GENIUS FORUMS

guest_of_logic wrote:Is it really the best framing of this issue to talk about moments of time being causes, and "existing" or not? Typically time is seen as a prerequisite for causality, but not a causal entity in itself. I don't see a problem with saying that the current moment has a relationship with past moments (perhaps "is defined by past moments" rather than "is caused by past moments"), and leaving it at that - the issue of the existence of the past moments then seems redundant to me, and it seems to me that you're raising a concern that has no real basis. I hope you don't find that too blunt.

Definitions are abstract and so do not "really" exist.
This is a physics problem not a philosophy one.

Also this:Typically time is seen as a prerequisite for causality, but not a causal entity in itself.

Should mean that time does not need a cause.
I hope you see that now .(or perhaps that was always your veiw).

chikoka wrote:Definitions are abstract and so do not "really" exist.
This is a physics problem not a philosophy one.

I didn't mean "defines" in the dictionary sense, I meant it in the sense of "contributes to the nature of".

In any case, I just don't see the problem. Let's go back to the first sentence of yours that threw me: "If y-2 does not exist at the same *time* as universe state x then how can they be included in the same function." To me this is like saying, "If the bullet was not fired from the gun at the exact same time that it hit its target then how can it be included in the function with all of the other factors that caused the target's death?"

Things from the past affect and define the future - it's as simple as that. Where's the problem?

chikoka wrote:Also this:Typically time is seen as a prerequisite for causality, but not a causal entity in itself.

Should mean that time does not need a cause.
I hope you see that now .(or perhaps that was always your veiw).

I did qualify that with "typically", and, to elaborate, I'd argue that explanations can reasonably be sought for time, but as to whether the resulting explanations will be "causal" in nature I couldn't really say.

chikoka wrote:

cousinbasil wrote: The party line is that the Totality neither exists and nor does it not exist

This clearly violates A = A logic ,which i thought was what this whole forum was based on.

Exist = not exist or exist not = to exist.
What do you mean by exist.

I hold no special meaning for the term "exist" - I use it as most people do.

That the Totality neither exists by any definition of “exist,” nor does it not (by using the same definition), is in no way a violation of what this forum is based on. It is a logical necessity, if you insist upon relying upon logic at all times and in all things. Do a search - this is not my conclusion, but one put forth by David, Dan, and Kevin in their turns. They are not making things up – they are merely relying upon logical reasoning. Since A=A implies "A is A and not something else," we cannot consistently apply this definition of a thing's existence to the existence (or not) of the Totality, as the Totality is utterly everything and has no dualistic representation such as A=A. Therefore, our carefully constructed and preciously guarded definition fails here (the belly-button). So we cannot say the Totality exists. And neither can we conclude that the Totality does not exist, since any arbitrarily chosen part of it does exist, and it can be considered as being composed of those parts.

But maybe this is too narrow a view? I am thinking of a square circle. Logically, this cannot exist. Does a square circle belong to the Totality? Notice I did not claim to visualize the square circle. Is it a thing in the same sense we have been using the term "thing"? In that case, if we choose a part of the Totality arbitrarily, that part may exist or it may not.

I am not sure this forum’s reigning philosophy is very clear on this. Are thoughts "things"? Surely they must be included by "utterly everything." It has been amply demonstrated that all things are thoughts, in the sense that a chair as a thing in itself is unknowable, while our perceptions of the chair give it existence.

But there are ideas which do not point to a thing in itself. Take the square circle. I can say quite logically that “the square circle = the square circle.” It is itself, and not a normal circle, say. Does that mean it exists?

chikoka wrote:

jufa wrote:What OP are you talking about?

I mean original (first) post of this thread.

Your original post is an assumption based upon theory. It is like you saying there is an uncreated moment which will come into existence in the next moment, when all is a continuum of the moment now. I am saying there are no uncreated moment just as there is no parts of creation that is not whole, perfect, complete, and pure because creation has not changed from what it was.

The position is man does not know what creation was, and thus, does not know what creation is not. The reality therefore is this. A=A is Creation=Creation, and all of A is all of Creation. There is, and never was a separation. A has always been determined as a continuum of the infinity of A, as Creation has always been in man's awareness because of Life. Life is the source of Creation. Life is the source of A being A.

Never give power to anything a person believes is their source of strength - jufa

guest_of_logic wrote:In any case, I just don't see the problem. Let's go back to the first sentence of yours that threw me: "If y-2 does not exist at the same *time* as universe state x then how can they be included in the same function." To me this is like saying, "If the bullet was not fired from the gun at the exact same time that it hit its target then how can it be included in the function with all of the other factors that caused the target's death?"

The bullet being fired from the gun is not what should be included in the factors (for the function) that caused the death of the target.
It was the bullets *momentum* that caused it.
This is what occured at the same time and so can be included in the function.

chikoka wrote:

guest_of_logic wrote:In any case, I just don't see the problem. Let's go back to the first sentence of yours that threw me: "If y-2 does not exist at the same *time* as universe state x then how can they be included in the same function." To me this is like saying, "If the bullet was not fired from the gun at the exact same time that it hit its target then how can it be included in the function with all of the other factors that caused the target's death?"

The bullet being fired from the gun is not what should be included in the factors (for the function) that caused the death of the target.
It was the bullets *momentum* that caused it.
This is what occured at the same time and so can be included in the function.

Sorry to throw this back at you, but isn't that an arbitrary assignment?

Also, what exactly is the distinction that you are making between "relationships", R(x), and "functions"?

A second question: why do you assert that the components of a function must "exist at the same *time*"?

I don't get this post, frankly.

My teeth are white, hence, my teeth are white.

cloverfield

That's not allowed in Laird's World.

if you say your teeth are white, he'll say, no they are off-white.

Ok Laird, my teeth are off-white. Laird will say, no, they are a little less than off-white.

OK Laird, my teeth are sort of whitish.

Laird: define whitish...

just wanted to say my internet access has become limited (expensive), so these disscusions are going to get protracted. sorry about that.
Everything in zimbabwe keeps getting more and more expensive.

Sorry to hear that - hope to hear from you when you next get a chance.

guest_of_logic wrote:To me this is like saying, "If the bullet was not fired from the gun at the exact same time that it hit its target then how can it be included in the function with all of the other factors that caused the target's death?"

This statement appeals to something other than reason for its effect.
I could say tha they do both exist "atemporaly" now and leave it at that.
I could even use it as a proof that both events must exist now in some sense for them to correlate after all they only correlate "now".

Also for something to be made of something, like a hat the string and material must be together (stiched) at the same time.
For a particular instant to have an identy its constituence have to be together at the same time.
You cant call it a cap if the material hasnt yet been cut and the string is in another place "at that time"

A function is a particular type of relationship but not all relationships are functions.
The flow of the OP still goes even if i wasnt strict in my terminology (you would have known what i meant), but i was preempting the clarification.

"A function is a particular type of relationship but not all relationships are functions." --chikoka

OK, but the reason that you stipulated that the relationship of the moments z and z-2 to the universe state x - and that the relationship of the moments y and y-2 to the universe state x - must be a function is unspecified. You first say, "this would make these relationships also qualify to be functions", but later you find that they cannot after all be functions: "If y-2 does not exist at the same *time* as universe state x then how can they be included in the same function." If they are thus disqualified from being functions (as you define a function, such that all function variables are contemporaneous), then why continue to assert that they ought to be functions - why not simply leave it as you originally framed it: "Its another type of relationship different from a function relationship realy since F(x) strictly speaking can not have two unique images"?