Logical Proof for God #1

If through the use of the scientific method humankind could, given enough time, come to understand, and therefore control all aspects of physical reality, and if modern physics is correct in that there is no inherent physical limitations for backwards (in time) causality, then it stands to reason that humankind or another sentient race will eventually control all of physical existence and when they do they already have done it at all points in history from end to end or throughout however time is structured, therefore god.

You should have merged these two points into one thread.
You're jumping from one idea to the other.

"understand, therefore control". You're making a false connection between understanding and controlling. Being able to understand something does not mean that you can control it. For instance. I understand how the earth revolves around the sun. But I am unable to control it. No matter how far we advance, there will always be things that are outside of our control. For instance, the laws of physics. Even if humans advance to the point of understanding how the universe works in its entirety(eg... there's nothing we DON'T know about the universe), does that mean we will be able to CHANGE the laws of physics? I don't think so. I think we can APPLY the laws of physics, and use them to make ourselves very very powerful. We could even apply the laws of physics to become so powerful that we can exert total control over worlds and civilizations. But we would never become omnipotent.

Given enough technology and resources you could control the way in which the earth revolves around the sun. There is still plenty that we do not understand about the universe. If we had the ability to go back to the birth of the physical universe before physical laws formed (before being only an approximate term since time itself did not yet exist) then we could influence the way those laws formed and thus control them.

Where would we obtain the ability to go back in time before the laws of physics formed? To me, the idea of existing BEFORE the laws of physics existed, would result in the person ceasing to exist. The laws of the physical universe are what hold us together, and being in a place where they don't exist would dismantle all that makes us what we are.

I think you're making the mistake of assuming that technology will advance to the point where we can do impossible things, on top of that, you're using it to justify the existance of an omnipotent entity. In essence, you're using one belief to justify another belief.

I personally don't believe that technology will advance to that point. I believe there must be a point where it cannot advance any further because there is nothing left that we can do. Because I don't believe in your REASONING, I cannot agree with your conclusion. Predicting what technology will be in the future is purely speculative. I feel like your argument to "prove" god is not concrete because it relies heavily on one's faith that technology will advance to the level you are asserting that it will.

To convince an atheist of something... You cannot use speculation and an appeal to faith. You must use knowledge and an appeal to reason.

Ex. "Cars exist because technology has progressed to the point to harness the power of combustion and convert chemical energy into mechanical energy."
is more logical than
"God exists because technology WILL progress to the point where humans will become God"
An interesting philosophical statement, but not "Proof".

I'm not denying that your conclusion is cool - it is. It is one of many possible explanations for the existence of a god, but I don't accept it as proof for the existence of a god.

Okay so you've come to one of the arguments against this that I have been able to come up with; that science (and therefore technology) has a limit. I personally don't believe this is true but I have no way to refute that claim. I will ask though, how could technology "have nothing left to do" and still not be able to do everything (controlling physical laws being encompassed by the set "everything to do")?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xaqaria

Okay so you've come to one of the arguments against this that I have been able to come up with; that science (and therefore technology) has a limit. I personally don't believe this is true but I have no way to refute that claim. I will ask though, how could technology "have nothing left to do" and still not be able to do everything (controlling physical laws being encompassed by the set "everything to do")?

---

Because when technology reaches its limit, it will have nothing left to do? Persuming that the laws of the universe are completly concrete, this is a valid conclusion because then you could potentially map all possible technology by applying these laws if you had a ridiculously powerful computer. I personally believe that the "laws" of the universe aren't as rigid as DreiHundert believes they are but this is just a conjuncture on my part. I've read your other "logical proof" and have a few bits of friendly advice for you:
1. Stop calling them proofs. They do not fit the defination of a proof, conjuncture is a more correct term.
2. For the love of God, define God. I can't believe I actually need to point to you how semantically loaded the word God is.
3. I find it quite suprising how you haven't explored the virtual world hypothesis yet. This is actually the most likely God manifestation there is as given our current projections of technology, its quite likely that we're residing in a virtual world. If you're going to post about this, please don't call it a "proof" because it isn't.
4. Keep working along these lines. You are bringing out some cool concepts, you just need to present them with a bit more rigour.

Thanks for the input but I'll call it what I want. Perhaps my threads don't follow the particular format that you are used to but the general definition of a logical proof is an argument that uses inductive or deductive reasoning which I have done here. If the only problem you can come up with in regards to my threads is that I didn't use the particular words that you would prefer then I think I've done a pretty good job. I am not presenting to a peer reviewed scientific journal so rigour is not that high on the list of priorities, this is a discussion on an internet forum.

I know this can be a hot button disscusion for some people but if you can't leave your egos at the door and cut the pretension then I'd rather not discuss with you.

As for your attempt to answer my question, you didn't; you simply restated what was already said. If there is nothing left to do then necessarily everything must have been done and yet "control laws of physics" is something left undone in that scenario, so how can there be nothing left to do? The only possible response to this that I can think of is that you are arguing that technology's limit is actually somewhere short of everything that there is to do.

Also hey, it makes you look silly to be pretensious and still continue to do things like say conjuncture when you mean conjecture...

Ok how about this: If the laws of physics are completely concerte, then there will come a point when technology will have nothing possible left to so. Thats obvious enough for you? Where exactly did I say I have a problem with your thinking? I was actually trying to help you but it seems that you're so arrogant that simple advice offends you. You're correct that this is an internet forum and not a peer review journal but calling something a proof when its not is no minor error. If you want us to take you seriously, you're going to have to at least get the basic terminology right. If you're not interested in being taken seriously, what are you doing in this section of the forum?
I find it pretty ironic that someone who accusing me of pretension and a large ego calls me out on a minor spelling error. Its funny because some of your ideas, especially the ones on "proof" 2 are quite simular to some of my own. I was looking forward to having a discussion with you but I guess you think you're above and beyond discussion. Perhaps the next "proof" will go like this: everything is information. I know everything. This means that I'm not only omniscent but omnipotent too. I'm god, therfore god exists.

RationalMystic, I think you might have slightly misunderstood what I'm saying. I believe that the laws of physics are concrete. By that I mean that it is impossible to change them. I don't believe that the current understanding of physics is absolutely concrete. It is not. I believe humans don't even come close to full understanding of the universe.

The difference between Xaq and I is that we both speculate the future of our understanding of the universe to pan out in different ways. To which there is no solid "proof" for either side to use.

The best we can do here is share our opinions and thoughts on the matter, hoping to increase our understanding of the subject from both perspectives. However, Xaq - I second Rational's notion on the fact that you should have presented your idea with a bit of humility. And he is right that "Proof" is the wrong term to use, which is what my posts are mainly attempting to illustrate.

Nobody's trying to be egotistical and hostile in this discussion, but a debate on the existance of God will never be unicorns and rainbows, you know.

Man I could debate all day on the laws of the unverse DreiHuntert but I don't want to bolster this thread with more content then it deserves. Plus this guy's ego so inflated, he might report us for hijacking his thread. We'll do that battle on another thread I think.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RationalMystic

Man I could debate all day on the laws of the unverse DreiHuntert but I don't want to bolster this thread with more content then it deserves. Plus this guy's ego so inflated, he might report us for hijacking his thread. We'll do that battle on another thread I think.

---

Idk about thread hi-jacking... This is all relevant to discussion. But I could report him back for double-posting! :P.

Honestly, you may be overestimating the size of his ego..

If you must leave, then I'll see you in the next thread. I'm willing to stay around and discuss unless it turns into an outright flame war. That's when I'm packin' my bags and getting out before the banhammer starts flying around.

Don't know if you understood my explanation of what a logical proof is so let me try it again. It does not claim to prove anything and can be falsified, it is merely a type of argument that uses deductive or inductive reasoning to come to a conclusion. A logical proof essentially says if the premise is true then the conclusion logically follows. If the premise can be shown to be false then the conclusion does not logically follow. Both threads that I posted are logical proofs in that they follow this sort of deductive framework. It was suggested that the premise may be invalid; I.e. that technology may be limited, but no evidence has yet been presented to support that assertion.

Feel free to discuss the topic, I just don't care to discuss with anyone with a chip on their shoulder who would rather critique the way in which I present my ideas instead of actually discussing the ideas themselves.

Ok I may have over reacted a little. I was in a bad mood when I sent those two posts so apologies if I was being a dick (which in hindsight I was). If you want discussion, i'll provide some.

For this hypothesis to hold true, the following conditions have to be met IMO:

1. It has to be physically possible to bend the laws of physics.
Likelihood: not as bad as people might imagine. We've managed to increase the maximum speed of light locally by using a phenomena known as cassmir effect. I consider the changing of the values of physical constants to be the first step towards law modification. As for the complete building of a new set of laws, the singularities in blackholes could potentially hold areas with no laws in effect.

2. At least one sentient race will be able to reach the level of technology necessary for large scale physical law modification without becoming extinct.
Likelihood: this is a harder one to answer as its hard to anticipate what kind of challenges would such an advanced race face. Obviously such a race's capabilities for destruction would be immense. I think ultimately this depends on whether it's possible to mature mentally as fast as one matures technologically.

3. A race with such abilities is interested in being deities.
Likelihood: now this is where I have serious issues with such a hypothesis.
Why would a race that's advanced so far both technologically and (by not extinguishing themselves) spiritually be interested in creating and maintaining a universe so full of suffering and antrophy? The only plausible answer I can give is that it's some kind of experiment on a vast scale.

This is what I have so far. Thoughts?

I think we will probably be progressing technologically for the rest of the time we exist, and we might find a way to travel to other universes and keep our species going endlessly. But reaching omnipotence would take eternity to achieve. If we exist for eternity and keep progressing, do we ever become omnipotent? I think the answer has something to do with Zeno's Paradox and an asymptote.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

But reaching omnipotence would take eternity to achieve.

---

Could you clarify the reasoning behind this statment please?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RationalMystic

Could you clarify the reasoning behind this statment please?

---

Technological progress is gradual, as is the increase in humanity's power that comes with it. Such progress increases as time goes on, and omnipotence is an infinite level of such progress. So, it would take an infinite amount of time to reach it.

However, my point was a play on words. You can't take an infinite amount of time and reach something waiting at the end of it. There is no end to eternity. I also think omnipotence is impossible, partly because it involves too many contradictions. If you were infinitely powerful, would you be able to make it where nobody was ever infinitely powerful? If you achieved that, how would it be that you achieved it? If you tried to make another person lose his infinite power while he tried to make it where he keeps his infinite power, what would happen? And the classic theological point... Would you be able to make a rock so heavy you can't lift it? Etc.

How about the ability to do anything that doesn't lead to a logical contradiction?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

Technological progress is gradual, as is the increase in humanity's power that comes with it. Such progress increases as time goes on, and omnipotence is an infinite level of such progress. So, it would take an infinite amount of time to reach it.

However, my point was a play on words. You can't take an infinite amount of time and reach something waiting at the end of it. There is no end to eternity. I also think omnipotence is impossible, partly because it involves too many contradictions. If you were infinitely powerful, would you be able to make it where nobody was ever infinitely powerful? If you achieved that, how would it be that you achieved it? If you tried to make another person lose his infinite power while he tried to make it where he keeps his infinite power, what would happen? And the classic theological point... Would you be able to make a rock so heavy you can't lift it? Etc.

---

Well first of all technological progress is most definatly NOT gradual or even strictly linear. Its subject to leaps and hops and even falls.
The same goes for humanity's progress except even more so. However I do understand what you're trying to get at. However if you accept that our universe is of finite (if stupendous) size, then omnipotence can simply mean control over this expanding domain and this won't take an infinite amount of time to achieve it.

To adress the parodoxes: if you alter history to make omnipotence impossible to acheive then depending on which model you believe, one of two things will happen: if you believe in the traditional Copenhagen's model, your adjusting of the timeline will simply alter the timeline but you will continue to exist as causality isn't a strictly required element of the universe. If you believe in the many-worlds model, then your action simply causes one set of universes to never develop a being of omnipotence (chances are, they already exist) while you will still exist in another set. I'm massivly simplifing the premise here but this is the basic gist of it. The second paradox is a lot more interesting. The best answer I can offer is that I don't believe that there can be more then one omnipotent being inhabiting the same universe by the very definition of the term. For the last one the answer is simple I think: yes but that would mean relinquishing your omnipotence.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xei

How about the ability to do anything that doesn't lead to a logical contradiction?

---

Sorry if I'm being dense but could you expand on this?
Also its good to see you enter this thread.

Seems to me God in the traditional sense could do more than control just physical reality. I also don't believe that we or any other race has enough time for this to occur. Even 10 million years doesn't seem long enough to control every aspect of physical reality, but I don't know what really would be involved in that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RationalMystic

Sorry if I'm being dense but could you expand on this?
Also its good to see you enter this thread.

---

I wasn't really making a very wholehearted foray. It just seems to me that 'a rock so big God couldn't lift it' is a contradiction in terms... one might as well argue that God couldn't create a cube that was simultaneously one and two meters wide. So for a definition of 'all powerful' to make any sense, we should rule out anything contradictory.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xei

I wasn't really making a very wholehearted foray. It just seems to me that 'a rock so big God couldn't lift it' is a contradiction in terms... one might as well argue that God couldn't create a cube that was simultaneously one and two meters wide. So for a definition of 'all powerful' to make any sense, we should rule out anything contradictory.

---

Good point. However maybe "God" could create a universal split where he can't pick up a rock on one and the rock never even exists to not pick up on the other. The annoying limitation with this though is that If you count all of his incarnations across all universes, he still can't be called all powerful! Maybe the key to Goddom is being breaking free of the constraints of language, and by extension, logic?
My head hurts now :P

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xei

How about the ability to do anything that doesn't lead to a logical contradiction?

---

It's profoundly far fetched, but I don't rule any of it out.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RationalMystic

Well first of all technological progress is most definatly NOT gradual or even strictly linear. Its subject to leaps and hops and even falls.
The same goes for humanity's progress except even more so. However I do understand what you're trying to get at. However if you accept that our universe is of finite (if stupendous) size, then omnipotence can simply mean control over this expanding domain and this won't take an infinite amount of time to achieve it.

---

Too much stuff happens spontaneously and drastically for progress to be linear. I wasn't saying that it is. I just meant that we have never shown an indication that we are going to suddenly hit infinite power. It's like one side of a parabola, in terms of base curve. There would be no horizontal axis coordinate paired with infinity. The actual graph would not be a smooth curve, though.

Omnipotence is infinite power, not merely ultimate power or the power to do all things except create contradictory realities. It has no limits. Omnipotence will never be achieved.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RationalMystic

To adress the parodoxes: if you alter history to make omnipotence impossible to acheive then depending on which model you believe, one of two things will happen: if you believe in the traditional Copenhagen's model, your adjusting of the timeline will simply alter the timeline but you will continue to exist as causality isn't a strictly required element of the universe. If you believe in the many-worlds model, then your action simply causes one set of universes to never develop a being of omnipotence (chances are, they already exist) while you will still exist in another set. I'm massivly simplifing the premise here but this is the basic gist of it. The second paradox is a lot more interesting. The best answer I can offer is that I don't believe that there can be more then one omnipotent being inhabiting the same universe by the very definition of the term. For the last one the answer is simple I think: yes but that would mean relinquishing your omnipotence.

---

I believe that causality is a requirement in the universe, and altering the time line would alter your place in it, thereby contradicting and therefore invalidating the alteration. The idea of backward time travel is full of such contradictions, which prove that it is impossible. I have never accepted the many worlds model as an explanation for backward time travel. I had a dream in high school that I went back to "1982" and wigged out because when I was in the real 1982, my parents did not act the way they did in the alternate one. I realized that I was not in the real 1982 and freaked out over the idea that I would never return to my universe. I was in an alternate one. That is not backward time travel. That is parallel universe travel. There is a big difference. Also, I was talking about making it where there was never an omnipotent being in the past, anywhere. That would include the omnipotent being making it happen, which is a contradiction.

If there cannot be more than one omnipotent being in a universe, that puts a limit on what any being in that universe can do (it cannot create another omnipotent being), thereby disallowing the existence of any omnipotent being. Omnipotence is completely unlimited power. My sig line is a satirical illustration of that, although the person I quoted didn't mean for it to be one. It is my favorite line in the history of this site.

The most pressing reason why I have to disagree with you is because your opinion is contradicted by essentially every major discovery in physics from the last 100(+) years. A lot more than your word that there are contradictions that "prove" it is impossible is needed to invalidate 100 years of research. I will admit that it is nearly impossible to conceptualize in common terms since we are yet still linear creatures capable of traveling in but one direction in time, however I am told it makes perfect sense mathematically speaking. What is it that Richard Feynman said? Something along the lines of "a positron is actually an electron traveling backwards in time".

Perhaps it seems impossible precisely because you are putting it in human terms; imagining your human body popping off of some imaginary time "line" and dropping down onto it at some imaginary point before you left. There really is no line of time so this conceptualization is already too fundamentally flawed to make any sense.

Every major physics discovery of the past 100 years suggests that backward time travel is possible? I majorly disagree with that. Such a thing would be big news, and I know a lot of the theories. They don't indicate it.

Like I said about my dream scenario... If I were to go to 1982, it would not be the 1982 I experienced as a kid. It would be a parallel 1982. The past is what it is. Going to a year before now would not be the same year that already happened.

By that I mean that both relativity theory and quantum theory allow for backwards causality. Like I said, backwards causality is not necessarily as simple as your physical body popping off the timeline and then reentering it in the past. Also, why do you assume that traveling backwards in time necessarily means you could alter history? Even if it is as simple as it appears in the movies, it could be closer to 12 monkeys or slaughterhouse 5 than back to the future. Just because you go back doesn't mean you have special control.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xaqaria

By that I mean that both relativity theory and quantum theory allow for backwards causality. Like I said, backwards causality is not necessarily as simple as your physical body popping off the timeline and then reentering it in the past. Also, why do you assume that traveling backwards in time necessarily means you could alter history? Even if it is as simple as it appears in the movies, it could be closer to 12 monkeys or slaughterhouse 5 than back to the future. Just because you go back doesn't mean you have special control.

---

By merely being there in my present form, I would be altering history. Control is not necessary for the alteration. Imagine going "back in time" and visiting yourself. Have you ever been visited by your future self? If not, then going "back in time" and visiting yourself would not be to the real previous time.

I don't reject backwards causality. I have argued on this site many times that cause does not even have to happen in a time sequence. It is just "A, therefore B." Math is full of such relations, and I don't believe the rules of math are dependent on time for their existence. The reality of a future scenario can mandate the existence of a past scenario. I see a timeline as a whole, and its many parts are based on each other. However, that principle would not necessitate the possiblity of backward time travel.

Who is to say that I haven't met myself from the future? Would my future self necessarily want me to know? Perhaps I just choose not to meet myself at all. Have you seen 12 monkeys? Bruce willis learns that even though he travels to the past, as far as the timeline is concerned, he already did it before he left, he didn't actually change anything.

Regardless, you agree that backwards causality is possible, so what are we arguing? If I can cause the past in the future by any method, then I could possibly cause the universe to be born from the future, thus qualifying as the creator, or god.

The analysis of causality and the arrow of time is so fascinating. The laws of physics are the same in both time directions, so it seems intuitively bizarre that we feel such an insurmountable disconnect with the past. As to what 'causality' actually means, Hume pretty much cracked that one. It doesn't mean anything; it's a fictitious concept based on a baseless extrapolation from experience. A happens, and then B tends to happen after. There is no 'cause' in between; there's no 'therefore' either. It just is. It's a constant conjunction. We can simplify some complex conjunctions into more basic conjunctions (this is the definition of science), but of course, this must terminate at some point. In the end all you're left with is a set of axiomatic conjunctions, supported by observation. If you subject a positively charged particle to an electric field, it will accelerate. Why? The question is meaningless. It just always has done. There's no cause, and no logical implication. It could fail to happen and we would not be able to raise any objections.

Is it relevant to describe how causality is meaningless when we are looking for logical proof?

If it is relevant, then what are you left with?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xei

It just is.

---

Bird got to fly.

Quote:

---

In the end all you're left with is a set of axiomatic conjunctions, supported by observation. If you subject a positively charged particle to an electric field, it will accelerate. Why? The question is meaningless. It just always has done. There's no cause, and no logical implication. It could fail to happen and we would not be able to raise any objections.

---

What a religious conclusion.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by really

Is it relevant to describe how causality is meaningless when we are looking for logical proof?

If it is relevant, then what are you left with?

---

؟

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by InvisibleWoman

What a religious conclusion.

---

It isn't remotely religious, because as I made clear, the basic conjunctions are supported by millions of observations, and haven't been contradicted a single time. Religion is based on no observations and is often contradicted by observations. The point however is that it is just an observation, not a logical implication. There's no logical basis for thinking that something will continue to happen based on the fact that it's happened before... it just seems to work extremely well. And of course, call it what you want, it won't change the fact is that analysis shows it to be true.

Quote:

---

؟

---

?

Dunno either.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xei

It isn't remotely religious, because as I made clear, the basic conjunctions are supported by millions of observations, and haven't been contradicted a single time. Religion is based on no observations and is often contradicted by observations.

---

Not much substance here, for this can also support what you're arguing against. I wouldn't want to go on a tangent though...

Quote:

---

The point however is that it is just an observation, not a logical implication. There's no logical basis for thinking that something will continue to happen based on the fact that it's happened before... it just seems to work extremely well. And of course, call it what you want, it won't change the fact is that analysis shows it to be true.

---

Are you taking a step beyond causality and seeing it as a mere observation? Enough to say that, without it, phenomena 'just is'. Quite odd, coming from you.

Is there a form of logic to describe events that works better than 'causality'? And by 'better', I mean 'better than extremely well'. Perhaps it is just logic itself that works extremely well, but does not make it an actual thing either. Is there any real difference? Are you saying that there is something better?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by really

Not much substance here, for this can also support what you're arguing against. I wouldn't want to go on a tangent though...

---

I don't recall arguing against anything... I was just putting forward my opinion that causality is generally misunderstood to mean something much more potent than it actually is. When you analyse it the whole concept kind of melts away into nothing much at all. That was all I was arguing against.

Quote:

---

Are you taking a step beyond causality and seeing it as a mere observation? Enough to say that, without it, phenomena 'just is'. Quite odd, coming from you.

---

I don't know what this means. I'm not going 'beyond' causality... I don't know which mere observation you're referring to. I'm saying causality isn't an actual thing, there are just patterns in observation.

Quote:

---

Is there a form of logic to describe events that works better than 'causality'? And by 'better', I mean 'better than extremely well'. Perhaps it is just logic itself that works extremely well, but does not make it an actual thing either. Is there any real difference? Are you saying that there is something better?

---

I don't know what causality 'as a form of logic' means. The thing that works extremely well which I was referring to was induction. Induction itself is baseless, we really can't do any better.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xei

I don't recall arguing against anything... I was just putting forward my opinion that causality is generally misunderstood to mean something much more potent than it actually is. When you analyse it the whole concept kind of melts away into nothing much at all. That was all I was arguing against.

---

I got that. You argued against InvisibleWoman's statement, by making a vague contrast with religion.

Quote:

---

I don't know what causality 'as a form of logic' means. The thing that works extremely well which I was referring to was induction. Induction itself is baseless, we really can't do any better.

---

But isn't induction a form of logic? Isn't logic also not an 'actual thing'?

I ask these questions because you appear to be supporting a paradigm jump by showing how causality is less potent than widely believed; i.e. "It doesn't mean anything; it's a fictitious concept based on a baseless extrapolation from experience. A happens, and then B tends to happen after. There is no 'cause' in between; there's no 'therefore' either. It just is.". Don't you know that this is a great supporting point to a logical conclusion of God? Not directly what the O.P. was after, I must say.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xei

A happens, and then B tends to happen after. There is no 'cause' in between; there's no 'therefore' either. It just is. It's a constant conjunction. We can simplify some complex conjunctions into more basic conjunctions (this is the definition of science), but of course, this must terminate at some point. In the end all you're left with is a set of axiomatic conjunctions, supported by observation.

---

Hmm, does this not assume that all phenomenona are individual 'things'? When people mistakenly believe A causes B because A co-exists with B, and it's merely correlation, that's understandable. And I can see, in some way, how this applies to the presence of A happening to precede the presence of B - strictly, another correlation not causation. This makes intuitive sense to me if things are actually individual, separate things.

However, if everything is fundamentally 'linked' like a complex web, then is causation not necessary and obvious? That is if you accept that premise. Visually and simplistically, it'd be like you holding one end of a rope and me the other end. If I pull my end (A), you'll move toward me (B) - is that not clear causation? On the contrary, if we cannot see that rope and I motion my hands in a pulling fashion (A) and you move toward me (B), there is no clear causation, but there is correlation.

At the very base, is 'reality' not theorised to be intimately interconnected?

Edit: lol... it's funny though, because from the second part of the example, we could haphazardly say B always proceeds A, so there must be an unseen interconnection - a rope, if you will. But by strict definition--if we can't ever directly see the rope--that interconnection is an invention... a fitting concept. But a necessary induction, no? Hmmm

It really does depend on whether the base of reality being interconnected is a 'guess' to make sense of 'causality' or whether there really is an interconnection/web. When you say: "In the end all you're left with is a set of axiomatic conjunctions, supported by observation". That is true for now. But if science eventually penetrates to a point where it can perceive 'physical' interconnection, then causality can be accepted without induction...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xei

The analysis of causality and the arrow of time is so fascinating. The laws of physics are the same in both time directions, so it seems intuitively bizarre that we feel such an insurmountable disconnect with the past. As to what 'causality' actually means, Hume pretty much cracked that one. It doesn't mean anything; it's a fictitious concept based on a baseless extrapolation from experience. A happens, and then B tends to happen after. There is no 'cause' in between; there's no 'therefore' either. It just is. It's a constant conjunction. We can simplify some complex conjunctions into more basic conjunctions (this is the definition of science), but of course, this must terminate at some point. In the end all you're left with is a set of axiomatic conjunctions, supported by observation. If you subject a positively charged particle to an electric field, it will accelerate. Why? The question is meaningless. It just always has done. There's no cause, and no logical implication. It could fail to happen and we would not be able to raise any objections.

---

There is no such thing as causation? If a golf ball flies through your window after somebody hit the ball, the hitting of the ball was not the cause of the ball going through your window? Is it a coincidence? Are all apparent cause-effect relationships just coincidences?

There is no such thing as an uncaused event. The necessity of cause is part of what keeps order in the universe. There would be complete chaos without it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xaqaria

Who is to say that I haven't met myself from the future? Would my future self necessarily want me to know? Perhaps I just choose not to meet myself at all. Have you seen 12 monkeys? Bruce willis learns that even though he travels to the past, as far as the timeline is concerned, he already did it before he left, he didn't actually change anything.

Regardless, you agree that backwards causality is possible, so what are we arguing? If I can cause the past in the future by any method, then I could possibly cause the universe to be born from the future, thus qualifying as the creator, or god.

---

Your point about Bruce Willis does get around the contradiction I discussed, but there are other issues. I believe in backwards causality, but not in the complete removal of something from a point in time and appearance at another. Paths of time don't do loops. Your future cannot also be your past. What you will experience next is always your future. Teleporting to a scenario that you once experienced exactly would just be doing the same thing again. You would be watching history literally repeat itself, but you would not actually be going back in time. The idea contradicts itself.

What is your speculation on why we have no knowledge of anybody ever being visited by anybody from the future?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wolfwood

Hmm, does this not assume that all phenomenona are individual 'things'? When people mistakenly believe A causes B because A co-exists with B, and it's merely correlation, that's understandable. And I can see, in some way, how this applies to the presence of A happening to precede the presence of B - strictly, another correlation not causation. This makes intuitive sense to me if things are actually individual, separate things.

However, if everything is fundamentally 'linked' like a complex web, then is causation not necessary and obvious? That is if you accept that premise. Visually and simplistically, it'd be like you holding one end of a rope and me the other end. If I pull my end (A), you'll move toward me (B) - is that not clear causation? On the contrary, if we cannot see that rope and I motion my hands in a pulling fashion (A) and you move toward me (B), there is no clear causation, but there is correlation.

At the very base, is 'reality' not theorised to be intimately interconnected?

---

I'm not sure what message I can take from this... maybe I am missing your point, but it sounds like you are just elaborating the converse position, rather than giving evidence for it. What is the basis for this 'web'? And what is the 'web' anyway? You describe it like a series of invisible ropes... how could we ever ascertain whether there were truly ropes there if they are inherently unseen? Isn't the entire concept of a rope superfluous; we can do perfectly well by saying 'A happens and B tends to happen afterwards and that's just how things seem to be', rather than insisting 'A happens and then the rope happens and then B happens because of it and that's just how things are'. I think the entire insistence of 'ropes' is just based on an unjustified extrapolation from human experience, in the same way that we think Euclidean geometry is a necessary structure when really it's just the only bit we've ever been able to see with our biological eyes, or that solid, extended objects are necessary structures when in reality there is no such thing, there's just a bunch of quantum wave/particles. Once you extend it too far, the paradigm breaks. You say A pulling a rope which pulls B is an example of 'necessary and obvious' causation. But it really isn't; just try to delineate the exact train of causality. Repeatedly ask the question 'why'. In the end you won't be able to provide any explanation at all, just an assertion, and you would have zero basis to protest if that assertion one day failed to work for some unknown reason. Trying to explain fundamental conjunctions in terms of familiar, macroscopic things like ropes seems to me to be analogous to the people who insist that there must be some intuitive way to explain the results of quantum physics, in terms of solid, extended billiard balls. Hopefully you see clearly what the folly is here and why the concept of causality is very much the same.

Quote:

---

Edit: lol... it's funny though, because from the second part of the example, we could haphazardly say B always proceeds A, so there must be an unseen interconnection - a rope, if you will. But by strict definition--if we can't ever directly see the rope--that interconnection is an invention... a fitting concept. But a necessary induction, no? Hmmm

It really does depend on whether the base of reality being interconnected is a 'guess' to make sense of 'causality' or whether there really is an interconnection/web. When you say: "In the end all you're left with is a set of axiomatic conjunctions, supported by observation". That is true for now. But if science eventually penetrates to a point where it can perceive 'physical' interconnection, then causality can be accepted without induction...

---

It won't. It can't. And indeed, there's no reason to think that the concept even makes any sense. All science ever does is explain facts in terms of more common facts. People think science 'explains facts'. Period. But that's entirely wrong, there will always be some axiomatic facts upon which everything else follows. All science does is try to make these as general as possible. Just try to conceptualise what it would be like to explain something without relying on any axioms whatsoever. The whole idea is specious.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

There is no such thing as causation? If a golf ball flies through your window after somebody hit the ball, the hitting of the ball was not the cause of the ball going through your window? Is it a coincidence? Are all apparent cause-effect relationships just coincidences?

---

I'm not sure what 'coincidence' could mean in this context. Certainly we couldn't raise any logical objections if the golf club caused the ball to disappear, or caused it to go backwards. What would your argument be? Before you ever saw one object hit another, how could you possibly know what was going to happen to the objects? And if cause isn't a necessity, then what does it refer to? The crucial question is: why did the club 'cause' the golf ball to go forwards? What was 'the cause'? Explain further.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xei

I'm not sure what 'coincidence' could mean in this context.

---

The events that always go together and have people thinking there is a cause-effect relationship between them... Is it just a coincidence that they always occur together in the ways they do? The hitting of a golf ball is always followed by the movement of the golf ball. Always. Is it just a recurring coincidence? Why does one event always follow the other?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xei

Certainly we couldn't raise any logical objections if the golf club caused the ball to disappear, or caused it to go backwards. What would your argument be? Before you ever saw one object hit another, how could you possibly know what was going to happen to the objects? And if cause isn't a necessity, then what does it refer to? The crucial question is: why did the club 'cause' the golf ball to go forwards? What was 'the cause'? Explain further.

---

We would raise logical objections if the golf ball disappeared. The force of the golf club is transferred to the ball, and the ball moves because the force was transferred to it. That is a law of physics, and there are equations which mandate the movement of the golf ball upon being hit by a club. The hitting of the ball is why the golf ball moves the way it does. The hitting is thus the reason for what the golf ball does. The hitting is the cause.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

The events that always go together and have people thinking there is a cause-effect relationship between them... Is it just a coincidence that they always occur together in the ways they do? The hitting of a golf ball is always followed by the movement of the golf ball. Always. Is it just a recurring coincidence? Why does one event always follow the other?

---

Nobody knows. It just always has done. Maybe it won't one day. There's no telling if it's a necessary or otherwise. This is nicely demonstrated by the issue of the half-life of a proton. Nobody has ever seen one decay. That doesn't mean they necessarily don't decay. It just means we've never happened to see one decay. Maybe they do have a half-life, of a googol years. Maybe the half-life is a second.

Quote:

---

We would raise logical objections if the golf ball disappeared. The force of the golf club is transferred to the ball, and the ball moves because the force was transferred to it. That is a law of physics, and there are equations which mandate the movement of the golf ball upon being hit by a club.

---

I'm glad you answered this clearly because this was the whole reason I asked the question.

The laws of physics are not a priori categoricals, or 'logical', as you put it. They are simply an expression of an observed pattern, a posteriori.

Let's focus on the law at hand (well, there are a few laws we could invoke for the same effect, such as conservation of momentum, which is in itself telling, but let's stick to your advocated 'law', although it's more an instance of a general theory than a law of physics per se); the atoms of the golf club exert a force upon the atoms of the golf ball. To be more precise, the electrons of the club atoms are negatively charged, and exert a repulsive electrostatic force upon the electrons of the ball. By definition force is the acceleration per unit mass, so the ball accelerates forwards.

Now the next question: why does an electric charge exert a repulsive force upon a like electric charge? What is the causal link between the presence of a point with an abstract quantity we refer to as 'charge', and the acceleration of a second point to which we also attribute charge? How does one cause the other? And if an electron failed to accelerate another electron, but perhaps decelerated it, or did not move it at all, what would be our logical objection?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

We would raise logical objections if the golf ball disappeared. The force of the golf club is transferred to the ball, and the ball moves because the force was transferred to it. That is a law of physics, and there are equations which mandate the movement of the golf ball upon being hit by a club. The hitting of the ball is why the golf ball moves the way it does. The hitting is thus the reason for what the golf ball does. The hitting is the cause.

---

So you're just gonna argue with nature that it can't do that because some man found useful ways to describe our observation of it? It seems a bit like you're putting the cart before the horse, who's to say that the descriptions of our observations of nature aren't products of very limited time frames in an actually dynamical process?

I declined to elaborate at the time because I felt it was too tangential to my line of argument, but indeed, that is a serious scientific position right now; that there is in some sense or other a continuum of laws and that we simply find ourselves in those most conducive to consciousness. Which, to my mind, should be the ones with the most stable patterns. To attribute an inherent and ultimate stability to the law is clearly folly.

This reminds me of a great TED talk: Sean Carroll: Distant time and the hint of a multiverse | Video on TED.com.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wayfaerer

So you're just gonna argue with nature that it can't do that because some man found useful ways to describe our observation of it? It seems a bit like you're putting the cart before the horse, who's to say that the descriptions of our observations of nature aren't products of very limited time frames in an actually dynamical process?

---

They're not just useful ways. What I said is factual. There are laws of physics that require a ball to receive the force from a golf club. The energy has to go somewhere. Whether you believe the equations are realities that put requirements on physical objects doesn't address the fact that there are actual rules of reality that have been very well tested and objects have to follow them. It shows that cause and effect relationships are real.

What are your answers to the questions I asked Xei?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xei

I declined to elaborate at the time because I felt it was too tangential to my line of argument, but indeed, that is a serious scientific position right now; that there is in some sense or other a continuum of laws and that we simply find ourselves in those most conducive to consciousness. Which, to my mind, should be the ones with the most stable patterns. To attribute an inherent and ultimate stability to the law is clearly folly.

This reminds me of a great TED talk: Sean Carroll: Distant time and the hint of a multiverse | Video on TED.com.

---

I don't 100% rule out the existence of other continuums, but I think cause would be a requirement in all of them. The idea of uncaused events is something I put in a category with voo doo and witchcraft.

What is your answer to my question about coincidences?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xei

Nobody knows. It just always has done. Maybe it won't one day. There's no telling if it's a necessary or otherwise. This is nicely demonstrated by the issue of the half-life of a proton. Nobody has ever seen one decay. That doesn't mean they necessarily don't decay. It just means we've never happened to see one decay. Maybe they do have a half-life, of a googol years. Maybe the half-life is a second.


I'm glad you answered this clearly because this was the whole reason I asked the question.

The laws of physics are not a priori categoricals, or 'logical', as you put it. They are simply an expression of an observed pattern, a posteriori.

Let's focus on the law at hand (well, there are a few laws we could invoke for the same effect, such as conservation of momentum, which is in itself telling, but let's stick to your advocated 'law', although it's more an instance of a general theory than a law of physics per se); the atoms of the golf club exert a force upon the atoms of the golf ball. To be more precise, the electrons of the club atoms are negatively charged, and exert a repulsive electrostatic force upon the electrons of the ball. By definition force is the acceleration per unit mass, so the ball accelerates forwards.

Now the next question: why does an electric charge exert a repulsive force upon a like electric charge? What is the causal link between the presence of a point with an abstract quantity we refer to as 'charge', and the acceleration of a second point to which we also attribute charge? How does one cause the other? And if an electron failed to accelerate another electron, but perhaps decelerated it, or did not move it at all, what would be our logical objection?

---

Like I said above, the need for cause is what I think is universal to all possible realms of existence.

The laws of physics as they are determine the types of cause and effect relationships things have. The transfer of energy/force from the golf club is a law of physics that might be different in other realms, but it proves the existence of cause and effect relationships. That was my major point.

When I say "laws" as it pertains to physics, I am not talking about just the expressions of observed phenomena. I am talking about the rules of reality that they represent. Maybe I should use "rules of physics" or "laws of the universe."

Um... I did answer your questions? Or at least, I attempted to. I even sectioned off that bit of the quote to make it clear. I don't see any response to my question, however..? And I can't go much further till then, because that question is central to what I'm trying to convey. You restated your position, but I already understand your position; what I'm doing now is analysing the basis of that position.

Well you didn't address my question, Xei. Could you respond?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

When I say "laws" as it pertains to physics, I am not talking about just the expressions of observed phenomena. I am talking about the rules of reality that they represent. Maybe I should use "rules of physics" or "laws of the universe."

---

Unfortunately, whether 'causality' is called a rule or law doesn't make it any more legitimate than it already is; laws and rules are inevitably man made and are also limited to conditions. That representation can only go so far.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

There is no such thing as an uncaused event. The necessity of cause is part of what keeps order in the universe. There would be complete chaos without it.

---

Actually, I think we would be surprised, because we can probably all argue that there is no uncaused event. But perhaps 'events' and 'causes' are no different. Events can equate to the superficiality of the cause-effect concept. Without causes, events are equally arbitrary. They're really just another word for 'effect'. Yes, the event of the club striking the golf ball was equally as arbitrary as the cause you associated with it. What about the other infinite number of unstated events you 'ignored'?

I hope that illustrates the plasticity of the notion of 'cause', and that it is more reliant as a form of linguistics than actuality. That is why you think it is universal.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

We would raise logical objections if the golf ball disappeared. The force of the golf club is transferred to the ball, and the ball moves because the force was transferred to it. That is a law of physics, and there are equations which mandate the movement of the golf ball upon being hit by a club. The hitting of the ball is why the golf ball moves the way it does. The hitting is thus the reason for what the golf ball does. The hitting is the cause.

---

You may be correct, but in considering those small number of observed conditions - not even a blip in the infinite sea of invisible conditions, such a 'cause', like all others, has no guarantee to be practical beyond a description; a description of a local scenario.

Even though it is just a description, you cannot really describe what is invisible and so it only applies to what you observe. Why not say the wind caused the damage? Maybe you did not observe the wind that was nearby the house window. Why not say the lack of wind caused the golf ball to be blown through the glass? After all, maybe you chose to strike at it when there was no wind.


I think we can also consider that mankind probably had more faith in the concept of cause in the past than today. Just imagine that we have never became technologically and scientifically advanced enough to describe quantum mechanics, or other multidimensional topics. As we evolve so do our concepts of reality, and we realize that reality is much bigger than we made it out to be; that they were a reflection of our scope of comprehension.

You need to explain your question better, specifically what you mean by 'logic'.

In addition, what I said is in no way a proof of God. A proof is supposed to be rigorous; I don't even have any clue where the conclusion is coming from, let alone if it's a solid line of reasoning. So, if you are going to bring points like that up and you want a response, it'd be a good idea to provide something substantial rather than just an assertion. I can't discuss an assertion.

Saying that, even if there is an extradimensional spectrum of reality, it all must adhere to laws of cause an effect since that is what seems to work here seems a lot like saying that water must be on every planet in the universe since it is here and we need it to live. We are able to have this discussion because we coexist in a stable timeline but the timeline could just as easily not exist and then we just wouldn't be able to talk about it.

seems like a hollow argument. First, this is implying that the universe is deterministic, which it does not seem to be. Second, where have you heard that infinite retro causality is possible?

Only read the first post, and If you Could Control all physics I don't think that you can time travel ever, I think It is impossible to be able to because you can't create matter, or destroy matter, not really it just gets transferred into some other form of matter, and if you went back in time you would be forcing your matter into it and that would be impossible since there was only ever one set amount of matter. maybe I'm wrong though cause I used to believe in time travel.

My time travel device only lets me go in one direction.

Using science as a means to prove the existence of God. A little fruity, no?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cloudinsane

Using science as a means to prove the existence of God. A little fruity, no?

---

Fruity? Maybe. Futile? Probably.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Phion

Fruity? Maybe. Futile? Probably.

---

As is using God to explain scientific concepts? ^_^

I had to break it up like this before being able to read it decently:

"If through the use of the scientific method humankind could, given enough time, come to understand and therefore control all aspects of physical reality,
and if modern physics is correct in that there is no inherent physical limitations for backwards (in time) causality,
then it stands to reason that humankind or another sentient race will eventually control all of physical existence
and when they do they already have done it at all points in history from end to end or throughout however time is structured,

therefore god."

Hence that I failed to understand how or where to put the last part in there. I'm not retarded as far as I know, but I fail to comprehend. Anyone help me out please..

I think you're confusing scientific theories with scientific facts.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wayfaerer

So you're just gonna argue with nature that it can't do that because some man found useful ways to describe our observation of it? It seems a bit like you're putting the cart before the horse, who's to say that the descriptions of our observations of nature aren't products of very limited time frames in an actually dynamical process?

---

That is logical. The more complicated the explanation becomes, the more unlikely it becomes.
The explanation we have now explains that event and many others without a flaw.

This is not flawed.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xei

You need to explain your question better, specifically what you mean by 'logic'.

In addition, what I said is in no way a proof of God. A proof is supposed to be rigorous; I don't even have any clue where the conclusion is coming from, let alone if it's a solid line of reasoning. So, if you are going to bring points like that up and you want a response, it'd be a good idea to provide something substantial rather than just an assertion. I can't discuss an assertion.

---

You can't discuss an assertion, but you seem to already know the answer? I wouldn't use the word 'proof' either, but it is arguably a form of logic, to say (I quote again):

Xei: As to what 'causality' actually means, Hume pretty much cracked that one. It doesn't mean anything; it's a fictitious concept based on a baseless extrapolation from experience. A happens, and then B tends to happen after. There is no 'cause' in between; there's no 'therefore' either. It just is. It's a constant conjunction.

You can pick nearly any well received (widely agreed) characteristic of the monotheistic God, and you can support it from the above wisdom.

E.g. Timeless - if causality doesn't mean anything, time also fails to mean anything. As such, the further statement: "It just is" bears a lot of truth in the existence of eternity. A and B also disappear as fictional events or 'effects' of cause, if cause ceases to exist, further supporting the interplay of time as an artifact of perception and not reality.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xaqaria

Saying that, even if there is an extradimensional spectrum of reality, it all must adhere to laws of cause an effect since that is what seems to work here seems a lot like saying that water must be on every planet in the universe since it is here and we need it to live. We are able to have this discussion because we coexist in a stable timeline but the timeline could just as easily not exist and then we just wouldn't be able to talk about it.

---

I'm not fully sure what your stance is here, but it appears to be going against your OP, wouldn't you say?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cloudinsane

Using science as a means to prove the existence of God. A little fruity, no?

---

Unfortunately not enough for a tomato.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by really

You can't discuss an assertion, but you seem to already know the answer? I wouldn't use the word 'proof' either, but it is arguably a form of logic, to say (I quote again):

Xei: As to what 'causality' actually means, Hume pretty much cracked that one. It doesn't mean anything; it's a fictitious concept based on a baseless extrapolation from experience. A happens, and then B tends to happen after. There is no 'cause' in between; there's no 'therefore' either. It just is. It's a constant conjunction.

You can pick nearly any well received (widely agreed) characteristic of the monotheistic God, and you can support it from the above wisdom.

E.g. Timeless - if causality doesn't mean anything, time also fails to mean anything. As such, the further statement: "It just is" bears a lot of truth in the existence of eternity. A and B also disappear as fictional events or 'effects' of cause, if cause ceases to exist, further supporting the interplay of time as an artifact of perception and not reality.

---

I asked you to explain what you meant by 'logic' when you said that induction was a kind of logic. All you've done is repeated the term 'form of logic'... I still don't know what this means. Also I don't understand how what you quoted was relevant to the point you were supposed to be discussing about induction. That's what I asked you to clarify, I don't know what you're talking about now.

As to your claim that what I said implies all of the qualities of God, that clearly isn't true. For a start most people don't identify a monotheistic God with the universe itself as you are doing, they identify it as a creation of God, and God as something beyond this creation. So the properties of the universe are not identical with the properties of God. Even if we were to grant this, there are many canonical qualities of monotheistic God that my description of cause in the universe does not imply. For instance, omnipotence, and intention. If there is no such thing as a categorical cause, that clearly eliminates the idea that a universal force could act solely by its will upon matter in the universe, as such an action by definition requires cause to be a real entity. I also dispute the claim that my thoughts about causality imply 'timelessness' in the first place; at any rate this claim needs elucidation. I said that certain things 'just do' follow on from certain other things and we don't have access to any logical imperative: that doesn't mean that the concept of 'following on' is illegitimate... quite the opposite, it is essentially what I identified with cause.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xei

I asked you to explain what you meant by 'logic' when you said that induction was a kind of logic. All you've done is repeated the term 'form of logic'... I still don't know what this means. Also I don't understand how what you quoted was relevant to the point you were supposed to be discussing about induction. That's what I asked you to clarify, I don't know what you're talking about now.

---

It was more of a response to your second paragraph (quoted in my previous post), which is about God. I don't see any need to explain what I mean by logic, since in those instances I'm the one asking you the questions; based on the way you have worded your posts. If you agree or disagree, then explain; that is why I am asking.

"Form of logic", without being too difficult, is a phrase that indicates a kind or category of logic that you may be using; in this case, I imply that causality is a form of logic since you mention that it is based of observation that is concordant to all the different apparent conditions, which are supported by predictability. The obvious weakness is that 'cause' is still a mysterious label that has no actual external existence.

Why isn't induction a form of logic?

Quote:

---

As to your claim that what I said implies all of the qualities of God, that clearly isn't true. For a start most people don't identify a monotheistic God with the universe itself as you are doing, they identify it as a creation of God, and God as something beyond this creation. So the properties of the universe are not identical with the properties of God. Even if we were to grant this, there are many canonical qualities of monotheistic God that my description of cause in the universe does not imply. For instance, omnipotence, and intention. If there is no such thing as a categorical cause, that clearly eliminates the idea that a universal force could act solely by its will upon matter in the universe, as such an action by definition requires cause to be a real entity.

---

I'll rephrase my statement by adding that, the solution in some cases is recontextualized and interpreted better. For instance, not many people really consider that God being beyond Creation and God being one with Creation can be true simultaneously, however the latter statement must still take priority. That is because conceptually, something must be singular before you can divide it, and even if it is divided it is only so because of the way it is conceptualized. If there literally was a seperation between God and Creation, it is a much more naive concept that is not only harder to believe, but impossible to know.

Also, as you already pointed out, it does not seem to work with Omnipotence. The solution to this is that the although the concept of Omnipotence was concerned with power and will, it doesn't require notions of 'action' and 'force', or any other term that indicates a separation; a division between God the and universe. Power and will exist in the totality of the universe as a singularity - which is supported by a causeless universe, and therefore a universe of Karma.

If you take a look at Universal Mind's signature, you'll see he quoted something from me, probably when I was arguing the same point. Omnipotence is all-powerful by virtue of being it; by virtue of being all power. That the Creator exists within Creation is true power; true power cannot be destroyed and cannot inflict total destruction. Even to suggest something like "The Big Crunch" on the universe is not total destruction, and I wouldn't be surprised if the laws of physics agreed.

Quote:

---

I also dispute the claim that my thoughts about causality imply 'timelessness' in the first place; at any rate this claim needs elucidation. I said that certain things 'just do' follow on from certain other things and we don't have access to any logical imperative: that doesn't mean that the concept of 'following on' is illegitimate... quite the opposite, it is essentially what I identified with cause.

---

However you stated that causality was both fictional and meaningless. And that there was no 'cause' and no 'therefore'. What is the necessity to apply "following on" between A and B? In that case, it must still mean something.

Probably worthy of a merge, Logical Proof of God #½.

Phion, you are obviously interested in the thread since you continue to read it. Why don't you try to contribute instead of making useless smarmy little comments?

Really, if you didn't understand what I was getting at, how can you say it is a contradiction? I think it may seem like a contradiction because even when talking about an advanced race that can transcend space and time, I am forced to use references to time and causation in order to conform to normal english language even though they don't exactly apply anymore. Though I am arguing for a form of existence that is independent of time, I'm not sure how to communicate it exactly in a language that assumes its existence.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xaqaria

Phion, you are obviously interested in the thread since you continue to read it. Why don't you try to contribute instead of making useless smarmy little comments?

---

Alright. Judging from what our participants have been discussion so far, it looks as though we can't get past the initial step of finding a framework to begin making a connection between dichotomous subjects (logic, spirituality, physics, religion, spattering of philosophy). Bridging these concepts would be a huge feat, but in my opinion futile, but that may just be my tendency for categorization seeping over. These layers should probably be build from the ground up, starting with the most widely accepted, sturdiest form of thought all the way up to what your attempting to prove, ie. God. I think we're missing a few ingredients here, but what do I know? Makes me want to drink excessively to be honest.

Xei, it sounds like what really is trying to say is that even the notion that B follows A assumes a certain order of events. I can't be sure if he is saying that order is significant or purely subjective though. If it is significant and the perceived flow of time is an inherent part of the universe, then even if we can't say that a specific event like hitting a golf ball causes another event like the ball moving, we can still say that the entire universal state that contained the ball and club before impact caused the universal state that contained the ball and club after contact just based on a natural flow of continuity. Another example might be pages in a book in which page 5 may not expressly cause page 6 based on any physical laws but page 6's contents could not be what they are without page 5's contents being what they are.

Yeah I agree with that. It also suggests that causality is insignificant (as is order) and inaccurate when considering the entire universal state at once (since there are infinite conditions, excluding other conditions creates observational bias).

And, just to add to my rambling about Omnipotence - how it relates to what you (Xei) said about causality: A universe/reality that is dependent on nothing and caused by nothing must be absolutely powerful. That is self-explanatory, because there's nothing that could destroy it, since it is by identity, all that ever was and all that can be.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Phion

Probably worthy of a merge, Logical Proof of God #½.

---

I guess that's better than being only ½ funny?

Kidding aside, why do you think you need so many ingredients? Maybe there is a way to look at only two fundamental variables: science and God (not religion), and see how they can co-exist by considering a major paradigm difference, but not considering a battle where one side has to lose. Having said that, any 'proof' is really indirect: a proof that follows from logic/reason's inherent limitations on reality, rather than tangible or experimental evidence.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xaqaria

Really, if you didn't understand what I was getting at, how can you say it is a contradiction? I think it may seem like a contradiction because even when talking about an advanced race that can transcend space and time, I am forced to use references to time and causation in order to conform to normal english language even though they don't exactly apply anymore. Though I am arguing for a form of existence that is independent of time, I'm not sure how to communicate it exactly in a language that assumes its existence.

---

Well it appeared that you were disagreeing or doubting what your OP stated about knowledge of the universe (causality, time/space) because it might only reflect that man can talk about or understand it thoroughly in one domain (post #47). Then again, you did prefix that it was all hypothetical, so I think I get it now.