Why the false dichotomy? Where does it come from in …, 3, 2, 1?
As I reread your previous response, I had a feeling you didn’t know what you were talking about.
What a hall of mirrors eh?
Aye… and how it vanishes continuously on the edge of nothing apparent
You left my response to this hanging, and I was just now thinking about how you might transpose the impossibility of forming a infinite series to the impossibility of having an infinite quantity.
I’d like to keep this subject going if you’re able to respond.
Do you see that for the number of objects to even progress to infinity in space, space would have to be infinite?
It is only possible if the universe is infinite. And that is not something which General Relativity resolves.
One can observe that while the matter particles, fermions, take up space because of the Pauli exclusion principle, the energy particles, bosons, are not so restricted. But there is still a limit even with bosons because even too much bosons in the same place will still cause a gravitational collapse and you get ONE black hole, which are not divisible. Furthermore a finite universe would limit smallest energy photon to the wavelength equal to the size of the universe. So… the only way to have an infinite number of objects in space is for space to be infinite.
Even if space were infinite… that still doesn’t give you an infinite number of objects.
It seems like we’ve grown so accustomed to the collection of bodies disappearing over the horizon, that we think that means it goes like that forever and there can be actually an infinite number.
According to the current big bang theory, I think it would. Besides, science goes with what the observations show, by which it is unreasonable to think that the next observation will contradict what you have already seen over and over and over again. What we see is uniformity and thus no indication that what we cannot see is any different from what we do see.
So, if you think the universe contains a finite number of objects then it is only reasonable to think the universe is spatially finite also.
That is the way science works. We make a measurement and it gives the same measure every time so we think that means it will give the same measurement the next time also. It is not proof, but it does tell us what is most reasonable to believe.
How’s that when an uncaused cause is unobservable to begin with?
I was speaking of science. Uncaused causes are a thing of philosophy not science. The most that science can say is that there are observable events with no observable cause. The naturalist typically concludes there is no cause, but other people can suppose there is an unobservable cause. But like I said, that is not a matter for science to say anything.
Yet in a particular relationship every scientist is an uncaused cause, and how rare is it to find a scientist who will see it.
That includes this scientist. Treating people as magical black box is a denial of whole sciences of psychology, biology, and medicine. We have plenty of causes that we can study and demonstrate. And that applies to every thought and action in every relationship.
Yeah I believe that all those causes are not sufficient to determine all of our thoughts and behavior. But that is not the same as an uncaused cause.
1 Like
Somehow people are marvelously contingent in their being and yet necessary with respect to their acting.
What I know to be true of myself, is that I am capable of making choices and affecting action without being acted upon.
It’s really incredible, and yet it’s completely unobservable.
There are two sides to this and you would see me taking the opposite side of the debate when discussing this with a naturalist determinist.
Yes I have that experience also. And I find it difficult to comprehend the denial of that most basic experience. In my judgement a philosophy which denies this is less than worthless in helping us to confront the challenges of our own existence.
On the other hand, the facts also refute that this (let’s call it free will) is absolute, universal, or inviolable. Quite the contrary, there are many things which can damage or destroy that freedom of will like drugs, disease, and bad habits of action and thought – plenty of things capable of changing us into unthinking robots. Furthermore, it varies a great deal between individuals and I think it is a property of life itself so its quantitative aspect is a considerable spectrum.
Even worse than that, it is even hard to define coherently. I think it can be done, but it takes some ideas which many will find difficult to accept.
That’s an interesting way to put it. Surely any reasonable person understands certain actions are not entirely their own, and yet they are also capable of acting. If they understand that they can act in a limited capacity, even in a single instance, then they are capable of understanding that in this respect they are an uncaused cause.
Something which is completely unobservable in the world.
And for whatever reason some philosophers would locate this action of thought outside of the body. I’m perfectly content and persuaded that it is part of our bodily existence, but it could be otherwise.
If this were not true of our selves, I could understand the look of disbelief when talking about an uncaused cause as a possible explanation for the universe. To reiterate what I have been saying in this thread, the only other possible statements would be an infinite regress or nothing.
1 Like
Great question.
I think that the double slit experiment is an uncaused cause which is observable.
When we measure it, it acts a different way from when we don’t measure it.
We don’t know why this happens but we can measure it.
Would you see it that way when referring to it as something that can affect changing without changing?
Well we don’t know the cause of this phenomenon but we can measure it.
It’s the next best thing close to the universe coming into existence without a cause (according to atheists) because we will never be able to measure or observe why the Big Bang came into existence.
So yes, I agree this kind of quantum phenomena may be the immediate effect of an uncaused cause or ‘singularity’ that can affect change without changing.
And it may not be, as there may be other determining factors that we can’t just yet observe or measure.
Years ago, I got into this great discussion with an undergrad in physics. He was utterly convinced quantum fluctuations that appear out of nowhere are random or uncaused. Ok… so if these happenings are uncaused, then statistically, ever once and awhile they should be able to affect the world at the macro level. Like with genetic mutations, or SEUs in the network.
1 Like