GENIUS FORUMS

rebecca702 wrote:Nietzsche says time is infinite, but I think it's actually the same as saying it doesn't exist. Do you think so?

David Quinn wrote:The idea of an infinite regression of causes going back forever is also based on a faulty concept - in this instance, the concept of a thing. The regression springs out of the inherent limitations of the thing-concept. In reality, no such regression occurs.

Of course, there is no beginning either.

-

divine focus wrote:

David Quinn wrote:The idea of an infinite regression of causes going back forever is also based on a faulty concept - in this instance, the concept of a thing. The regression springs out of the inherent limitations of the thing-concept. In reality, no such regression occurs.

Of course, there is no beginning either.

How have you solved this problem?

rebecca702 wrote:

David Quinn wrote:

Animus wrote:What's wrong with an infinite regress?

The alternative is something causa sui (self-creating) is it not?

The idea of an infinite regression of causes going back forever is also based on a faulty concept - in this instance, the concept of a thing. The regression springs out of the inherent limitations of the thing-concept. In reality, no such regression occurs.

Of course, there is no beginning either.

David, so would you say that if something exists, there is the illusion of regression. But nothing really exists, so therefore no regression?

You are saying time doesn't exist.

David Quinn wrote:"Things" are artificial creations deemed to be identical portions of reality. We can thus speak about "things" or "causes" stretching back forever as though the past was an infinite chain of identical links. But in reality, there are no "things" as such. Every portion of reality is unique and different and every portion merges seamlessly into other portions, such that Nature is a continuum. There are no foundations in Nature for an infinite regression to ever begin.

divine focus wrote:

David Quinn wrote:"Things" are artificial creations deemed to be identical portions of reality. We can thus speak about "things" or "causes" stretching back forever as though the past was an infinite chain of identical links. But in reality, there are no "things" as such. Every portion of reality is unique and different and every portion merges seamlessly into other portions, such that Nature is a continuum. There are no foundations in Nature for an infinite regression to ever begin.

I agree, but how is this arrived at "logically?" You seem to not value empirical knowledge. Or you equate the two, as i do.

David Quinn wrote:

divine focus wrote: I agree, but how is this arrived at "logically?" You seem to not value empirical knowledge. Or you equate the two, as i do.

No, I don't equate the two. It is arrived at logically by understanding the logical aspects of causality and, from that, the illusory nature of a "thing".

-

divine focus wrote:

David Quinn wrote:

divine focus wrote: I agree, but how is this arrived at "logically?" You seem to not value empirical knowledge. Or you equate the two, as i do.

No, I don't equate the two. It is arrived at logically by understanding the logical aspects of causality and, from that, the illusory nature of a "thing".

Can you elaborate?

David Quinn wrote:From a logical point of view, it is easy to see that the process of cause and effect is necessarily causeless. This is because anything which can be postulated as being the cause of cause and effect will automatically be a part of cause and effect itself. It is thus irrational to think of cause and effect as being causally created in any way. It has always been around. There has never been a time when it was absent.

Note that I am not saying I don�t know where cause and effect came from. It is not an admission of ignorance on my part. The possibility of ignorance does not come into it, for there is nothing to know as far as this matter is concerned. The question cannot yield an answer because it has no foundations to begin with. It overlooks the fact that it is impossible for the process of cause and effect to come from somewhere because the very act of "coming from somewhere" will always be causal in nature.

A far more pertinent question, perhaps, is the question of why there is a process of causation in the first place and not nothing at all. In other words, why is there "something" rather than nothing? This is an important question to resolve because it goes to the very heart of understanding Reality itself.

In answering this, I must point again to the fact that the process of cause and effect is not a created thing, but the very principle behind all created things. This needs some qualification, however. Even though I use the word "principle", it should not be taken to mean that causation is a physical principle of some kind, or even a spiritual one. In fact, in a certain sense, it does not really exist at all. It isn�t a manifested entity which exists above or behind the realm of created things. In the end, created things are all that exists - there is nothing else apart from them, nothing beyond them.

The "principle of causation", then, is merely a figure of speech. It is a description of how created things change into other created things. It is a conceptual construct which points to the fact that objects arise out of what is already there in the world. It asserts that a thing is created out of necessity from the circumstances which are present and that it is impossible for anything else to be created in its place. It also points to the truth that things have no beginning or end, and thus points to the essential "oneness" of Reality.