True enough and I suggest that you find an old shirt because here I come with a ladder ;)Russell Parr wrote:Hey Serendipper,
Thanks for the compliment, but I'll pass the credit to those that I echo; the founders of the forum and the giants whose shoulders they stand upon.Serendipper wrote:You are truly insightful! (not just this post.)
I have watched that video before and recommend it to anyone reading along.I'm glad you bring this up. This thread is a great example of how easy it is to default to mathematical/scientific conceptualizations of infinity these days. I'm reminded of this video as an example.But I don't believe in infinity. We can say our minds are unable to comprehend the greatness of the universe without invoking concepts such as infinity. I think it's an overkill to make your point.
Infinity is defined as one-bigger than anything that exists, therefore it doesn't exist. Infinity will always be one-bigger and the full definition of it can't be realized until you leave the realm of existence and enter into the mental construct that is mathematics.
I agree with your observation of how easy it is to default to scientific conceptualizations because we are taught to perceive the world through those lenses and have no other faculty for such perception. That is, we are compelled to form "tools" in order to observe reality; the error is assuming that the tools are "real". We didn't fall from the evolutionary tree and stub our toe on mathematics, but we invented it as a way to understand the world. I think that realization opens the door to further discovery.
If events are bound by causality, then doesn't that necessitate an infinite chain of events because each event must have a cause and, without infinity, we're left with one event that had no cause?My expression of the Infinite is philosophical. When referring to the Infinite I am not referring to quantifications, but simply boundlessness, or limitlessness. By eternal causation, I'm not saying that causal events stem back towards an infinite past, but that whatever happens in reality, whether in the past or future, whether static or active, is bound by causality.
Moreover, boundlessness and limitlessness imply infinite because infinity is the only thing that has no limit. I can think of nothing in the universe which has no limit: Speed, temperature, mass all have limits. Infinite mass means infinite density which means zero volume which means it doesn't occupy space and therefore doesn't exist. Everything in the universe seems to have a limit and there seems to be no basis for suspicion of limitless anything. Tangential to the conversation, this video comes to mind, which is quite long, but very interesting concerning the pondering of what happens at theoretical limits to temperature and time.
So you're saying that even though this universe formed once, it's unique and may never form again, even in infinite causality? You know, I did think of that and I'm less sure of my argument against it. It seems to me (which may be a lacking on my part) that if something happened once, then it's evidence that it has a probability of happening. By observation, this universe happened; therefore, in infinite causality, it's destined to happen infinite times. But I see your point nonetheless, I think.Every moment and scenario is unique, despite the appearance of similarities. Even if an "exact" scenario occurs twice, they still aren't identical by way of being separate from each other. Other than that, infinite possibilities mean that even similarities are not necessary.Infinite causality necessitates the formation of every possible thing, regardless of probability. Not only that, but such eventualities would occur an infinite amount of times. It's really ridiculous. In other words, you and I have had this conversation before... and we've had it an infinite amount of times already (and I still can't remember what you said :p ).
The reason I say "I think" is that the alternate interpretation of what you said is that identical universes wouldn't be identical because they occur at different locations in the chain of causality. If that's what you meant to convey, then I don't understand the reason for making that assertion. If one hydrogen atom was formed before another, then how are they not identical? Unless one is somehow dependent upon the other. If H2 atom cannot exist until H1 atom has been formed, then H2 is dependent on H1 and is therefore unique in that regard. That would seem to imply that no identicalities could ever exist because it would be circular dependency. I think, rather than resorting to strict-dependency, that it's merely the probability of H2 that is dependent on the existence of H1. So that the probability of this universe forming is affected by the existence of this universe in the past. Unless that probability is zero, infinite causality guarantees its infinite-happening. Any probability above zero happens with certainty. Infinite causality is digital: Yes it will happen infinite times or No it will never happen.
x/0 = infinity because zero (aka nothing) is the only thing there can be infinite amount of. In infinite time, something either happens infinite times, or zero times. Infinity is tied to zero.
Good reading on the subject of infinity, if you're interested.
I consider the consideration of a God to be pointless as a leap to a conclusion. Isn't it? It seems like you're claiming, "We can't understand, so there's no point in trying." So why does this site exist? What are we doing?I consider any speculation of a God that is separate and invisible to us as pointless. To believe God to be anything other than Nature itself, of which we and everything are a part of, is likely nothing more than a feeble attempt to alleviate the unavoidable uncertainties that come with being inherently finite observers of reality.I can't recall what you've told me an infinite amount of times, but I can speculate on what you might ask as a consequence to my claim, which is: How did the first "effect" come into existence with no "cause"? Because, without infinity, that's the inevitable question. My answer to that is: God. There must be one. That's the only rational conclusion in lieu of the ridiculous.
My claim about God is merely this: It's the cause for the first cause. It's the sapience that brought order and wrote the laws that govern everything.
Consider negative entropy:
In 1964, James Lovelock was among a group of scientists who were requested by NASA to make a theoretical life detection system to look for life on Mars during the upcoming space mission. When thinking about this problem, Lovelock wondered “how can we be sure that Martian life, if any, will reveal itself to tests based on Earth’s lifestyle?” To Lovelock, the basic question was “What is life, and how should it be recognized?” When speaking about this issue with some of his colleagues at the Jet Propulsion Laboratory, he was asked what he would do to look for life on Mars. To this, Lovelock replied: I’d look for an entropy reduction, since this must be a general characteristic of life.
Thus, according to Lovelock, to find signs of life, one must look for a “reduction or a reversal of entropy.” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entropy_a ... ve_entropy
I submit that the evidence of life (in this case, God) are the laws of the universe. The laws themselves can be considered a reduction in the entropy that should otherwise be gibberish.
"Nature" as a "God" exists as an entropy-balancing aspect of the universe that is the duality of order and disorder. Good and evil is order and disorder... "and he that gathereth not with me scattereth abroad." It seems consistent. Order implies sapience, which is good; disorder implies folly, which is bad. The ordering-force is intelligent and alive; the disordering-force is dumb and dead like a rock.
I'm sorry. I think I failed to make a distinction. I am asserting that God is the ultimate freewill and that we have a limited version... a limited will."Free will" is just a label that describes a particular causal event. It is called free because we experience it to be free. Of course, this is quite tricky to come to terms with. But consider how easy it is to perceive that a robot, no matter how complex it's programming, only gives off an illusion of free will. It's only harder to categorize our own will as dependent because normal egotistical consciousness is conditioned to adhere to the idea of self freedom.The "ultimate freewill" could not be dependent on anything, or it wouldn't be free. Freewill couldn't be determined by causality or it would merely be another domino in the chain. Freewill is distinct from causality and the cause of causality could only be such a thing that, itself, could have no external cause.
That isn't to say that such an idea isn't useful, or necessary, which it certainly is. But it isn't ultimate. It's all a matter of perspective: it's free because we experience it to be so, and it isn't free because causal determinism is fundamental and absolute.
Our will is free to the extent that matter requires our observation to have definite form. If our will were predictable (as a robot would be), there would be no point in matter waiting around for our observation. If our will is a causal event and determined, matter may as well have definite form regardless if we observe it.
In other words, a robot, no matter how complex, will never be able to collapse the wave function. Consciousness is not composed of complexity of dominoes or switches. Consciousness is its own thing, independent from causality.
So my line of reasoning is to negate infinite causality which then requires a starting point, which then requires something independent from causality to be the first cause, which then requires me to define a God, which is the ultimate freewill, which can have no external cause by definition. As example or perhaps analogy, I use the wave-like nature of matter paired with our necessitated observation to argue that our will is at least somewhat free from determinism, which lends credence to the suspicion that an entity with ultimate freewill could exist. Further evidence is found in the existence of the laws of the universe.
It doesn't yet seem pointless for me to ponder these things. How do you see it differently?