]

Of course consciousness is ultimately real. Reality is that which we experience. Is experience not ultimately real? How would consciousness differ?

Sure, even delusion is ultimately real in that sense.

There is no essential duality underlying appearances as something is not appearing to some other (separate) thing.

What’s it appearing to—nothing?

That which appears is what makes up consciousness, without experience there is no consciousness.

Yet, there is experience without a conscious experiencer and the things of which he is considered to be conscious...

These are equated and hence it is not the case that something appears to something else, the experience itself is consciousness.

Pardon? Says who and on what grounds? Has this been your experience? That the things you experience have not appeared to you? Are you experiencing the "appearances" I am at this very moment?

Could you answer why you would rather find out what you disagree on before actually discovering what you agree on?

What’s the difference?

How do you 'see' consciousness, if not something that ultimately exists, what is it then?

Caused.

I don’t even know what “ultimately exists” means. Whatever you mean by it, it’s not the same as ultimate reality.

[Robert]

As has been said before, trying to divide what isn't possible to divide only leads to confusion. Since Craig fails to define what he means by universe, or at the very least gives a definition that satisfies the initial criteria of his own argument (but is still short of the whole story), he glides over the inherent absurdity in his proposition and treats it as if he's actually talking about some finite thing, and then like any good magician, through slight of hand he spins round and starts speaking about the universe as infinite. He's basically depending on the lack of definitional understanding of terms to carry his arguments for him, and riding on common empirically based scientific language as supporting his own position when flaws in his logic are pointed out. A shyster, in effect, as they used to be known.

It's really quite depressing how a public figure can get away with being so dishonest in their arguments, I can't imagine for a second that Craig is genuinely duping himself, but is motivated more in the name of some greater good, that he sees the validity of his arguments in discouraging what he supposes as nihilistic tendencies that people may adopt if the reality of a personal godless existence were to be adopted by the masses. I see it more as basically a political stance.

Then again, that may be too generous. He may actually be the spawn of Satan himself.

[Leyla Shen]

Seeker of Wisdom (Craig?) is a public figure?

Not really a surprise.

Marx nailed the essence of political emancipation. The abstract, secular state -- and therefore, a (voting) citizenry in the abstract -- necessarily constructed on the basis of a predominantly religious civil (private interest) society; as if they were really different:

Political emancipation is the reduction of man, on the one hand, to a member of civil society, to an egoistic, independent individual, and, on the other hand, to a citizen, a juridical person.

Only when the real, individual man re-absorbs in himself the abstract citizen, and as an individual human being has become a species-being in his everyday life, in his particular work, and in his particular situation, only when man has recognized and organized his “own powers” as social powers, and, consequently, no longer separates social power from himself in the shape of political power, only then will human emancipation have been accomplished.

[Leyla Shen]

^Quote from "On the Jewish Question".

[Diebert van Rhijn]

... that he sees the validity of his arguments in discouraging what he supposes as nihilistic tendencies that people may adopt if the reality of a personal godless existence were to be adopted by the masses. I see it more as basically a political stance.

And that reactionary stance (from specifically this Craig, Leyla) would be understandable if the current tides were not nihilistic themselves and the age of self not just the last highly contracted version of the age of gods. Yes, it's indeed the political which, as that other Marx remarked, always boils down to "diagnosing trouble incorrectly and applying the wrong remedies" (Groucho).

[SeekerOfWisdom]

I'll reply later but thought I should mention that I'm not Craig.

[Jamesh]

"The Past" is a concept of convenience. The Infinite can't be carved up that way in reality (it's just us creating arbitrary mathematical sets to help us out). I'll explain it more tomorrow.

An Eternal Soup versus Universal Evolution (a self-causing hierarchical universe via expansion).

In your explanation please include The Why of:

a) Content. Where does content come from or if no actual "content" the relativity differentiation between everything that allows for emptiness to be content?

b) Causality. Where does the power for change come from?

Crownies are on special at the local Dan Murphy's so I'm indulging. You know the drill.

"Ah, beer, my one weakness. My Achille's heel, if you will" --Homer Simpson

Here's to alcohol: The source of, and answer to, all of life's problems. --Homer Simpson

[guest_of_logic]

It seems to me that you-all try to evade the force of the arguments by denying that it is "real" or "possible" or "interesting" to visualise the past as a collection of discrete time intervals. Here are your actual words:

Dan: "The Past" is a concept of convenience. The Infinite can't be carved up that way in reality (it's just us creating arbitrary mathematical sets to help us out).

Diebert: The conception of a past as a collection of discrete time units stretched out is just not very interesting, in case you were talking about that.

Dan: Cause and effect isn't ultimately real, so trying to make metaphysical arguments based on "amounts" of it is entirely worthless.

Robert: As has been said before, trying to divide what isn't possible to divide only leads to confusion.

Do these objections successfully counter the arguments though? Not in the slightest! Let me explain why through an analogy.

We might equally suggest that "The parabolic equation of the path of a projectile is just not 'interesting'; such an equation is merely a 'concept of convenience'; The Infinite can't be represented mathematically 'in reality'; it 'isn't possible' to represent reality via mathematics" - and yet, the fact remains that projectiles do follow the path described by a parabolic equation, and we can use such an equation to prove that a projectile if fired with a certain amount of force at a certain angle will land in a certain place rather than in another.

In the same way, when we "carve up" time into discrete intervals, we are faithfully observing and representing reality: time really can be viewed as a sequence of discrete intervals - just watch the hands of a ticking clock! - we create no contradiction or lack of truth, accuracy, faithfulness or fidelity to do so, and, as with the parabolic equation of the path of a projectile, we can use this conceptualisation to prove something: namely, that a beginningless past is not possible, for, as WLC writes in that paper, "If the universe never began to exist, then prior to the present event there have existed an actually infinite number of previous events. Hence, a beginningless series of events in time entails the existence of an actually infinite number of things, namely, past events." (whereas, he has disproved the possibility of an actual infinite).

It is this quote that you will need to argue against, Dan, for this is where WLC establishes that beginninglessness entails an infinite past, and I agree with him, yet you seem to be suggesting that you uphold the former but not the latter... very peculiar.

No legitimate objection to the quantification of time in this argument has been raised in this thread. You might prefer not to think in those terms, but it is perfectly valid to do so, and even helpful, as the arguments WLC presents demonstrate.

I'd also suggest that the house philosophers equivocate on this point, referring to causes when it suits them and denying the reality of causes when it suits them. A classic example is Kevin in Poison for the Heart, where he does this within separate points in his very own list:

Firstly, it may be true that all things have causes. But Nature Herself is not a "thing" and therefore cannot be said to have causes. "Things" can only exist for observers, and as we are manifestations of Nature, we cannot stand apart from Her to observe.

Secondly, no law says that all things must have causes. Show me a single cause! Show me where that cause begins and ends - it cannot be done, so why all this talk of "causes".

Thirdly, why create the notion of a "necessary being" at all? Such a being is actually an unnecessary being. Why must things have an ultimate cause? Why can't causes stem back endlessly?

The first and third points entail the existence of causes; the second denies the existence of causes. It's all very pick-and-choose based on what suits the argument.

Cue the GFer response: but these are teachings at different "levels" (of understanding). Be that as it may, the "higher" level of "causes don't really exist because beginnings and ends are arbitrary" doesn't invalidate the perspective of the "lower" level of "we can distinguish causes by specifying a(n arbitrary) beginning and end to them": to differentiate causes in reality in that way does not, as I've pointed out above, lead to any misrepresentation of reality, regardless of how "arbitrary" the choice of beginning and ending is; beginnings and endings do not impose any unsupportable obligation on reality in the way that, say, a misrepresentative physical law (e.g. a gravitational law of repulsion rather than attraction) would: they are accurate conceptual mappings of reality as both experience and science bear out.

Robert, you also object that WLC does not define "the universe", whereas it seems to me perfectly obvious, since he includes scientific arguments, that he means the term in the same way that a scientist means the term when proposing a Big Bang. I think he would agree with you that this is "short of the whole story", because, as he argues, something cannot come out of nothing, and the whole point of his argument is to prove the necessity of a timeless Being out of which the "scientific" universe originates. There's no sleight [note the "e"] of hand here. The fact that you see equivocation, I would suggest, is really due to you adopting, and viewing WLC's argument through that lens, this forum's definitions of "finite" (i.e. "less than the Totality") and "infinite" (i.e. "the Totality"), whereas WLC is using the mathematical definitions, and there are no problems when viewing his argument through his own lens.

Jamesh, "tomorrow" has been and gone... oh yes, Dan, we know the drill. ;-)

In any case, this is probably my last post to this thread at least for some time; it's a pretty pointless argument, and I'm happy enough to let my original post and WLC's paper speak for themselves.