GENIUS FORUMS

Kevin Solway wrote:God, poetically speaking, is the only one who could accurately predict future events.

Kevin; I don't know what you mean. Please, what do you mean?

clyde wrote:

Kevin Solway wrote:God, poetically speaking, is the only one who could accurately predict future events.

Kevin; I don't know what you mean. Please, what do you mean?

The only way to answer this question properly is if you had a perfect understanding of what God is. And that is not easily conveyed by words. So keep that in mind.

Since God is everything, by definition, everything is contained in God - not only as individualised items, but also as a single block. That single block includes all time. So it is in the sense that all of time is a single block, and thus fully predetermined, that "God can predict future events". Keeping in mind of course that God is not a conscious being.

Laird: You couldn't find a way to rebutt my syllogism, could you?

Kevin: I showed you the fault of your syllogism - that you were segmenting the infinite - but you were unable to understand that that is what you were doing.

"Segmenting the infinite" - meaningless mumbo jumbo to cover up the fact that by explaining the way that you were engaged in false modelling of time I utterly demolished your attempts to cast doubt on the syllogism that I presented. So I will ask you again: will you be a "real human being" and admit that I have shown you to be in error?

Laird: It was your error that you misread any claims to the contrary in my writing.

Kevin: There is no doubt that you thought the Totality extended in space and time.

I wrote that (you define that) the Totality "stretches infinitely in both temporal directions and in all spatial directions." That sentence in no way makes any claim that time and space are not part of the Totality.

Kevin Solway wrote:

Laird wrote:

Kevin Solway wrote:The future itself is unpredictable in theory.

How do you reconcile that with:

Kevin Solway wrote:God, poetically speaking, is the only one who could accurately predict future events.

You have proven, and you have admitted, that you don't know what "God" means, so there's no point in your asking questions which make use of the term "God" - because the questions will necessarily be meaningless.

In other words: you can't reconcile them. They are blatantly in contradiction, and you're trying to distract from that glaring anomoly by again casting aspersions on my ability to comprehend.

Kevin: In addition, quantum physics is built upon the fact that quantum events are extremely predictable.

Laird: No, it's built upon the fact that quantum events occur within a random distribution.

Kevin: That's right. They are predictably random. They seem to be even more predictable than the throwing of a dice.

You know what? It's not even worth arguing this with you. For a start you can't even maintain a contradiction-free position. To cap it all off though we have patently ridiculous statements like the above where you claim that quantum events are "even more predictable than the throwing of a dice". And you're trying to pass yourself off as a sage. What an absolute joke. A farce.

Kevin: I don't know whether this planet will exist tomorrow, and there's no way I can know for sure whether it will, right? So how do you think that is any different to the unpredictability of quantum events?

Laird: Because "God, poetically speaking" could accurately predict

Kevin: Once again, you are speaking of something of which you do not know. You are thinking of God as being of some kind of conscious being who is capable of thinking things - and that is completely wrong.

I'm merely echoing what you originally wrote - hence the quote marks - so apparently it is you who is "thinking of God as being of [sic] some kind of conscious being".

Kevin Solway wrote:Since God is everything, by definition, everything is contained in God - not only as individualised items, but also as a single block. That single block includes all time.

And what interesting property does a "block" have? That's right: it has boundaries. Finally admission from you that the Totality meets your definition of a "thing".

Kevin; Thank you. Actually, it seems that it was quite easily conveyed in words and you did. Without disagreeing with the fundamental concept of God as all inclusive, I do not think that necessarily means the future is predetermined. It seems to me that God, as all inclusive, may include all possible futures. But you may be right . . . or it may be otherwise. I know this may seem heretical, but whether the future is predetermined or not is not very important to me. Oh, it is somewhat interesting intellectually, but it doesn't really effect how I live.

Laird wrote:"Segmenting the infinite" - meaningless mumbo jumbo

I even gave you a clear example of what it meant, so its not my problem if you still think it's meaningless.

Your whole problem is your idea of "approaching infinity".

I wrote that (you define that) the Totality "stretches infinitely in both temporal directions and in all spatial directions."

Well I don't define that at all, so you're just making it up. I have explained several times that because the Totality contains all things, it therefore contains time and space, and therefore can't exist in time and space, and therefore can't stretch in any way at all. You can't be any clearer than that.

K: The future itself is unpredictable in theory.
L: How do you reconcile that with:
K: God, poetically speaking, is the only one who could accurately predict future events.

You have proven, and you have admitted, that you don't know what "God" means, so there's no point in your asking questions which make use of the term "God" - because the questions will necessarily be meaningless.

In other words: you can't reconcile them.

Certainly I can reconcile them. It is easy to reconcile them once you understand what God is.

They are blatantly in contradiction

Since you've already admitted that you don't know what God is, and it is obvious that you don't, this statement is clearly unfounded.

You are thinking of God as being of some kind of conscious being who is capable of thinking things - and that is completely wrong.

I'm merely echoing what you originally wrote

We've already been over this. Merely echoing words is nonsense. All you are doing here is echoing words, without understanding them.

And what interesting property does a "block" have? That's right: it has boundaries.

Here's a perfect example of the one-dimensional way that you treat language. I say that God is "a single block" and you, without a moment's hesitation, leap to the conclusion that God is just like a brick. That is ridiculous.

Laird wrote:David: As I say, the models are already out there. Models of a finite Universe, for example, models of an objective Universe, models of God, models of the self, models of life and death, etc.

Laird: Or, per your contributions: models of an infinite, uncaused universe, models of determinism, models of emptiness-borne-out-of-causality, models as to the illusionary nature of the self.

David: Oh, I don't believe in any of that stuff.

Laird: Yeah, OK David, that's why you wrote a book about it. That's why you promote it on this forum. Your audacity in making that statement is mind-boggling.

David: They are logical correctives, Laird, nothing more. A corrective is simply that - a corrective. It is a logical response to a particular delusion. They are not things you can hang your hat on. Once the delusion disappears, the corrective also disappears. If it doesn't, then it means that another delusion has been created out of it, one that needs its own corrective.

Laird: So you "don't believe in any of that stuff", and they are simply "logical correctives" but at the same time in WOTI can be found statements like this:

Cause and effect, as a universal law, can be proven to be true in the same way that 1+1=2 and A=A can be proven to be true.

If it's provably true, then you certainly must believe in it because Truth is your ultimate goal. On the one hand you rabbit on about absolute truth and your commitment to Truth and yet now you write that you actually don't believe in what you have claimed on past occasions to be absolutely true. You're deep into the territory of contradiction here.

Earlier in this thread I said something to Clyde which applies here:

Different things can be false for different reasons. For example, 1+1=3 can be regarded as false on the basis that 1+1 is defined to equal 2. However, 1+1=2 can be regarded as false (or pushed beyond its limits) if it is treated as the supreme spiritual truth of Nature.

Now let's consider the issue of causality in light of this. Causality is true in the same way that 1+1=2 is true, while uncausality is false in the same way that 1+1=3 is false. However, causality can be regarded as false (or pushed beyond its limits) if it is treated as the supreme spiritual truth of Nature.

In other words, the concept of causality necessarily breaks down beyond a certain point because it is predicated on the false idea that "things" really exist, that boundaries are inherently real. When it is realized that things do not really exist, the concept of causality suddenly becomes meaningless. The very substance upon which it feeds - namely, "things" - is no longer there.

So while causality is logically true, it has its limits and can't be regarded as the final word on Reality. Instead, it should be treated as a stepping stone to even greater realizations.

Laird wrote:

Laird: I guess then that you don't particularly care that I've pointed out three holes in your model because you "don't believe in any of that stuff" anyway. Do you then accept that the three flaws that I pointed out are legitimate?

David: No, they are poorly conceived.

Justify that assertion.

Okay, the first one was:

1. The contradiction of an infinite past.

This contradiction can be demonstrated through a syllogism:
a. The universe extends infinitely back in time.
b. The past is characterised by the fact that the "marker of time" (present moment) has moved over it at some previous point in time.
c. It is impossible to reach an infinity, only to approach it.
d. From (c): the marker of time has never been at the most infinite early point.
e. (b) and (d) are in contradiction.

This is a sophistic argument, akin to Zeno's paradoxes. Zeno, with tongue in cheek, tried to prove that a thrown ball could never reach the wall, and did it by mentally dividing up the distance between the ball and the wall into increasingly smaller segments - e.g. 1/2, 1/4, 1/8, etc - and emphasizing that such a sequence could never reach an end.

The disparity between the physical act of successfully throwing a ball against the wall and Zeno's "proof" that such an act is impossible is generated by Zeno's initial contrivance of dividing what is essentially continuous into segments. The very act of mentally dividing up the continuous into artificial segments is what sustains Zeno's false proof. Zeno is merely exploiting the distorted consequences of this artificial behaviour.

And this essentially is what you are trying to do too. In reality, Nature is a continuum, which means that its infinite past should be regarded as a continuum. The present is here and now because the infinite past has unfolded over an infinite amount of time. The two infinities match each other, and thus the contradiction you are seeing is not really there.

The second one:

2. The paradox of the uncaused Totality:
You claim that all things are caused. Then you claim that the Totality is uncaused. This is a paradox. You try to get around it by claiming that the Totality is not a thing, a thing being that which has boundaries. And yet we can put a name to it, so clearly it has boundaries of some sort; ergo it is a thing.

This is a non-issue. It is precisely because all things are caused that the Totality cannot have a cause. There is no contradiction here whatsoever.

And the third one:

3. The article of faith: that determinism trumps quantum mechanics:
The best evidence and theories of quantum mechanics point to the fact that some events simply cannot be predicted whatsoever, no matter what access we have to privileged information. You, however, are very attached to the notion of determinism and so you claim - without any scientific evidence - that there must be some underlying explanation for it. This clearly flies in the face of reason. Granted, some such explanation might turn up at some point in the future, but at the present it seems very unlikely and you have no good reason to believe that such is the case other than your emotional attachment to the idea of determinism.

This is another non-issue, as the data and the maths in quantum theory are capable of being interpreted in wildly different ways. It can be interpreted both indeterministically and deterministically. Debate is still raging within the scientific community over what quantum theory really means. So at the very least, your assertions here are extremely premature.

But more importantly, it is utterly beyond the scope of science to resolve the issue of determinism vs indeterminism. This is because science can never reach a position where it can dismiss the presence of hidden variables outright. It is limited by what it can see, and it can never know for sure that what it sees is all there is.

David Quinn wrote:

The above correctives, if they turn into delusions, are capable of being dismantled, but not in the way you have tried to do.

So then put your money where your mouth is: go ahead and "dismantle" what you previously promoted as "absolute truth".

I do it all the time, Laird. I've even done it in this thread, nay, even in this very post.

-

David Quinn wrote:In other words, the concept of causality necessarily breaks down beyond a certain point because it is predicated on the false idea that "things" really exist, that boundaries are inherently real. When it is realized that things do not really exist, the concept of causality suddenly becomes meaningless. The very substance upon which it feeds - namely, "things" - is no longer there.

I don't know where or how you get this idea. I don't see a necessary connection between causality and "inherently real boundaries." So, I have taken others to task on it and now I turn to you.

I see the idea stemming from Emptiness; all things lack inherent existence. Things lacking inherent existence is not the same as things do not exist. It simply means that thingness and causality are immutably interdependent; things particularly are impermanent by virtue of change. It is also the reason for empirical uncertainty and, thus, by necessity, (purely) logical certainty.

That causality "breaks down beyond a certain point" certainly does not make causality meaningless. Actually, I find your statement that it does to be meaningless.

Leyla Shen wrote:[To David] I don't know where or how you get this idea. I don't see a necessary connection between causality and "inherently real boundaries."

I think David is giving a measured response, rather than divulging the whole story at once. For when cause and effect breaks down it is of course "born again in the spirit" . . . so to speak. In the case of a deluded person, logic deals with boundaries (life, love, etc) to which the person is illogically attached. They deludedly imagine those boundaries to have an inherent existence. Only when these break down is pure logic born.

That's right. As soon as we project boundaries onto Nature, causality immediately comes a reality. This is true regardless of whether we believe these boundaries are inherently real or realize they are imaginary projections.

-

Laird: "Segmenting the infinite" - meaningless mumbo jumbo

Kevin: I even gave you a clear example of what it meant, so its not my problem if you still think it's meaningless.

You gave me an example (dividing a one second interval into an infinite number of sub-intervals) which:
a) was not in the slightest bit related to my syllogism
b) I clearly demonstrated to be a false model of the flow of time anyway.

Furthermore you failed to meaningfully respond to my demonstration so my rebuttal stands, as does my original syllogism which clearly shows a contradiction within your idea of a beginningless past. But you snipped my question:

Laird wrote:So I will ask you again: will you be a "real human being" and admit that I have shown you to be in error?

I take it from your refusal to even acknowledge this question that your answer is "no". So you expect other people to be "real human beings" and admit when you show them to be in error, but now that I've shown up an error in your thoughts, where's your "realness"? Somebody please remind me of the word for a man who expects others to behave in a certain way but who fails to behave in that way himself?

Laird wrote:Your whole problem is your idea of "approaching infinity".

And I've already explained to you that the term is common in calculus. It has meaning and that you are unaware of its meaning is testament only to your ignorance. For example, scroll halfway down the Wikipedia page titled Limit of a function to the section titled "Limit of a function at infinity" and you will see twice in bold the words "the limit of f as x approaches infinity ...".

[nitpicking over whether the Totality "stretches" in time and space snipped]

K: The future itself is unpredictable in theory.
L: How do you reconcile that with:
K: God, poetically speaking, is the only one who could accurately predict future events.

Kevin: You have proven, and you have admitted, that you don't know what "God" means, so there's no point in your asking questions which make use of the term "God" - because the questions will necessarily be meaningless.

Laird: In other words: you can't reconcile them.

Kevin: Certainly I can reconcile them. It is easy to reconcile them once you understand what God is.

Kevin, it's plainly a contradiction to say that the future is "unpredictable in theory" and then to assert that God could actually predict the future. If God can predict the future, then it is at least predictable in theory.

This is a perfect example of why debating with you is a waste of time. In fact, here are my Top Five Reasons Why Debating With Kev Is A Waste Of Time:
1. He will never admit to being wrong even when he cannot come up with a counter to your argument.
2. He will fail to acknowledge your points and then reassert arguments that you have shown to be flawed.
3. He will contradict himself and then deny it.
4. He will constantly accuse you of not understanding his position even when you've demonstrated knowledge of it.
5. He will nitpick at your wording with petty arguments to try vainly to come up with a reason why you are wrong.

On the other hand, the debate might hold some entertainment value for onlookers, and it demonstrates clearly to me just how demonstrably wacky and unsupportable your philosophy is, so it's not a complete waste.

Laird: They are blatantly in contradiction

Kevin: Since you've already admitted that you don't know what God is, and it is obvious that you don't, this statement is clearly unfounded.

I have made it clear that I understand what you mean by God, which is all that matters here.

Kevin: You are thinking of God as being of some kind of conscious being who is capable of thinking things - and that is completely wrong.

Laird: I'm merely echoing what you originally wrote

Kevin: We've already been over this. Merely echoing words is nonsense. All you are doing here is echoing words, without understanding them.

Yeah, that's reason number 4.

Laird: And what interesting property does a "block" have? That's right: it has boundaries.

Kevin: Here's a perfect example of the one-dimensional way that you treat language. I say that God is "a single block" and you, without a moment's hesitation, leap to the conclusion that God is just like a brick. That is ridiculous.

So you are denying that a block has boundaries? Look, if you want to retract your statement and choose another word than "block", that's fine with me - go right ahead. But if you stick with it, you can't escape that the word "block" refers to a bounded thing.

David wrote:

As soon as we project boundaries onto Nature, causality immediately comes a reality

I'm 100% certain you've got this wrong. You don’t seem to understand that things ARE semi-bounded and that things do exist as causal patterns of existence. It is just that these patterns are not separate from other patterns and flow into each other over time, to the degree that these things are not-bounded.

Causality IS the result of boundaries. It is boundaries that create causality and hence existence. That there are boundaries is not a projection. The trick is that such boundaries are only boundaries to a degree.

Relative to other things, no thing is completely bounded. At the absolute level of existence, the dualistic level of existence that creates the initial form of thingness, there is both absolute boundedness and absolute boundlessness (and everything in between becomes things).

The boundlessness relates to the core nature of each of the two fundamental forces. Neither are bounded by the requirement of a prior cause for their existence, they are however bound by a cause in the permanent now, they are bounded by each other, and in being so bounded they actually cause each other to be “active entities”. Their causal nature manifests and this is the reason why causality is permanent.

In these two forces not being bound by a prior cause, that which actualises is always additional to what already is. They cannot change the existence of each other - that existence is fundamental and unalterable – what changes is the relationship between each other. When they cause the force-causality of each other, this is on top of their non-causal existence, and this causality manifests outside of this non-causal existence as “being”. In manifesting outside of non-spatial existence, they cause space, though that is only the first layer of manifestation, after that they manifest things.

David Quinn wrote:Causality is true in the same way that 1+1=2 is true, while uncausality is false in the same way that 1+1=3 is false. However, causality can be regarded as false (or pushed beyond its limits) if it is treated as the supreme spiritual truth of Nature.

David, this in no way refutes that you are engaged in a modelling process. All that you are really saying here is that you accord different levels of significance to different truths (components of the model), but your claim that you "don't believe in any of that stuff" is plainly a lie. You believe that you have logically proved various absolute truths, meaning that these truths are undeniable. The truth of causality might in your opinion be a lesser truth but, believing in the absolute importance of Truth, and believing that you have logically proved causality to be true, you must nevertheless believe in it.

David Quinn wrote:In other words, the concept of causality necessarily breaks down beyond a certain point because it is predicated on the false idea that "things" really exist, that boundaries are inherently real. When it is realized that things do not really exist, the concept of causality suddenly becomes meaningless. The very substance upon which it feeds - namely, "things" - is no longer there.

Utter gibberish, which Leyla has quite rightly pointed out is flawed. But leaving the nuts and bolts of what you've written aside: something that you have "logically proven" to be an "absolute truth" (causality) actually "breaks down beyond a certain point". So if it breaks down at a certain point, then there is a "world" in which it is not true, and therefore it is not after all an absolute truth. Try to weasle out of it all that you like but you're still contradicting yourself, David.

David Quinn wrote:

Laird wrote:1. The contradiction of an infinite past.

This contradiction can be demonstrated through a syllogism:
a. The universe extends infinitely back in time.
b. The past is characterised by the fact that the "marker of time" (present moment) has moved over it at some previous point in time.
c. It is impossible to reach an infinity, only to approach it.
d. From (c): the marker of time has never been at the most infinite early point.
e. (b) and (d) are in contradiction.

This is a sophistic argument, akin to Zeno's paradoxes. Zeno, with tongue in cheek, tried to prove that a thrown ball could never reach the wall, and did it by mentally dividing up the distance between the ball and the wall into increasingly smaller segments - e.g. 1/2, 1/4, 1/8, etc - and emphasizing that such a sequence could never reach an end.

Kevin tried that one on too, and I explained why it was a flawed model. My argument is not in any way akin to this technique. I am not in any way dividing up the infinite, I am simply pointing out that it cannot be reached and that therefore part of the "past" is not in fact the past - a glaring contradiction.

David Quinn wrote:The disparity between the physical act of successfully throwing a ball against the wall and Zeno's "proof" that such an act is impossible is generated by Zeno's initial contrivance of dividing what is essentially continuous into segments. The very act of mentally dividing up the continuous into artificial segments is what sustains Zeno's false proof.

You clearly don't understand what's really going on here. It's not the dividing up of the continuous into segments that's the problem, it's the dividing up of the continuous into constantly diminishing segments that's the problem. If the segments were all equal in length then that would be an accurate model and there would be no paradox - the ball would travel over each equal segment in an equal amount of time and eventually reach the wall. The problem is that what is in reality a constant rate (the ball approaches the wall at more-or-less a constant speed) is being erroneously modelled as a constantly diminishing rate (it travels in one interval of time half the distance, then in the next interval of time it travels only a quarter, etc). I already explained this in my response to Kevin but you must have missed it.

You haven't rebutted this contradiction at all.

David Quinn wrote:

Laird wrote:2. The paradox of the uncaused Totality:
You claim that all things are caused. Then you claim that the Totality is uncaused. This is a paradox. You try to get around it by claiming that the Totality is not a thing, a thing being that which has boundaries. And yet we can put a name to it, so clearly it has boundaries of some sort; ergo it is a thing.

This is a non-issue. It is precisely because all things are caused that the Totality cannot have a cause. There is no contradiction here whatsoever.

Those words don't address my argument in any way. The Totality has boundaries ergo it is a thing ergo it should be caused, and yet by your logic it is not. This is a paradox.

David Quinn wrote:

Laird wrote:3. The article of faith: that determinism trumps quantum mechanics:
The best evidence and theories of quantum mechanics point to the fact that some events simply cannot be predicted whatsoever, no matter what access we have to privileged information. You, however, are very attached to the notion of determinism and so you claim - without any scientific evidence - that there must be some underlying explanation for it. This clearly flies in the face of reason. Granted, some such explanation might turn up at some point in the future, but at the present it seems very unlikely and you have no good reason to believe that such is the case other than your emotional attachment to the idea of determinism.

This is another non-issue, as the data and the maths in quantum theory are capable of being interpreted in wildly different ways. It can be interpreted both indeterministically and deterministically. Debate is still raging within the scientific community over what quantum theory really means. So at the very least, your assertions here are extremely premature.

I will repeat my opening sentence: "The best evidence and theories of quantum mechanics point to the fact that some events simply cannot be predicted whatsoever, no matter what access we have to privileged information." Sure, what's thought to be true at one point might later change, but we can only go at any one point on the best evidence and theories. You, on the other hand, want to reject best evidence because of your faith-based belief that determinism will in the end win out. You have no proof of this, yet you assert it as having been proved anyway. And when I challenged Kevin to prove it in this thread, he evaded the challenge. Perhaps, David, you will be more obliging.

David: The above correctives, if they turn into delusions, are capable of being dismantled, but not in the way you have tried to do.

Laird: So then put your money where your mouth is: go ahead and "dismantle" what you previously promoted as "absolute truth".

David: I do it all the time, Laird. I've even done it in this thread, nay, even in this very post.

And there, David, you fall into deep contradiction as I pointed out earlier in this post. An absolute truth that can be "dismantled" is not after all true in "all possible worlds" and is not after all an "absolute truth".

Laird wrote:You gave me an example (dividing a one second interval into an infinite number of sub-intervals) which:
. . . was not in the slightest bit related to my syllogism

Your syllogism is based on the same error, only you cannot see it.

Laird wrote:Your whole problem is your idea of "approaching infinity".

And I've already explained to you that the term is common in calculus.

Here you go again merely echoing other people's words. It means nothing that the words "approaching infinity" are used in calculus.

It's plainly a contradiction to say that the future is "unpredictable in theory" and then to assert that God could actually predict the future.

Since you don't know what is meant by "God", this statement of yours is unfounded.

I have made it clear that I understand what you mean by God, which is all that matters here.

This is what you are arrogantly claiming, and it is extreme arrogance on your part. You have consistently demonstrated that you don't understand, even slightly, what I mean by God.

You can't escape that the word "block" refers to a bounded thing.

Here you go again arrogantly telling other people what they mean by their own words. It is the most extreme arrogance possible.

If I call something "Infinite", you will say, "then it must be finite". And you can't see the problem with that.

To David you wrote:

Utter gibberish, which Leyla has quite rightly pointed out is flawed.

David has already explained that he is only giving correctives, rather than the absolute, end story. But you simply ignore that, because it doesn't suit your purposes.

I am not in any way dividing up the infinite, I am simply pointing out that it cannot be reached.

You contradict yourself within the one sentence, but you are unaware that you have done so. If you say "it cannot be reached", then you are dividing it up. That is precisely your error.

The Totality has boundaries

We define it to not have boundaries.

Whatever has boundaries is therefore not the Totality, by definition.

Laird wrote:

David Quinn wrote:Causality is true in the same way that 1+1=2 is true, while uncausality is false in the same way that 1+1=3 is false. However, causality can be regarded as false (or pushed beyond its limits) if it is treated as the supreme spiritual truth of Nature.

David, this in no way refutes that you are engaged in a modelling process. All that you are really saying here is that you accord different levels of significance to different truths (components of the model), but your claim that you "don't believe in any of that stuff" is plainly a lie.

All it involves is affirming A=A. Does affirming A=A require belief? No, it doesn't.

You believe that you have logically proved various absolute truths, meaning that these truths are undeniable. The truth of causality might in your opinion be a lesser truth but, believing in the absolute importance of Truth, and believing that you have logically proved causality to be true, you must nevertheless believe in it.

I don't believe in it anymore than I believe in 1+1=2. I accept the truth of it and use it to direct my mind to deeper levels of understanding. It is a springboard, not a place to hole up in.

David Quinn wrote: DQ: In other words, the concept of causality necessarily breaks down beyond a certain point because it is predicated on the false idea that "things" really exist, that boundaries are inherently real. When it is realized that things do not really exist, the concept of causality suddenly becomes meaningless. The very substance upon which it feeds - namely, "things" - is no longer there.

Laird: Utter gibberish, which Leyla has quite rightly pointed out is flawed.

You seem to be frothing a little around the mouth of late. And your tone is different. It's almost as though someone else is writing under your name.

Just an observation.

But leaving the nuts and bolts of what you've written aside: something that you have "logically proven" to be an "absolute truth" (causality) actually "breaks down beyond a certain point". So if it breaks down at a certain point, then there is a "world" in which it is not true, and therefore it is not after all an absolute truth. Try to weasle out of it all that you like but you're still contradicting yourself, David.

1+1=2 is true in all possible worlds, but nevertheless it breaks down if you push it too far. For example, you can't use it to bang a stake into the ground or prove that life evolved by natural selection. The truth it expresses is restricted. It also depends on its component parts being there in existence. If the component parts vanish, then truth of 1+1=2 also vanishes.

David Quinn wrote:

Laird wrote:

1. The contradiction of an infinite past.

This contradiction can be demonstrated through a syllogism:
a. The universe extends infinitely back in time.
b. The past is characterised by the fact that the "marker of time" (present moment) has moved over it at some previous point in time.
c. It is impossible to reach an infinity, only to approach it.
d. From (c): the marker of time has never been at the most infinite early point.
e. (b) and (d) are in contradiction.

This is a sophistic argument, akin to Zeno's paradoxes. Zeno, with tongue in cheek, tried to prove that a thrown ball could never reach the wall, and did it by mentally dividing up the distance between the ball and the wall into increasingly smaller segments - e.g. 1/2, 1/4, 1/8, etc - and emphasizing that such a sequence could never reach an end.

Kevin tried that one on too, and I explained why it was a flawed model. My argument is not in any way akin to this technique. I am not in any way dividing up the infinite, I am simply pointing out that it cannot be reached and that therefore part of the "past" is not in fact the past - a glaring contradiction.

You are indeed segmenting it with things like the "marker of time (present moment) moving over some previous point in time", and "the most infinite early point". Even your idea about not being able to reach an infinity comes from calculus, which is itself generated out of dividing the continuous into segments.

"The most infinite early point" - this doesn't have any meaning.

The present is not something that has to be "reached". It has always been here. Just as we don't have to justify how the present will continue to occur infinitely into the future, we don't have to justify how the present has always been there in the infinite past.

David Quinn wrote:

The disparity between the physical act of successfully throwing a ball against the wall and Zeno's "proof" that such an act is impossible is generated by Zeno's initial contrivance of dividing what is essentially continuous into segments. The very act of mentally dividing up the continuous into artificial segments is what sustains Zeno's false proof.

You clearly don't understand what's really going on here. It's not the dividing up of the continuous into segments that's the problem, it's the dividing up of the continuous into constantly diminishing segments that's the problem. If the segments were all equal in length then that would be an accurate model and there would be no paradox - the ball would travel over each equal segment in an equal amount of time and eventually reach the wall.

I never said anything about equal or unequal segments. Once you start artificially segmenting a continuum, then all sorts of contrived dilemmas arise. The Zeno paradox is just one of them.

David Quinn wrote:

Laird wrote:

2. The paradox of the uncaused Totality:
You claim that all things are caused. Then you claim that the Totality is uncaused. This is a paradox. You try to get around it by claiming that the Totality is not a thing, a thing being that which has boundaries. And yet we can put a name to it, so clearly it has boundaries of some sort; ergo it is a thing.

This is a non-issue. It is precisely because all things are caused that the Totality cannot have a cause. There is no contradiction here whatsoever.

Those words don't address my argument in any way. The Totality has boundaries ergo it is a thing ergo it should be caused, and yet by your logic it is not. This is a paradox.

The Totality doesn't have boundaries. It is unbounded, by definition.

David Quinn wrote:

Laird wrote:

3. The article of faith: that determinism trumps quantum mechanics:
The best evidence and theories of quantum mechanics point to the fact that some events simply cannot be predicted whatsoever, no matter what access we have to privileged information. You, however, are very attached to the notion of determinism and so you claim - without any scientific evidence - that there must be some underlying explanation for it. This clearly flies in the face of reason. Granted, some such explanation might turn up at some point in the future, but at the present it seems very unlikely and you have no good reason to believe that such is the case other than your emotional attachment to the idea of determinism.

This is another non-issue, as the data and the maths in quantum theory are capable of being interpreted in wildly different ways. It can be interpreted both indeterministically and deterministically. Debate is still raging within the scientific community over what quantum theory really means. So at the very least, your assertions here are extremely premature.

I will repeat my opening sentence: "The best evidence and theories of quantum mechanics point to the fact that some events simply cannot be predicted whatsoever, no matter what access we have to privileged information."

The same can be said about long-term weather, which is a deterministic system. There isn't a logical connection between unpredictability and indeterminism. Unpredictability can be generated by either determinism or indeterminism.

-

David Quinn wrote:All it involves is affirming A=A. Does affirming A=A require belief? No, it doesn't.

Actually, yes, it does. That little symbol "=" represents the concept of equality or identity. And there is the implied concepts of truth and falsity. So, before one can affirm A=A, one must hold a number of concepts (and definitions which will include other concepts) as themselves having validity.

On the other hand, the debate might hold some entertainment value for onlookers, and it demonstrates clearly to me just how demonstrably wacky and unsupportable your philosophy is, so it's not a complete waste. -Laird

I'm pretty amused. :) And I'm curious as to your motivations for butting your head against this particular wall. I'm sure it's intellectual exercise, like logic puzzles, and I suspect identifying other people's chaff helps you separate the wheat from the chaff in your own thoughts. But tilting at QRS... that's just masochistic. These guys have made life-long careers out of digging their delusional graves, and they're not about to change their tune now - they're far too invested. It literally makes no difference at all how clearly you explicate their errors. My impression of these kind of hardcore net-nutters is for a while they grate on you, and eventually they drag you down to their level and win by experience, which is why I gave up arguing with them. Maybe the sacrifice is worth it to you for the chance to steer some impressionable minds away from this boondoggle. Or maybe you thrive on this sort of thing, and can go on and on indefinitely - you're obviously a very strong analytic thinker. I'm curious to see how this turns out.

Laird: You gave me an example (dividing a one second interval into an infinite number of sub-intervals) which:
. . . was not in the slightest bit related to my syllogism

Kevin: Your syllogism is based on the same error, only you cannot see it.

It's no good simply asserting that: if you honestly believe it then you need to explain it. You've made one attempt which I've already rebutted. So if you want to convince anyone that you have a point, then you need to explain what was wrong with my rebuttal. You accuse me of arrogance and yet here's you taking the attitude that you are of necessity right and that I simply "can't see it". It doesn't work that way: if you want me to believe that you're right then you have to demonstrate why. But perhaps you don't care whether I believe that you're right or not, in which case I question why you even host and post to this forum.

Kevin: Your whole problem is your idea of "approaching infinity".

Laird: And I've already explained to you that the term is common in calculus.

Kevin: Here you go again merely echoing other people's words. It means nothing that the words "approaching infinity" are used in calculus.

Here you go again implying that I don't understand something (reason #4, remember?). Just because I use a term that originated elsewhere does not mean that I don't understand it: I do. What it means that the words are used in calculus is that they have an existing sense of which you are incognisant and that you are wrong to accuse me of these words being a problematic idea: mathematicians have had no problems with the concept for well over a century.

Laird: It's plainly a contradiction to say that the future is "unpredictable in theory" and then to assert that God could actually predict the future.

Kevin: Since you don't know what is meant by "God", this statement of yours is unfounded.

Reason #4 again.

Laird: I have made it clear that I understand what you mean by God, which is all that matters here.

Kevin: This is what you are arrogantly claiming, and it is extreme arrogance on your part. You have consistently demonstrated that you don't understand, even slightly, what I mean by God.

I have consistently explained that I understand what you have consistently claimed: that God is the Totality (who wants to bet on Kevin's likely response here: "you are merely repeating words without understanding them"?).

Laird: You can't escape that the word "block" refers to a bounded thing.

Kevin: Here you go again arrogantly telling other people what they mean by their own words. It is the most extreme arrogance possible.

So what does "block" mean to you then in this context?

Kevin Solway wrote:If I call something "Infinite", you will say, "then it must be finite". And you can't see the problem with that.

I would not say that, but when someone refers to something as a "block", then clearly it is finite, or at least it's possible to conceptualise it as such.

Kevin Solway wrote:To David you wrote:

Utter gibberish, which Leyla has quite rightly pointed out is flawed.

David has already explained that he is only giving correctives, rather than the absolute, end story. But you simply ignore that, because it doesn't suit your purposes.

And you and he have both gone on and on in the past about "absolute truth" but now you revert on that, because it doesn't suit your purposes.

Laird: I am not in any way dividing up the infinite, I am simply pointing out that it cannot be reached.

Kevin: You contradict yourself within the one sentence, but you are unaware that you have done so. If you say "it cannot be reached", then you are dividing it up. That is precisely your error.

Explain to me how you can possibly conceive that these three sentences rebutt my syllogism. Cluestick: they don't.

Laird: The Totality has boundaries

Kevin: We define it to not have boundaries.

Whatever has boundaries is therefore not the Totality, by definition.

Ah, you define it to not have boundaries but then you describe it such that it does have them:
It contains three spatial dimensions, and no more. This is a limitation (aka boundary).
It contains one temporal dimension, and no more. This is a limitation (aka boundary).
It is wholly deterministic therefore it is constrained as though it were a "block". This results in boundaries.

|read|,

What a gratuitous and weak post. You couldn't even be bothered with an argument! Naturyl holds essentially the same "metaphysical" view as we do. Is he a "net-nutter"? No wonder I've had enough. This is barely all anyone here can offer.

Surely you can do better than this pseudo-trolling.

Maybe the sacrifice is worth it to you for the chance to steer some impressionable minds away from this boondoggle.

Overall it is not boondoggle (work of little or no value done merely to look busy) though it can be, or just seem to be at an individual level. You see, what the QRS teach, though I disagree in many of the more subtle areas of what they say, is a manner of relating to our existence, that will become more widespread if we survive long enough.

The work of Darwin, Einstein, Jesus and the buddha, would have been considered boondoggle by the masses, at the time. Only a select few would have "got it". These people changed the way in which reality is viewed, and in doing so they changed the way we now think about reality. In changing the way we think about reality it changes the conclusions one reaches, which alters that which would have otherwise been.

It helps one to judge what is important or not. While the bulk of society judges that materialism, selfish love, inadequately or emotionally reasoned altruistic love, and false spiritual beliefs are of the most supreme importance, this sets the ground for the destruction of our species.

At present we have very bad navigators steering the tanker that is the human race. As they rely on false conceptions about spiritual direction and depth of reality, the chances of running aground some time in the future are highly likely.

David: Causality is true in the same way that 1+1=2 is true, while uncausality is false in the same way that 1+1=3 is false. However, causality can be regarded as false (or pushed beyond its limits) if it is treated as the supreme spiritual truth of Nature.

Laird: David, this in no way refutes that you are engaged in a modelling process. All that you are really saying here is that you accord different levels of significance to different truths (components of the model), but your claim that you "don't believe in any of that stuff" is plainly a lie.

David: All it involves is affirming A=A. Does affirming A=A require belief? No, it doesn't.

It involves a lot more than simply affirming A=A: it involves the construction of "proofs" and explanations. You are clearly invested in the "absolute truths" that you "affirm": that investment can justifiably be referred to as a belief.

David Quinn wrote:You seem to be frothing a little around the mouth of late. And your tone is different. It's almost as though someone else is writing under your name.

I'm aghast at the depths of deception and evasion to which you and Kevin will descend in order to escape reasoned criticism, that's all. I'm also aghast at the senselessness of some of the things that you say, given that some people actually give your philosophy credence.

David Quinn wrote:1+1=2 is true in all possible worlds, but nevertheless it breaks down if you push it too far. For example, you can't use it to bang a stake into the ground or prove that life evolved by natural selection. The truth it expresses is restricted. It also depends on its component parts being there in existence. If the component parts vanish, then truth of 1+1=2 also vanishes.

So your absolute truths are restricted and dependent - this in no way detracts from my basic point: that you are involved in a process of modelling in which you simply assert the truth of your model of reality because you happen to like the model, not because you have in any way (because it is impossible) proven it to be accurate.

Laird wrote:1. The contradiction of an infinite past.

This contradiction can be demonstrated through a syllogism:
a. The universe extends infinitely back in time.
b. The past is characterised by the fact that the "marker of time" (present moment) has moved over it at some previous point in time.
c. It is impossible to reach an infinity, only to approach it.
d. From (c): the marker of time has never been at the most infinite early point.
e. (b) and (d) are in contradiction.

David: This is a sophistic argument, akin to Zeno's paradoxes. Zeno, with tongue in cheek, tried to prove that a thrown ball could never reach the wall, and did it by mentally dividing up the distance between the ball and the wall into increasingly smaller segments - e.g. 1/2, 1/4, 1/8, etc - and emphasizing that such a sequence could never reach an end.

Laird: Kevin tried that one on too, and I explained why it was a flawed model. My argument is not in any way akin to this technique. I am not in any way dividing up the infinite, I am simply pointing out that it cannot be reached and that therefore part of the "past" is not in fact the past - a glaring contradiction.

David: You are indeed segmenting it with things like the "marker of time (present moment) moving over some previous point in time", and "the most infinite early point". Even your idea about not being able to reach an infinity comes from calculus, which is itself generated out of dividing the continuous into segments.

None of this is in the slightest relevant to the syllogism unless you can prove that it is possible to reach an infinity. Otherwise the syllogism stands.

David Quinn wrote:"The most infinite early point" - this doesn't have any meaning.

I've already accepted that I phrased that poorly and offered in my post of Fri Nov 16, 2007 3:02 pm the rephrasing: "the earliest infinity".

David Quinn wrote:The present is not something that has to be "reached". It has always been here.

That's just completely wrong. By definition the present is now, not always has been.

David Quinn wrote:Just as we don't have to justify how the present will continue to occur infinitely into the future, we don't have to justify how the present has always been there in the infinite past.

The difference is that the future hasn't already happened so it doesn't matter that the present moment has never been there yet. In contrast, the past has already happened therefore the marker of time is supposed to have been able to pass over it, however when you introduce an infinity you remove that possibility: an infinity cannot be reached - the marker of time cannot have been there, and so you have a contradiction: a "past" that has not been passed over.

David: The disparity between the physical act of successfully throwing a ball against the wall and Zeno's "proof" that such an act is impossible is generated by Zeno's initial contrivance of dividing what is essentially continuous into segments. The very act of mentally dividing up the continuous into artificial segments is what sustains Zeno's false proof.

Laird: You clearly don't understand what's really going on here. It's not the dividing up of the continuous into segments that's the problem, it's the dividing up of the continuous into constantly diminishing segments that's the problem. If the segments were all equal in length then that would be an accurate model and there would be no paradox - the ball would travel over each equal segment in an equal amount of time and eventually reach the wall.

David: I never said anything about equal or unequal segments. Once you start artificially segmenting a continuum, then all sorts of contrived dilemmas arise. The Zeno paradox is just one of them.

Jeez, I really am bashing my head against a brick wall here. No, you didn't say anything about them: I did, because they are what is really relevant, not that the continuum is divided up. You seem to have completely failed to comprehend my explanation.

David Quinn wrote:The Totality doesn't have boundaries. It is unbounded, by definition.

I've addressed this in my post to Kevin.

David Quinn wrote:There isn't a logical connection between unpredictability and indeterminism. Unpredictability can be generated by either determinism or indeterminism.

There's a difference between unpredictable in theory and unpredictable in practice.

|read| wrote:I'm pretty amused. :)

Ah, I'm glad: our work has not been all in vain then!

|read| wrote:And I'm curious as to your motivations for butting your head against this particular wall. I'm sure it's intellectual exercise, like logic puzzles, and I suspect identifying other people's chaff helps you separate the wheat from the chaff in your own thoughts. [...] Maybe the sacrifice is worth it to you for the chance to steer some impressionable minds away from this boondoggle.

The reasons that you give are pretty much it. As I wrote in my recent post to David, I'm aghast, and that extends to the influence that QRS-think has on many of the minds of this forum. QRS preach "thinking for yourself" and yet it seems that many of the minds of this forum are content merely to "think like QRS". Not exclusively, I know, but there are several people (without naming names) who have what I consider to be an unhealthy level of attachment to the ideas promoted on this forum, not least of the most troubling of which is its misogyny.

|read| wrote:Or maybe you thrive on this sort of thing, and can go on and on indefinitely - you're obviously a very strong analytic thinker.

To a point I enjoy it, but I find it quite stressful at the same time. It takes a lot of effort to identify the weaknesses in an argument and to clearly express what they are, compounded by the fact that you know that your adversary is so entrenched in his perspective that rather than ever admit to a contradiction, paradox, article of faith or error, he will manipulate and twist himself into a new form in order to justify himself.

|read| wrote:I'm curious to see how this turns out.

I can't predict, but I do know that for my part the stress is starting to predominate. Don't be surprised if I simply let it go and stop posting to the thread.

Laird wrote:You've made one attempt which I've already rebutted.

You've done no such thing. You don't even understand how my rebuttal relates to your argument.

Mathematicians have had no problems with the concept for well over a century.

You are dreaming if you think that mathematicians have no problems with the concept of infinity. You must have your head firmly stuck in the sand.

Regarding your interpretation of what we call "the Totality", David has correctly told you that what you are getting out of the term is only a framework, an intellectual artifice, or a model if you will, and is therefore not even close to what we are talking about.

So what does "block" mean to you then in this context?

You should be asking your questions first, rather than after launching an all out attack.

I could explain what the poetic usage of the word "block" in that context means for an entire week, and I still don't think you would understand, because of your natural tendency to grasp at something finite.

Kevin Solway wrote:If I call something "Infinite", you will say, "then it must be finite". And you can't see the problem with that.

I would not say that

But you do say that, since that's exactly what you do with regard to the Totality, which is Infinite (ie, without boundaries), by definition.

but when someone refers to something as a "block", then clearly it is finite, or at least it's possible to conceptualise it as such.

It's possible to conceptualise it as absolutely anything at all, but that doesn't mean you are correctly interpreting the intended meaning.

Explain to me how you can possibly conceive that these three sentences rebutt my syllogism.

I'm not going over the same thing again. The fault of your argument has been explained to you very clearly, and that's all that can be done.

This is a limitation (aka boundary).

All things are "limited" to being what they are, and not other than what they are. But being limited to the law of logic is not really a limitation. You are just playing silly games here.

Laird wrote:There's a difference between unpredictable in theory and unpredictable in practice.

That which is unpredictable is unpredictable in both theory and practice - if the theory is correct.

For example, the throw of a die is unpredictable both in theory and in practice. We don't know that a die will even exist after we've thrown it. Unexpected things happen all the time. It is a common experience.

Laird wrote:

David: Causality is true in the same way that 1+1=2 is true, while uncausality is false in the same way that 1+1=3 is false. However, causality can be regarded as false (or pushed beyond its limits) if it is treated as the supreme spiritual truth of Nature.

Laird: David, this in no way refutes that you are engaged in a modelling process. All that you are really saying here is that you accord different levels of significance to different truths (components of the model), but your claim that you "don't believe in any of that stuff" is plainly a lie.

David: All it involves is affirming A=A. Does affirming A=A require belief? No, it doesn't.

It involves a lot more than simply affirming A=A: it involves the construction of "proofs" and explanations. You are clearly invested in the "absolute truths" that you "affirm": that investment can justifiably be referred to as a belief.

Again, they are just stepping stones. If, somehow, these "beliefs" were revealed to be false it would make no impact on me, just as a bird flying in the sky wouldn't care if the egg it had originally hatched out of was destroyed.

David Quinn wrote:

You seem to be frothing a little around the mouth of late. And your tone is different. It's almost as though someone else is writing under your name.

I'm aghast at the depths of deception and evasion to which you and Kevin will descend in order to escape reasoned criticism, that's all. I'm also aghast at the senselessness of some of the things that you say, given that some people actually give your philosophy credence.

Being aghast is such an irresistible pleasure. Or so I've been told.

Laird wrote:1. The contradiction of an infinite past.

This contradiction can be demonstrated through a syllogism:
a. The universe extends infinitely back in time.
b. The past is characterised by the fact that the "marker of time" (present moment) has moved over it at some previous point in time.
c. It is impossible to reach an infinity, only to approach it.
d. From (c): the marker of time has never been at the most infinite early point.
e. (b) and (d) are in contradiction.

David: This is a sophistic argument, akin to Zeno's paradoxes. Zeno, with tongue in cheek, tried to prove that a thrown ball could never reach the wall, and did it by mentally dividing up the distance between the ball and the wall into increasingly smaller segments - e.g. 1/2, 1/4, 1/8, etc - and emphasizing that such a sequence could never reach an end.

Laird: Kevin tried that one on too, and I explained why it was a flawed model. My argument is not in any way akin to this technique. I am not in any way dividing up the infinite, I am simply pointing out that it cannot be reached and that therefore part of the "past" is not in fact the past - a glaring contradiction.

David: You are indeed segmenting it with things like the "marker of time (present moment) moving over some previous point in time", and "the most infinite early point". Even your idea about not being able to reach an infinity comes from calculus, which is itself generated out of dividing the continuous into segments.

Laird: None of this is in the slightest relevant to the syllogism unless you can prove that it is possible to reach an infinity. Otherwise the syllogism stands.

Again, there is nothing to reach. The present has always existed, and always will. If it were somehow possible for the present not to have existed at some point in the past, such that the Universe had to reach for it (can anyone make sense of this notion?), then maybe your argument would have some chance of getting off the ground. However, the very notion of a present not existing, while other things do, has no meaning.

David Quinn wrote: DQ: "The most infinite early point" - this doesn't have any meaning.

Laird: I've already accepted that I phrased that poorly and offered in my post of Fri Nov 16, 2007 3:02 pm the rephrasing: "the earliest infinity".

This is just as meaningless. We can't speak of what is "earliest" when we are talking about the infinite past. This is because whatever can be postulated as the earliest will always have something before it.

David Quinn wrote: DQ: The present is not something that has to be "reached". It has always been here.

Laird: That's just completely wrong. By definition the present is now, not always has been.

The infinite past is made up of present moments. At no time did the Universe have to reach from the non-present to the present.

David Quinn wrote: DQ: Just as we don't have to justify how the present will continue to occur infinitely into the future, we don't have to justify how the present has always been there in the infinite past.

Laird: The difference is that the future hasn't already happened so it doesn't matter that the present moment has never been there yet. In contrast, the past has already happened therefore the marker of time is supposed to have been able to pass over it, however when you introduce an infinity you remove that possibility: an infinity cannot be reached - the marker of time cannot have been there, and so you have a contradiction: a "past" that has not been passed over.

If the past has already happened, then it automatically means that the present had occurred at each point in this past. A past is comprised of nothing else but present moments. Your point about an infinity incapable of being reached is irrelevant in the light of this salient fact.

David Quinn wrote: DQ: The Totality doesn't have boundaries. It is unbounded, by definition.

Laird: I've addressed this in my post to Kevin.

It was an extremely poor response. You wrote:

Ah, you define it to not have boundaries but then you describe it such that it does have them:
It contains three spatial dimensions, and no more. This is a limitation (aka boundary). It contains one temporal dimension, and no more. This is a limitation (aka boundary).
It is wholly deterministic therefore it is constrained as though it were a "block". This results in boundaries.

I don't know where you grabbed these assertions from, but they have nothing to do with Kevin or myself. For example, where on earth did you get the "three spatial dimensions, and no more" bit from? From the ether?

And you reckon you understand what is meant by the "totality"? Pull the other one, mate.

-