GENIUS FORUMS

Mindless causality implies that the universe and even the laws of causality themselves are just fortunate accidents?

http://scienceweek.com/2005/sw050819-6.htm

4) A simple statement of fact: there is no physics theory that explains the nature of, or even the existence of, football matches, teapots, or jumbo-jet aircraft. The human mind is physically based, but there is no hope whatever of predicting the behavior it controls from the underlying physical laws. Even if we had a satisfactory fundamental physics "theory of everything", this situation would remain unchanged: physics would still fail to explain the outcomes of human purpose, and so would provide an incomplete description of the real world around us.

5) Can we nevertheless claim that the underlying physics uniquely causally determines what happens, even if we cannot predict the outcome? To examine whether we can, contemplate what is required for this claim to be true within its proper cosmic context. The implication is that the particles existing when the cosmic background radiation was decoupling from matter, in the early Universe, were placed precisely so as to make it inevitable that 14 billion years later, human beings would exist, Charles Townes would conceive of the laser, and Edward Witten would develop string theory. Is it plausible that quantum fluctuations in the inflationary era in the very early Universe -- the source of the perturbations at the time of decoupling -- implied the future inevitability of the Mona Lisa and Einstein's theory of relativity? Those fluctuations are supposed to have been random, which by definition means without purpose or meaning.

I can't go along with this kind of thinking because it makes the false assumption that our earth, the human race, the Mona Liza, etc, are intrinsically "special".

While it argues correctly that if the chain of causality had been different - e.g. if the fluctuations in the Big Bang had been slightly different - then the earth, human race, the Mona Lisa, etc, wouldn't have arisen, it becomes flawed when it tries to argue that this would somehow be a tragedy or a significant loss. This kind of thinking projects a loaded significance onto past events which isn't really there.

In truth, Nature doesn't care if the human race exists or not. The human race isn't any more special than the space it occupies or the so-called dead planets it observes in the skies.

The argument also makes the unfounded assumption that there has only been one universe (namely, the space-time bubble we call the "observable universe"), and therefore we have been incredibly lucky that this one universe has managed to create the earth and human race and so on. It neglects to acknowledge the very real possibility that there have been zillions of "failed" universes before the current one, and that it would have to finally get it right some time.

Mindless causality implies that the universe and even the laws of causality themselves are just fortunate accidents?

Since causality necessarily stretches back forever, it cannot be said to have been created either accidently or on purpose. Indeed, it has never come into existence at all.

-

[edited for spelling - DQ]

DavidQuinn000 wrote:Since causality necessarily stretches back forever, it cannot be said to have been created either accidently or on purpose. Ideed, it has never come into existence at all.

-

An infinite series of cause/effect moments can be represented by a single finite equation. The equation contains the predictable pattern of how the numbers will unfold.

The infinite number of digits in pi:



That single equation can be said to be a representation of a meta-cause.

Does DQ say that there are no meta-causes?

wookie wrote:Does DQ say that there are no meta-causes?

Meta-causes have further meta-causes, and so on. That's why causality stretches back forever.

ksolway wrote:

wookie wrote:Does DQ say that there are no meta-causes?

Meta-causes have further meta-causes, and so on. That's why causality stretches back forever.

Does a cause of all possible causes exist?

wookie wrote:Does a cause of all possible causes exist?

No, since every thing necessarily has a cause.

ksolway wrote:

wookie wrote:Does a cause of all possible causes exist?

No, since every thing necessarily has a cause.

What is the connection between all things that are caused?

wookie wrote:What is the connection between all things that are caused?

They all exist, and they're all caused.

ksolway wrote:

wookie wrote:What is the connection between all things that are caused?

They all exist, and they're all caused.

If two things are mutually exclusive then there necessarily exists a difference between them. That separation between mutually exclusive entities, the difference is a relation that also exists. All of existence is therefore connected. The totality of all things that exist is not separate from itself.

T=T

The totality exists. Therefore the totality has a cause. The totality exists due to the cause of all possible causes.

wookie wrote:If two things are mutually exclusive then there necessarily exists a difference between them.

Yes.

That separation between mutually exclusive entities, the difference is a relation that also exists.

Yes.

All of existence is therefore connected.

All things are causally connected, yes.

The totality exists.

Since the Totality is not a "thing" I wouldn't say it "exists" (or not exists). The Totality is Infinite, so it defies being described in the way we could describe regular things.

Therefore the totality has a cause. The totality exists due to the cause of all possible causes.

You could think of the Totality as being caused by all of its parts (ie, all things, which includes all causes). But since all things are themselves the Totality, we're not really saying anything.

Imagine a cake which is sliced into 6 parts. We could say that the cake is caused by its six parts. But since the six parts are the actual cake we haven't said very much.

ksolway wrote: Since the Totality is not a "thing" I wouldn't say it "exists" (or not exists). The Totality is Infinite, so it defies being described in the way we could describe regular things.

It appears that infinities are part of the Totality. Does infinity exist? It appears to be a logical necessity for the ksolway-DQ theory to hold true.

Exactly how is the Totality defined, or deduced?

ksolway wrote:Imagine a cake which is sliced into 6 parts. We could say that the cake is caused by its six parts. But since the six parts are the actual cake we haven't said very much.

It is more logical to say that the parts of the cake are caused by the dividing the whole. If the whole cake did not exist then the parts cannot exist. Yet, if a slice is taken away from the whole, it still retains its cakehood identity.

wookie wrote:It appears that infinities are part of the Totality.

Yes, all things which are not the Totality are part of the Totality.

The countless "infinities" are not the Totality, and are therefore not Infinite.

Does infinity exist?

Anything which can be distinguished exists.

Since infinite mass is different from infinite length, the two exist.

Exactly how is the Totality defined, or deduced?

I define it to be all things.

And I define a "thing" to be anything that is distinguished, ie, which makes an appearance to the mind, and which can be contrasted with something else.

Yet, if a slice is taken away from the whole, it still retains its cakehood identity.

Not necessarily. If you were trying to sell a birthday cake in a shop, but had already eaten 90% of it, your customer would probably complain that it was no longer a cake.

ksolway wrote:

wookie wrote:It appears that infinities are part of the Totality.

Yes, all things which are not the Totality are part of the Totality.

The countless "infinities" are not the Totality, and are therefore not Infinite.

Infinities are not infinite...? seems to be a contradiction there...

ksolway wrote:

wookie wrote:Does infinity exist?

Anything which can be distinguished exists.

Since infinite mass is different from infinite length, the two exist.

ksolway wrote:

wookie wrote:Exactly how is the Totality defined, or deduced?

I define it to be all things.

And I define a "thing" to be anything that is distinguished, ie, which makes an appearance to the mind, and which can be contrasted with something else.

The existence of the Totality is logically necessary before there can be an existence of any one aspect of the Totality. The existence of the Totality can be distinguished via inference as a logical necessity.

ksolway wrote:

wookie wrote:Yet, if a slice is taken away from the whole, it still retains its cakehood identity.

Not necessarily. If you were trying to sell a birthday cake in a shop, but had already eaten 90% of it, your customer would probably complain that it was no longer a cake.

If the customer was hungry enough, he, or she, would not complain. But in order for a piece of cake to exist, the whole cake must first exist. Individual slices of cake are not baked first and then glued together to form a whole. The whole exists first and then is divided into distinguishible parts.

wookie wrote:Infinities are not infinite...? seems to be a contradiction there...

That which is Infinite is not limited, by definition. Now an infinite mass is limited to being mass. And an infinite length is limited to being length. Only the Infinite/Totality is not limited at all.

The existence of the Totality is logically necessary before there can be an existence of any one aspect of the Totality. The existence of the Totality can be distinguished via inference as a logical necessity.

You could think of it that way. Yet you can only ever distinguish the Totality against a part of the Totality, like distinguishing a cake from a part of that same cake.

The whole exists first and then is divided into distinguishible parts.

The parts exist as soon as the mind divides them. As soon as you conceive of "whole" you conceive of "part". So the two notions are inderdependent and arise simultaneously.

ksolway,
I guess I will take it where Wookie left off until he returns.

That which is Infinite is not limited, by definition. Now an infinite mass is limited to being mass. And an infinite length is limited to being length. Only the Infinite/Totality is not limited at all.

This whole thread is limitation of the Totality, it is blind and mindless.

If it cannot see and has no will, it is limited of and by what it cannot determine nor be made aware of. It is subjected to its own causality. It cannot escape itself and therefore is subjected to its own chaos.

Wookie: The existence of the Totality is logically necessary before there can be an existence of any one aspect of the Totality. The existence of the Totality can be distinguished via inference as a logical necessity.


Kevin: You could think of it that way. Yet you can only ever distinguish the Totality against a part of the Totality, like distinguishing a cake from a part of that same cake.

And from this logical conclusion we deduce that any aspect of the totality is a product of it yes? How does ordered logic arise out of chaos?

If there is logical deduction it must be drawn from a pattern, regardless our mind deriving such, a pattern exists none the less.

That is how we deduce cause and effect. It of necessity is true and therefore; intent to create effect.

We could say the effect creates the cause before the arrival of reality as Totality, it is pattern by and through a logical inference.

Wookie: The whole exists first and then is divided into distinguishible parts.


Kevin: The parts exist as soon as the mind divides them. As soon as you conceive of "whole" you conceive of "part". So the two notions are inderdependent and arise simultaneously.

Since they arise together it demonstrates intent to divide the Totality in parts.

ksolway wrote: The parts exist as soon as the mind divides them. As soon as you conceive of "whole" you conceive of "part". So the two notions are inderdependent and arise simultaneously.

In general, as soon as you concieve of X, you also concieve of not-X...?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holism

Holism (from holos, a Greek word meaning all, entire, total) is the idea that all the properties of a given system (biological, chemical, social, economic, mental, linguistic, etc.) cannot be determined or explained by the sum of its component parts alone. Instead, the system as a whole determines in an important way how the parts behave.

The general principle of holism was concisely summarized by Aristotle in the Metaphysics: "The whole is more than the sum of its parts".

Reductionism is seen as the opposite of holism. Reductionism in science says that a complex system can be explained by reduction to its fundamental parts. Essentially, chemistry is reducible to physics, biology is reducible to chemistry and physics, and psychology and sociology are reducible to biology, etc.

Holism is sometimes described as the opposite of reductionism (see also scientific reductionism). Some proponents of reductionism think rather that it is the opposite of greedy reductionism. Holism may also be contrasted with atomism.

On the other hand, holism and reductionism can also be regarded as complementary viewpoints, in which case they both would be needed to get a proper account of a given system.

Ksolway theory, duality, and complementarity, seem to say that X cannot exist without a complementary not-X.

wookie wrote:In general, as soon as you conceive of X, you also conceive of not-X...?

Yes, this is a necessity.

Ksolway theory, duality, and complementarity, seem to say that X cannot exist without a complementary not-X.

Holism and duality are not incompatible.

One can eat a piece of cake while acknowledging the existence of the whole cake.

ksolway wrote:

wookie wrote:In general, as soon as you conceive of X, you also conceive of not-X...?

Yes, this is a necessity.

Ksolway theory, duality, and complementarity, seem to say that X cannot exist without a complementary not-X.

Holism and duality are not incompatible.

One can eat a piece of cake while acknowledging the existence of the whole cake.

I am not sure what the philosophical ramifications are with regards to having our cake and eating it too.

I hope to recieve some enlightenment on this one day...

Beingof1 wrote:If it (the Totality) cannot see and has no will, it is limited of and by what it cannot determine nor be made aware of.

Yes, the Totality is limited in the sense that it cannot be other than what it is.

When I say that the Totality is not limited I mean that it includes all things, not that it can break the laws of logic and identity.

It cannot escape itself and therefore is subjected to its own chaos.

It cannot escape itself, true, and it is therefore at the mercy of whatever it is. It cannot control what happens internal to itself, since that which is internal to itself, is itself.

Kevin: You could think of it that way. Yet you can only ever distinguish the Totality against a part of the Totality, like distinguishing a cake from a part of that same cake.

And from this logical conclusion we deduce that any aspect of the totality is a product of it yes?

My brain is a part of myself, and yet it is not a product of myself. Rather, it is myself, along with all the other parts which make me.

How does ordered logic arise out of chaos?

You seem to be implying that chaos existed before logic. But logic is timeless, so there can exist nothing before it.

How does conscious life arise out of unconscious things? Through cause and effect.

We could say the effect creates the cause before the arrival of reality as Totality

Since I define Totality to contain all causes and effects, cause and effect cannot come first.

Since they arise together it demonstrates intent to divide the Totality in parts.

Some beings are caused to divide the Totality into parts, yes.

wookie wrote:I am not sure what the philosophical ramifications are with regards to having our cake and eating it too.

If you eat half a cake, you still have a whole cake - it's just that half of it will be in your stomach.

The cake might not be quite so saleable, for presentation reasons.

ksolway:

BO1: If it cannot see and has no will, it is limited of and by what it cannot determine nor be made aware of. It is subjected to its own causality.

Kevin: Yes, the Totality is limited in the sense that it cannot be other than what it is.

When I say that the Totality is not limited I mean that it includes all things, not that it can break the laws of logic and identity.

Is the Totality infinite or finite?

If the Totality is infinite in its nature and essence it follows as being beyond bounded or beyond all limits. If it cannot transcend and expand itself it is not infinite but must be finite as per the Law of Identity.

If the Totality is infinite it must transcend itself of necessity and therefore; intent/will with design/pattern.

Logic combined with identity to expand itself.

BO1: It cannot escape itself and therefore is subjected to its own chaos.

Kevin: It cannot escape itself, true, and it is therefore at the mercy of whatever it is. It cannot control what happens internal to itself, since that which is internal to itself, is itself.

If Totality cannot escape itself it is finite and subject to its own cause of chaos, true. If that which is internal to itself cannot be anything other than what it is it therefore; is bound to its own cause.

If it is infinite it is in a state of transcending all limits and boundedness and therefore; will/design.

Kevin: You could think of it that way. Yet you can only ever distinguish the Totality against a part of the Totality, like distinguishing a cake from a part of that same cake.

BO1: And from this logical conclusion we deduce that any aspect of the totality is a product of it yes?

Kevin: My brain is a part of myself, and yet it is not a product of myself. Rather, it is myself, along with all the other parts which make me.

And so, any aspect or property of the Totality is in the state of becoming all that can be, or rather what is becoming.

BO1: How does ordered logic arise out of chaos? If there is logical deduction it must be drawn from a pattern, regardless our mind deriving such, a pattern exists none the less.

That is how we deduce cause and effect. It of necessity is true and therefore; intent to create effect.

Kevin: You seem to be implying that chaos existed before logic. But logic is timeless, so there can exist nothing before it.

If logic is timeless therefore; pattern, order, design as logic must have these attributes to be logic itself.

If logic then will/intent as deduced by cause and effect.

How does conscious life arise out of unconscious things? Through cause and effect.

Explain.

BO1: We could say the effect creates the cause before the arrival of reality as Totality

Kevin: Since I define Totality to contain all causes and effects, cause and effect cannot come first.

So if the Totality contains cause and effect it therefore; transcends itself as it is not limited by a cause with intent.

BO1: Since they arise together it demonstrates intent to divide the Totality in parts.

Kevin: Some beings are caused to divide the Totality into parts, yes.

What beings?

Beingof1 wrote:Is the Totality infinite or finite?

Since it is everything, it must be without limit, and hence Infinite.

If it cannot transcend and expand itself it is not infinite but must be finite as per the Law of Identity.

The Infinite cannot transcend or expand itself, since it cannot be other than what it is.

The law of identity doesn't say that all things are finite.

Rather,

finite = finite

and

Infinite = Infinite.

The Infinite is contrasted with that which is not Infinite, namely a finite thing.

If the Totality is infinite it must transcend itself of necessity

A thing can only be itself. And the Totality is no different in this regard. It can never become more or less than the Totality.

. . . and therefore; intent/will with design/pattern.

I've no idea what you are talking about here.

"Intent/will" compared to what? "Design/pattern" compared to what? There is nothing other than itself.

Logic combined with identity to expand itself.

That which is Infinite cannot "expand".

What are you talking about?

If Totality cannot escape itself it is finite

Explain how you think the Totality can be other than what it is.

. . . bound to its own cause.

That which has no cause (by definition) cannot possilbly have a cause.

If it is infinite it is in a state of transcending all limits and boundedness and therefore; will/design.

Since the Totality cannot be compared to anything, since it is everything, it doesn't mean anything to ascribe "will" or "design" to it.

And so, any aspect or property of the Totality is in the state of becoming all that can be, or rather what is becoming.

All things are in a process of change, if that's what mean. Things "become" different to what they were previously.

If logic is timeless therefore; pattern, order, design as logic must have these attributes to be logic itself.

Logic has an order, but this does not imply a designer. Logic comes even before design.

If logic then will/intent as deduced by cause and effect.

I've no idea what you're talking about here.

How does conscious life arise out of unconscious things? Through cause and effect.

Explain.

All things arise through cause and effect, and conscious life is no different to anything else.

So if the Totality contains cause and effect it therefore; transcends itself as it is not limited by a cause with intent.

Nothing can transcend itself. Things can only be what they are, including the Totality.

Kevin: Some beings are caused to divide the Totality into parts, yes.

What beings?

Conscious beings, who divide the Totality into parts.

Kevin:

BO1: If the Totality is infinite in its nature and essence it follows as being beyond bounded or beyond all limits. If it cannot transcend and expand itself it is not infinite but must be finite as per the Law of Identity.

Kevin: The Infinite cannot transcend or expand itself, since it cannot be other than what it is.

Then it is limited to what it is and therefore; finite because of boundedness.

The law of identity doesn't say that all things are finite.

I know.

BO1: If the Totality is infinite it must transcend itself of necessity

Kevin: A thing can only be itself. And the Totality is no different in this regard. It can never become more or less than the Totality.

If the Totality can only be itself:

Then it has an inherent limit and therefore; finite.

Any thing that can be identified is limited as it must of necessity have properties of boundedness.

BO1: If the Totality is infinite in its nature and essence it follows as being beyond bounded or beyond all limits. If it cannot transcend and expand itself it is not infinite but must be finite as per the Law of Identity.

If the Totality is infinite it must transcend itself of necessity and therefore; intent/will with design/pattern.


Kevin: I've no idea what you are talking about here.

"Intent/will" compared to what? "Design/pattern" compared to what? There is nothing other than itself.

Compared to all that is - not all that is possible or will be or. If the Totality is infinite and eternal it must explore all impossibilities of necessity.

Therefore; transcendance of possibilities with will/intent with design/purpose.

That which is Infinite cannot "expand".

What are you talking about?

I am talking about the nature of the infinite not a limited concept.

BO1: If Totality cannot escape itself it is finite


Kevin: Explain how you think the Totality can be other than what it is.

By becoming what it was not.

BO1: If Totality cannot escape itself it is finite and subject to its own cause of chaos, true. If that which is internal to itself cannot be anything other than what it is it therefore; is bound to its own cause.

If it is infinite it is in a state of transcending all limits and boundedness and therefore; will/design.


Kevin: That which has no cause (by definition) cannot possilbly have a cause.

You just gave it a cause - "it cannot be other than itself". If it cannot be other than itself it must be caused to be itself of logical necessity.

If it can be nothing other than what it is, it is not infinite nor eternal.

BO1: If it is infinite it is in a state of transcending all limits and boundedness and therefore; will/design.

Kevin: Since the Totality cannot be compared to anything, since it is everything, it doesn't mean anything to ascribe "will" or "design" to it.

If the Totality is limited to everything, it doesn`t mean anything to ascribe "will" or "design" to it, true.

It is beyond everything possible and impossible as per the nature of eternal and therefore; will/design.

BO1: If logic is timeless therefore; pattern, order, design as logic must have these attributes to be logic itself.


Kevin: Logic has an order, but this does not imply a designer. Logic comes even before design.

Explain.

Kevin: How does conscious life arise out of unconscious things? Through cause and effect.


BO1: Explain.


Kevin: All things arise through cause and effect, and conscious life is no different to anything else.

How does cause and effect explain life arising out of unconscious things?

Explain.

BO1: So if the Totality contains cause and effect it therefore; transcends itself as it is not limited by a cause with intent.


Kevin: Nothing can transcend itself. Things can only be what they are, including the Totality.

Nothing can indeed transcend itself as this is the very definition of nothing. Can you explain the concept of zero?

The Totality is not limited to what it is because it contains cause and effect and is therefore; not subject to being what it is.

The Totality is not a thing, it is itSelf and can be what is not itSelf by will/design.

Conscious beings, who divide the Totality into parts.

What conscious being that divides Totality into parts?

Beingof1 wrote:It cannot be other than what it is.

Then it is limited to what it is and therefore; finite because of boundedness.

Just because the Infinite is limited to being what it is, doesn't mean it is finite.

For example, personal freedom is limited to being personal freedom, but that doesn't stop it from being personal freedom.

Logic doesn't count as a limitation, since logic necessarily applies to all things, including the Totality.

"Intent/will" compared to what? "Design/pattern" compared to what? There is nothing other than itself.

Compared to all that is - not all that is possible or will be

The Totality includes "all that is". There is nothing apart from it.

If the Totality is infinite and eternal it must explore all impossibilities of necessity.

"Impossibilities of necessity"? You are speaking gobbledegook and you know it.

That which is Infinite cannot "expand".

What are you talking about?

I am talking about the nature of the infinite not a limited concept.

That which is Infinite, which contains all things and all time, cannot "expand". This is simply a fact of logic.

Kevin: Explain how you think the Totality can be other than what it is.

By becoming what it was not.

You choose to ignore the rules of logic at your own peril.

Things can only change relative to things other than themselves. Since there is nothing other than the Totality, and since it does not exist in time, it follows that the Totality is beyond change.

That which has no cause (by definition) cannot possibly have a cause.

You just gave it a cause - "it cannot be other than itself". If it cannot be other than itself it must be caused to be itself of logical necessity.

The Totality is also logically "caused" by all of its component parts, but as explained above, logic doesn't count as a limitation (or a cause). It is a given.

BO1: If logic is timeless therefore; pattern, order, design as logic must have these attributes to be logic itself.

Kevin: Logic has an order, but this does not imply a designer. Logic comes even before design.

Explain.

To be able to design anything, there must first be existence. And for there to be existence, there must be logic (particularly, identity).

How does cause and effect explain life arising out of unconscious things?

Cause and effect explains the formation of all things. What do you mean by your question?

Can you explain the concept of zero?

Not interested at the moment.

What conscious being that divides Totality into parts?

I think your questions are meaningless, so I think I'll finish the discussion here.

ksolway:

Just because the Infinite is limited to being what it is, doesn't mean it is finite.

For example, personal freedom is limited to being personal freedom, but that doesn't stop it from being personal freedom.

There are all kinds of inherent limits in personal freedom.
1 - Freedom from what?
2 - What person?
3 - Free to do what?
4 - To be who?
etc.

Logic doesn't count as a limitation, since logic necessarily applies to all things, including the Totality.

That is how I just proved the Totality was beyond you limiting it to be only what it can internally be - I used logic.

The Totality includes "all that is". There is nothing apart from it.

That is what I said; I just know for a fact it is not stagnant like you believe. It 'must' be stagnant to fit into the concept it is inherently chaotic - though reality protests to the contrary.

Just look outside - it is in constant flux, never changing change. Eternal momentum and the only constant in the Totality is its very own momentum.

Follow that logic of what is self evident and tell me where you end up?

"Impossibilities of necessity"? You are speaking gobbledegook and you know it.

No, you are just not keeping up.

The precious Darwin theory uses this as the base premise.

That which is Infinite, which contains all things and all time, cannot "expand". This is simply a fact of logic.

Now you include time, okay, explain how the Totality contains time.

BTW - explain 'time' so we know what it is that the Totality contains.

If you explain time, it leads you right down that dusty trail to expansion, try it.

Kevin: Explain how you think the Totality can be other than what it is.


BO1: By becoming what it was not.


Kevin: You choose to ignore the rules of logic at your own peril.

No, you are just not keeping up again.

Things can only change relative to things other than themselves. Since there is nothing other than the Totality, and since it does not exist in time, it follows that the Totality is beyond change.

I did not say "change", I said expand and transcend.

Since it is beyond time it just transcended itself.

Anytime you apply a limit you just infered it is transcended already, now that, is a logical necessity. You cannot have a limit without it being transcended, logical impossibility.

You cannot have a limit of any kind including change that is not transcended in all possible worlds.

BO1: You just gave it a cause - "it cannot be other than itself". If it cannot be other than itself it must be caused to be itself of logical necessity.


Kevin: The Totality is also logically "caused" by all of its component parts, but as explained above, logic doesn't count as a limitation (or a cause). It is a given.

No; it is not caused by all of its component parts, that is not logically possible when speaking of infinity. Neither is saying "it cannot be other than itself".

If you include all time in all possible worlds the Totality has transcended this time and these worlds as you said above by including time - logical necessity.

Its(Totality) time is eternal and therefore; expands time like a bubble that pops.

*POP* - goes time and all of its component parts. Logical necessity if time is included and contained by the Totaliy.

Kevin: Logic has an order, but this does not imply a designer. Logic comes even before design.


BO1: Explain.


Kevin: To be able to design anything, there must first be existence. And for there to be existence, there must be logic (particularly, identity).

Yes, so logic is timeless(as you said), or accurate perception of reality - what does that tell you?

Your explanation above is circular, that is not the same thing as a tautology.

Pop the bubble Kevin.

BO1: How does cause and effect explain life arising out of unconscious things?


Kevin: Cause and effect explains the formation of all things. What do you mean by your question?

You said cause and effect explain life arising out of unconscious things. That is not the same thing as "Cause and effect explains the formation of all things." It is not even close.

It is your statement, not mine. I am asking how you came to that conclusion?
This one:

How does conscious life arise out of unconscious things? Through cause and effect.

How?

BO1: Can you explain the concept of zero?


Kevin: Not interested at the moment.

Mind if I take a crack?

It is the mathematical symbol of infinity.

It is that which is in a constant state of transcendance as it is not made of that which is the sum total of its parts.

It is not limited to what it cannot be.

It transcends existence.

BO1: What conscious being that divides Totality into parts?


Kevin: I think your questions are meaningless,

Mind if I take a shot at this one to?

A=A - Your consciousness which is perceiving other conscious beings ergo; you divide the Totality into parts.

so I think I'll finish the discussion here.

Uh huh, do you know anyone trying to dink with me while I am online?