God - the primal-cause of all effects.

[lifegazer]

In this thread, I have three aims:-
(1) To define what an absolute causal-agent must be.
(2) To show you that such an entity exists.
(3) To show you why such an entity must be a living/sentient God.

This first post will cover my first aim. I believe that in itself, this definition will be an interesting read...

1. Dealing with the definition.

All materialists abhor the idea of an absolute causal-agent.
Why? Because as soon as we see evidence or reason for an absolute causal-agent, we are entering the realm of a God.
Why? Because an absolute causal-agent must, itself, be defined as an entity that has not been effected by any other entity... nor is dependent upon any other entity/medium for its own existence.
... If logic pursues the definition of an absolute causal-agent with any kind of stringent reasoning, there can be no leeway which enables us to define such agents as effects of other entities, nor leeway which enables us to define such agents as dependents of an external environment.
In short, stringent-reasoning would define the existence of an absolute causal-agent as neither effected by anything else nor dependent upon anything else.

... As such, stringent-reasoning would only allow for the existence of ONE absolute causal-agent #(henceforth, an ACA)# within existence.
... Why? Because clearly, given the aforementioned stringent-reasoning, there cannot be two (or more) ACA's within the same existence, since this would mean that they share the same environment and are thus dependent upon that environment for their own existence.

... Moreover, if an ACA exists and is not dependent upon an external environment for its own existence, then NOTHING else exists beyond said ACA.!!

... Also, if nothing else can exist beyond an ACA and It is the absolute-cause of all things that proceed it, then we see that the ACA is/was existence itself and that all proceeding effects exist within that existence and are ~somehow~ derivatives of it.

This post is already too long to continue with points 2 & 3. Anyhow, I want the reader to absorb this definition since I believe it to be profound/interesting in itself.
Given that at least some of you are reasonable people and can understand a reasoned-definition when you see one, my next aim will be to show you that an ACA actually does exist and will present my evidence for this claim.

Thanks for reading my posts. I appreciate your time.

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Lifegazer said:
Why? Because clearly, given the aforementioned stringent-reasoning, there cannot be two (or more) ACA's within the same existence, since this would mean that they share the same environment and are thus dependent upon that environment for their own existence.
Hold on. Why do two ACAs have to share an environment, whereas a single ACA doesn't have an environment at all? That doesn't make sense.

... Moreover, if an ACA exists and is not dependent upon an external environment for its own existence, then NOTHING else exists beyond said ACA.!!

... Also, if nothing else can exist beyond an ACA and It is the absolute-cause of all things that proceed it, then we see that the ACA is/was existence itself and that all proceeding effects exist within that existence and are ~somehow~ derivatives of it.
Indeed, if you define the ACA so that nothing exists except it, then it must be existence itself, since things obviously exist.

Okay, so far we have ACA = existence. I'll stipulate that existence exists, so I think you can move on to point (3).

~~ Paul

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by Paul C. Anagnostopoulos
Hold on. Why do two ACAs have to share an environment, whereas a single ACA doesn't have an environment at all? That doesn't make sense.

An ACA is it's own environment: it is existence.
Two ACA's within [a singular (as a whole)] existence are obviously dependent upon the medium in which they share that existence and which separates them apart from one another.

Indeed, if you define the ACA so that nothing exists except it, then it must be existence itself, since things obviously exist.

What? I can't tell if you're agreeing with me here or not.

Okay, so far we have ACA = existence. I'll stipulate that existence exists, so I think you can move on to point (3).

You have made at least one complaint/enquiry regarding point-1. So why do you wanna skip point-2 which will try to explain why such an entity exists?

Your response is confusing. Please clarify. I don't intend to move onto points 2 & 3 until I know a few - at least - people are happy with point-1.

[Marquis de Carabas]

Originally posted by lifegazer
In short, stringent-reasoning would define the existence of an absolute causal-agent as neither effected by anything else nor dependent upon anything else.
One thing I'd like cleared up here. Is your case that the ACA is not affected by anything else to be taken to mean:

[list=a]
until it has caused the existence of another actor, it cannot be affected
it cannot be affected by any other actor subsequent to actor's creation
[/list=a]

The reason I ask is that it seems from other of your posts in other threads that you believe our perceptions and actions can have an effect on God (who I assume will be your nomination for ACA. Forgive, please, if I'm jumping ahead.)

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by Marquis de Carabas
One thing I'd like cleared up here. Is your case that the ACA is not affected by anything else to be taken to mean:

I said Effected... not Affected.
... Significant difference.

Please signify that your post has any relevance now I have corrected this error and then I will reconsider your post.

[Marquis de Carabas]

Originally posted by lifegazer
I said Effected... not Affected.
... Significant difference.

Please signify that your post has any relevance now I have corrected this error and then I will reconsider your post.
That clears it up, thanks. Sorry I missed the letter difference. I'm ready for point two whenever you are.

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by Marquis de Carabas
That clears it up, thanks. Sorry I missed the letter difference. I'm ready for point two whenever you are.
Thanks MdC - really. I mean, there's no point in me going to points 2 & 3 until I get a few people -at least - agreeing to the fact that I have defined this ACA clearly. So I am thankful of your affirmation.
Given that I'll get another one or two people accepting shortly, I'll probably proceed to points 2 & 3 tomorrow.

[balrog666]

All materialists abhor the idea of an absolute causal-agent.
Why? Because as soon as we see evidence or reason for an absolute causal-agent, we are entering the realm of a God.



BWAAAAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHA!



Oh well, at least you didn't introduce the idea of "religion"!

[Dogwood]

Originally posted by lifegazer

... If logic pursues the definition of an absolute causal-agent with any kind of stringent reasoning, there can be no leeway which enables us to define such agents as effects of other entities, nor leeway which enables us to define such agents as dependents of an external environment.
In short, stringent-reasoning would define the existence of an absolute causal-agent as neither effected by anything else nor dependent upon anything else.

... As such, stringent-reasoning would only allow for the existence of ONE absolute causal-agent #(henceforth, an ACA)# within existence.
... Why? Because clearly, given the aforementioned stringent-reasoning, there cannot be two (or more) ACA's within the same existence, since this would mean that they share the same environment and are thus dependent upon that environment for their own existence.



Just following a thought here. Could we not have two completely independent universes which each consist of completely independent ACA's? The two ACA's/universes become aware of each other at one point, the mere act of which influences them each irrevocably. Could not the two merge creating a new universe in which there was no true ACA? If this is possible, could not there be a similar situation with an infinite number of universes/ACA's? Either merging into one homogenous ACA or into a mish-mash of a hetergeneous universe with no ACA at all?

[The Cats Venm]

Though I object to your mischaracterization of materialists and think your idea is hardly profound, I believe I understand what you are saying.

Tell me if this is right:

This ACA must be singular and encompass everything otherwise the 'nothing' that it exists in would be have to be 'something'.

[Anathema]

Originally posted by lifegazer
An ACA is it's own environment: it is existence.
Two ACA's within [a singular (as a whole)] existence are obviously dependent upon the medium in which they share that existence and which separates them apart from one another.
Would it be fair to rephrase that as: Trying to place two ACA's within a single existence would be impossible, as their mutual dependence on their shared medium would violate the "absoluteness" of both ACA's?

[T'ai Chi]

So what caused this ACA?

[MRC_Hans]

All materialists abhor the idea of an absolute causal-agent.

Why? Because as soon as we see evidence or reason for an absolute causal-agent, we are entering the realm of a God.
Mmm, who ARE these daft materialists you spiritualists keep talking about?

So, let's just write that off as a straw-man.

The second part is also wrong. You see, the absolute (or shall we call it original?) causal agent is only in the realm of god if you cater to determinism, which no sane materialist does.

No reason to go further, since the very basis of your argumentation has hereby been refuted.

Hans

[Zombified]

Originally posted by lifegazer
All materialists abhor the idea of an absolute causal-agent.
Really? Of course, this is of no consequence to your argument, because you wouldn't discard an objection merely because it was attributed to a materialist. That would be an ad hominem fallacy.
Why?Oh, good, 'cause I was gonna ask.
Because as soon as we see evidence or reason for an absolute causal-agent, we are entering the realm of a God.

That's quite a leap.
Why?Indeed. It's going to take a lot of explaining.
Because an absolute causal-agent must, itself, be defined as an entity that has not been effected by any other entity... nor is dependent upon any other entity/medium for its own existence.
This I would treat as a definition of your term, I suppose. But I don't see what this has to do with God.
... If logic pursues the definition of an absolute causal-agent with any kind of stringent reasoning, there can be no leeway which enables us to define such agents as effects of other entities, nor leeway which enables us to define such agents as dependents of an external environment.So what you're saying is a primally causal entity cannot be influenced by an environment. Gotcha.
In short, stringent-reasoning would define the existence of an absolute causal-agent as neither effected by anything else nor dependent upon anything else.It would seem I interpreted your definition correctly, then.
... As such, stringent-reasoning would only allow for the existence of ONE absolute causal-agent #(henceforth, an ACA)# within existence. Interesting conclusion.
... Why?Very good question.
Because clearly, given the aforementioned stringent-reasoning, there cannot be two (or more) ACA's within the same existence, since this would mean that they share the same environment and are thus dependent upon that environment for their own existence.Clearly, two such entities cannot share an environment. However, it would appear that one such entity cannot have an environment at all. It must be entirely self-contained. There cannot be anything external to it.
... Moreover, if an ACA exists and is not dependent upon an external environment for its own existence, then NOTHING else exists beyond said ACA.!!Ah, indeed. I cannot quite say we are on the same page, but so far so good.
... Also, if nothing else can exist beyond an ACA and It is the absolute-cause of all things that proceed it, then we see that the ACA is/was existence itself and that all proceeding effects exist within that existence and are ~somehow~ derivatives of it.Is there significance to the color, or is it just decorative?

It certainly follows that if no external influence can affect something, you may as well treat it as if there was nothing external to it.

It is not clear that this definition does you much good. I mean, you effectively defined your "ACA" as "everything". Well, experimentally speaking, "everything" has an internal structure. So your "ACA" has an internal structure. So there are parts, at least, of your "ACA" which would seem to contradict the intuitive meaning of the words "absolutely causal agent". Of course, one must be careful not to conflate casual usage with precise definitions.

You can't really make any statement about causality within "everything" based on this definition. You've only dealt with causality outside "everything" and I think we can agree there's no question about that: the universe does not influence and is not influenced by anything outside the universe. Yay!

[Z]

This, of course, assumes an ACA exists at all.

If we do assume this ACA exists, and the ACA is neither caused by (effected by - weird use of the word, but I get it) nor dependant upon (affected by, but I can see where you might not want to use that term) any thing external to itself, there must be, prior to creation, nothing external to itself. After all, we haven't yet established if the ACA remains such AFTER the creation process.

However, at the point of creation, we no longer know what situation such an entity is in. Having created a Universe, it may have very well ceased to exist itself, or have become fundamentally altered; it may even be dependant upon that universe, or it may continue on as always, but sufficiently removed from our universe to remain an ACA for other universes as well (multidimensional theory).

IN any case, even if the ACA is with us now, somehow, the fact that an ACA cannot be dependant upon anything, means that nothing can influence it; and therefore, no action, thought, or will of Mankind can in any way influence an ACA, nor alter an ACA's fundamental function.

So, yet again, in the third thread on the same subject (essentially), the basis for your religion is proven to be fundamentally flawed.

I suspect, you will blow a large load of smoke, pretend to be confused or take offence whenever we discuss why you are wrong, and then run for a fourth thread. Certainly, you won't be mature and logical enough to return to the older thread and face the reasons that you are wrong.

All of your flawed reasoning aside, though, let's hear why you think such an ACA exists.

Mind you, I don't necessarily disagree that an ACA did exist; however, the flaw I see is that you are once again aiming for your singularity argument, wherein everything is 0-dimensional and contained within God, and which has already been proven wrong in other threads. Explain why you believe that, if an ACA DID exist, that it still exists; and why, if it does still exist, that it must contain all existence and still be not dependant upon existence.

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by Anathema
Would it be fair to rephrase that as: Trying to place two ACA's within a single existence would be impossible, as their mutual dependence on their shared medium would violate the "absoluteness" of both ACA's?
Yes, sounds better.

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by MRC_Hans
The second part is also wrong. You see, the absolute (or shall we call it original?) causal agent is only in the realm of god if you cater to determinism, which no sane materialist does.

No reason to go further, since the very basis of your argumentation has hereby been refuted.

You haven't refuted jack here.

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by Zombified
"Because an absolute causal-agent must, itself, be defined as an entity that has not been effected by any other entity... nor is dependent upon any other entity/medium for its own existence."

This I would treat as a definition of your term, I suppose. But I don't see what this has to do with God.

Wait for part 3.

It is not clear that this definition does you much good. I mean, you effectively defined your "ACA" as "everything". Well, experimentally speaking, "everything" has an internal structure. So your "ACA" has an internal structure. So there are parts, at least, of your "ACA" which would seem to contradict the intuitive meaning of the words "absolutely causal agent". Of course, one must be careful not to conflate casual usage with precise definitions.

I defined the ACA as the cause of everything.
Note: We have yet to discuss the reality of those things... hence please note that "So your "ACA" has an internal structure" is conjecture at this point.

It might be a wise move on my part to do part 3 before I do
part 2.

[Z]

Tough call, LG - I'd be more interested in your logic in part 2 than in part 3 - but I'm only one voice. IMO, prooving something exists at all is more important than proving its nature, function, or properties. Much like homeopathy.

[Prester John]

Originally posted by jzs
So what caused this ACA?

I think the idea is that the ACA doesn't have a cause and thus requires absolute to be repeated and written in bold. The idea being to get around the what caused god problem. As others have pointed out the ACA seems to have been defined as everything. Should be interesting to see how it progresses from here.
:)

[MRC_Hans]

Originally posted by lifegazer
You haven't refuted jack here. Of course not. Wouldn't dream of it. Heck, I don't even KNOW Jack.

Lifegazer, materialism does not exclude acausal events. It is only if you exclude acausality (determinism) that you end up with deism, because otherwise you cannot explain how everything began.

In materialism, however, we are aware that acausality exists (QM), so we do not need a deity to start things.

Hans

[MRC_Hans]

Originally posted by Prester John
I think the idea is that the ACA doesn't have a cause and thus requires absolute to be repeated and written in bold. The idea being to get around the what caused god problem. As others have pointed out the ACA seems to have been defined as everything. Should be interesting to see how it progresses from here.
:) Typical problem for deists who try to be logical (not to be confused with Logical Deists :eek: ). Once they get around to a definition for God that makes sense, it turns out to be:

God = "everything"

Then, of course, we have proof that God exists, since we must agree that "everything" exists, but at the same time, the properties of God become indistinguishable from materialism.

Hans

[uruk]

defined the ACA as the cause of everything.
Note: We have yet to discuss the reality of those things... hence please note that "So your "ACA" has an internal structure" is conjecture at this point.


I'm following you so far. But there are some interesting points brought up by zaardragon, MRC_Hans and others.

The ACA could just be an initial state; there is no particular reason to believe that there is any "intelligence" or "conciousness" behind this ACA.
Also I have to agree with Zombified, If the ACA is indeed "everything" then there has to be "parts" or "differentiation" from the things in the ACA. Even if those things are "illusions", as I'm certain you bring up, There is the differentiation between the illusion and that which is having the illusion. There has to be a "mechanisim" or "process"(for lack of better words) that allows he ACA to have illusions. This is especially true if the ACA is intelligent. There has to be a separation between the ACA's conciousness and the illusion.

The ACA cannot be dimensionless. If the ACA exists or exists onto itself, there has to be points of refrence within or of itself. Existance implies a medium or matrix or "something" for which to refrence itself (i.e. that which is illusion and that which is not illusion)
Now before you start with the "you can't compare something that exists with something that does not exist argument; consider this analogy. The "things" in our imagination is not "real" in comparision to our brain but the there is still a "physical" process in the brain which facilitates the "imagination".

If everything is an illusion within this ACA then there has to be a "part" of the ACA which facilitates this illusion.

Then there is the is:
If the ACA is everything, and everything is an illusion, then the ACA is an illusion.
Otherwise, you have to consider the points in my argument

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by MRC_Hans
In materialism, however, we are aware that acausality exists (QM), so we do not need a deity to start things.

Let's nip this in the bud right-away...

We have sensations which themselves paint a portrait of "things". These sensed-things are not real in themselves but are abstract representations of a world.
First we have sensations... which then directly yield the awareness of things. Hence "sensed-things".

(1) All sensations have a cause.
(2) All sensed-things have a cause - the sensations themselves.
(3) Any "thing" seen within awareness, through our senses, absolutely-cannot be defined as "acausal" itself.

There is no-thing in the sensed-world that is acausal. Indeed, the concept of acausality only applies to an ACA.

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by Prester John
I think the idea is that the ACA doesn't have a cause and thus requires absolute to be repeated and written in bold. The idea being to get around the what caused god problem. As others have pointed out the ACA seems to have been defined as everything. Should be interesting to see how it progresses from here.
:)
The very definition of an ACA is something that has not been effected itself.
Given this understanding, wouldn't you say it was quite dumb to ask what caused an ACA to exist?

By default, an ACA is acausal and just is.

[Piscivore]

Originally posted by lifegazer
There is no-thing in the sensed-world that is acausal. Indeed, the concept of acausality only applies to an ACA.

Because you say so?

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by uruk
The ACA could just be an initial state; there is no particular reason to believe that there is any "intelligence" or "conciousness" behind this ACA.

You're running ahead of the conversation. We haven't got there yet.

Also I have to agree with Zombified, If the ACA is indeed "everything" then there has to be "parts" or "differentiation" from the things in the ACA.

The ACA is the singular existence which preceded the existence of [sensed] "things". There can only be one ACA, as explained, and any-thing else which comes to exist does so after this entity (since this entity is the causal-agent of those things).

I am now in a position to extend the definition of an ACA, because if an ACA exists and is shown to be the singular-essence of existence itself, then that ACA must be INDIVISIBLE. An absolutely-singular existence is an indivisible existence.

This realisation opens the door to another: An indivisible entity is a non-spatial entity.
Therefore, if an ACA exists, it is a non-spatial (non-physical) entity.
Now if that aint profound, I don't know what is.

This is a very important addition to my earlier definition.

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by Piscivore
"There is no-thing in the sensed-world that is acausal. Indeed, the concept of acausality only applies to an ACA."

Because you say so?
An acausal-entity is something that has not been effected or is not dependent upon its external environment for its own existence. It's the same as an ACA.

[uruk]

I am now in a position to extend the definition of an ACA, because if an ACA exists and is shown to be the singular-essence of existence itself, then that ACA must be INDIVISIBLE. An absolutely-singular existence is an indivisible existence.
But I've shown you that the ACA cannot be indivisible. Inorder for it to exist it has to be "something" which defines it's existance. something that differentiates it from nonexistance. And if it is "intelligent" and it has illusions, there must be something which facilitates that conciousness and illusion. Not to mention something that separates the conciousness from the illusion.
This ACA HAS to have different parts in order for it to function as you say it does.

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by uruk
But I've shown you that the ACA cannot be indivisible.

No you haven't.

Inorder for it to exist it has to be "something" which defines it's existance. something that differentiates it from nonexistance.

Yes...

And if it is "intelligent" and it has illusions, there must be something which facilitates that conciousness and illusion. Not to mention something that separates the conciousness from the illusion.

The illusion occurs upon the 'fabric' of consciousnes itself. It is not apart from it. The illusion isn't even real so there aint no sense in saying that it has to be separated from consciousness. It IS consciousness.

Anyway, you're still running ahead of where the conversation has presently got to. Please only discuss the definition itself.

[lifegazer]

[I've decided to repost the OP to include the additional definition I made about an hour ago - it's the highlighted bit at the bottom.]

God - the primal-cause of all effects.
In this thread, I have three aims:-
(1) To define what an absolute causal-agent must be.
(2) To show you that such an entity exists.
(3) To show you why such an entity must be a living/sentient God.

This first post will cover my first aim. I believe that in itself, this definition will be an interesting read...

1. Dealing with the definition.

All materialists abhor the idea of an absolute causal-agent.
Why? Because as soon as we see evidence or reason for an absolute causal-agent, we are entering the realm of a God.
Why? Because an absolute causal-agent must, itself, be defined as an entity that has not been effected by any other entity... nor is dependent upon any other entity/medium for its own existence.
... If logic pursues the definition of an absolute causal-agent with any kind of stringent reasoning, there can be no leeway which enables us to define such agents as effects of other entities, nor leeway which enables us to define such agents as dependents of an external environment.
In short, stringent-reasoning would define the existence of an absolute causal-agent as neither effected by anything else nor dependent upon anything else.

... As such, stringent-reasoning would only allow for the existence of ONE absolute causal-agent #(henceforth, an ACA)# within existence.
... Why? Because clearly, given the aforementioned stringent-reasoning, there cannot be two (or more) ACA's within the same existence, since this would mean that they share the same environment and are thus dependent upon that environment for their own existence.

... Moreover, if an ACA exists and is not dependent upon an external environment for its own existence, then NOTHING else exists beyond said ACA.!!

... Also, if nothing else can exist beyond an ACA and It is the absolute-cause of all things that proceed it, then we see that the ACA is/was existence itself and that all proceeding effects exist within that existence and are ~somehow~ derivatives of it.

I am now in a position to extend the definition of an ACA, because if an ACA exists and is shown to be the singular-essence of existence itself, then that ACA must be INDIVISIBLE. An absolutely-singular existence is an indivisible existence.

This realisation opens the door to another: An indivisible entity is a non-spatial entity.
Therefore, if an ACA exists, it is a non-spatial (non-physical) entity.
Now if that aint profound, I don't know what is.

[Piscivore]

Originally posted by lifegazer
Now if that aint profound, I don't know what is.[/color]

I think you've got that about right.


Right about now is where you tell us all those "if"s in that post are not assumptions, right?

[Z]

I am now in a position to extend the definition of an ACA, because if an ACA exists and is shown to be the singular-essence of existence itself, then that ACA must be INDIVISIBLE. An absolutely-singular existence is an indivisible existence.

However, it seems unclear as to why an ACA must be the singular-essense of existence itself. If the ACA ceases to be after forming the Universe, then once again we can learn nothing about the ACA. Further, your reasoning is backwards here - If an ACA is the essense of existence, then there is nothing to claim it is singular within itself, only singular without itself i.e. nothing exists outside of the ACA. This does not infer existence within singularity. Therefore, individibility is at best loose conjecture.

Further, an absolutely-singular existence is incapable of illusion. It is incapable of experience, senses, or even thought. Without a medium on which to play the illusion, and a source for that illusion, the illusion cannot exist. Or, to clarify, a singular entity cannot have an illusion of reality. A singular entity cannot have an interior and an exterior, nor any other dimension whatsoever. If it cannot be divided, then it is homogenous, being of the same substance throughout, without change or form. If it cannot change, it cannot live. So - either the ACA cannot be singular, or it does not exist.

[uruk]

The illusion occurs upon the 'fabric' of consciousnes itself. It is not apart from it. The illusion isn't even real so there aint no sense in saying that it has to be separated from consciousness. It IS consciousness.

I'll wait till you bring up the subject but consider this:
So then you agree. There is "something" that facilitates the illusion. The fabric of conciousness is "where" the illusion takes place. So there is a separation of the conciousness and the illusion. It does not matter if what is in the illusion is not real in relation to the conciousness.
There is "something going on" in the conciousness that is facilitating the illusion. The illusion itself is not real but the process
in which the illusion takes place in the fabric of conciousness is real in relation to the conciousness.

How can the conciousness and the illusion be the same? Conciousness HAS to be separate from the illusion.
The illusion is happening to or within the conciousness.
There IS a difference. Otherwise, if conciousness and the illusion are one in the same then both are either illusion or both are real

Edited to finish the post. I accidentaly the post button

[Z]

In order for divinity to be singularity - or ACA, or GOD, or whatever - it must also be homogenous and unchanging. It must be zero-dimensional, featureless, and without attributes. In short, it must be nothing at all. Somehow this pokes a rather large hole in LG's theory of the divine.

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by zaayrdragon
In order for divinity to be singularity - or ACA, or GOD, or whatever - it must also be homogenous and unchanging. It must be zero-dimensional, featureless, and without attributes.

Having attributes/abilities does not contradict the indivisibility of a being. For example, the ability to feel and feeling itself are intangible qualities. Thoughts and sensations, likewise.

In short, it must be nothing at all. Somehow this pokes a rather large hole in LG's theory of the divine.
The indivisibility of an ACA refers to actual form.

[Z]

Originally posted by lifegazer
[B]Having attributes/abilities does not contradict the indivisibility of a being. For example, the ability to feel and feeling itself are intangible qualities. Thoughts and sensations, likewise.

Feelings and thoughts and sensations are dependent, in part, upon a brain. A brain consists of neurons and other cells, which in turn are made up of protiens and other chemicals, all of which are made up of atoms, etc. Why, after all, do you think that feeling, thought, and sensation can be damaged when the brain is damaged?

Therefore, having attributes does, in fact, contradict the indivisibility of a being. In fact, any change - mental, physical, or otherwise, would refute singularity/indivisibility.

You are, however, welcome to try again.

[Zombified]

Originally posted by lifegazer
I am now in a position to extend the definition of an ACA, because if an ACA exists and is shown to be the singular-essence of existence itself, then that ACA must be INDIVISIBLE. An absolutely-singular existence is an indivisible existence.

This realisation opens the door to another: An indivisible entity is a non-spatial entity.
Therefore, if an ACA exists, it is a non-spatial (non-physical) entity.
Now if that aint profound, I don't know what is.[/color]
Now wait a minute. Up above, you showed that the only candidate for ACA was "everything" i.e. the universe. Now you are saying it must also be indivisible?

Well, I am not lifegazer, and you are not Zombified, so there's a division. We're both part of this "everything" that we suggested for ACA so obviously we must rule "everything" out as a candidate for being ACA-2 (the two refers to your second, more restrictice definition).

I'm forced to agree with zaayrdragon. Sorry.

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by lifegazer
Let's nip this in the bud right-away...Right, because you were able to before. :rolleyes:
(1) All sensations have a cause. Assumption. Can you back it up that all sensations have a cause?
(2) All sensed-things have a cause - the sensations themselves.Are you saying that all mental representation of things have a cause or that all things have a cause because they are merely illusions? If the former, okay. If the latter, prove it.
(3) Any "thing" seen within awareness, through our senses, absolutely-cannot be defined as "acausal" itself.Perhaps not, but the the sensation itself may be have an acausal source. Since you live under the assumption that we can have no first hand knowledge of reality, you cannot say for certain that it is one way or the other.

[uruk]

A long time ago in a thread far, far away I got Lifegazer to answer the question of how god does the illusion thingy.
His response was essentialy "I don't know how god does it, but he does it".
I think it before you can say that god or the ACA is indivisible or unchanging you have to show how the ACA can have emotions, thought and illusions without being changed or have parts or a "mechanisim" that facilitates the emotions, thoughts and illusions.
The emotions and illusions are not real, but there has to be "something" and a function in which to have them. There has to be a physical change or process which facilitates the emotions, thoughts and illusions.

I'm sorry Lifegazer, but your ACA cannot be indivisible or homogeneous, or without dimension. These things have to take place "somewhere" and in "something".

[daenku32]

Originally posted by lifegazer
Let's nip this in the bud right-away...

There is no-thing in the sensed-world that is acausal. Indeed, the concept of acausality only applies to an ACA.

But we are debating about ACA and the concept of acausality. Why can't we imagine it in materialistic principles?

Just because something doesn't require us to detect it in order to exist doesn't mean we can't detect it.

[Zombified]

Originally posted by lifegazer
(1) All sensations have a cause.
(2) All sensed-things have a cause - the sensations themselves.

This is causally circular. You're going to have to decide which is the cause and which is the effect. And then demonstrate why that's the only choice. (2) pretty much doesn't make sense, although there are a few who would argue the point.

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by Zombified
(1) All sensations have a cause.
(2) All sensed-things have a cause - the sensations themselves.

This is causally circular. You're going to have to decide which is the cause and which is the effect. And then demonstrate why that's the only choice. (2) pretty much doesn't make sense, although there are a few who would argue the point.
First the sensation, then the "things" those sensations portray.
It's very simple.
All sensations have a cause and since the awareness of all "things" is derived because of these sensations, the glaringly obvious fact is that:
No-thing within your awareness can said to be acausal.

So, name anything we have sensed and I can tell you, with absolute surety, that this sensed-thing cannot be acausal.

[Zombified]

You say the sensation causes something... and then you say the sensation itself was caused. Fine. But the thing that causes the sensation cannot be what the sensation causes, those two must be different things.

If I wave a red flag in front of you, you have the sensation of redness, which causes the internal experience of redness. But that doesn't mean your internal experience of redness is me waving the flag!

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by Upchurch
"(1) All sensations have a cause."

Assumption. Can you back it up that all sensations have a cause?

Don't be silly. The imposition of 5 orderly sensations upon awareness to yield the perception of a consistently ordered world of abstract "things", must have a cause.

Are you about to waste my time arguing for the possibility that 5 separate sensations just continually pop-up into the awareness (of 6 billion people) from nothing - acausal - and by pure coincidence create the persistent appearance of an orderly world of "things"?

"(2) All sensed-things have a cause - the sensations themselves."

Are you saying that all mental representation of things have a cause or that all things have a cause because they are merely illusions? If the former, okay. If the latter, prove it.

First cometh the sensations... and then from these cometh the awareness of "things".
The things you see within your awareness are abstract constructs, given unto you by your 5 sensations.

"(3) Any "thing" seen within awareness, through our senses, absolutely-cannot be defined as "acausal" itself."

Perhaps not,

There's no "perhaps" about it.

but the the sensation itself may be have an acausal source.

Yep. But you certainly cannot see it.
Also, my definition of an ACA extends to include acausality: something that is neither effected nor dependent upon anything for its own existence.
An ACA cannot be a finite/bounded entity, as previously discussed.

Since you live under the assumption that we can have no first hand knowledge of reality,

Incorrect: I live by the knowledge that we can have no first hand knowledge of a reality beyond that of our own being.

... But if an ACA exists, it IS that being.

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by Zombified
Well, I am not lifegazer, and you are not Zombified,

lifegazer and Zombified exist as perceived. They are sensed-entities... and like all other sensed-entities, are abstract representations of entities.
You are not 'Zombiefied' - you are the entity which perceives itself to be Zombified.
Likewise, I am not lifegazer but the entity which perceives itself to be lifegazer.

... The question is, who am I then? What am I?
Who is this perceiver which perceives itself to be an abstract body within its own Mind?

so there's a division.

There's two different abstract perceptions of existence. How much space exists between two abstract dreams?

[Zombified]

Originally posted by lifegazer
lifegazer and Zombified exist as perceived. They are sensed-entities... and like all other sensed-entities, are abstract representations of entities.
You are not 'Zombiefied' - you are the entity which perceives itself to be Zombified.
Likewise, I am not lifegazer but the entity which perceives itself to be lifegazer.

Well, that sounds very philosophical, but insert "the entity which percieves itself to be" in my original question, and it still works. We can't be the same entity, or we'd have the same perception, wouldn't we?

Do you think we are the same entity?

There's two different abstract perceptions of existence. How much space exists between two abstract dreams?
We have an abstract dream of space between our abstract dreams, don't we? I do not see you in the abstract dream of my office, so I am abstractly dreaming that this is the case...

[Z]

Originally posted by lifegazer
Don't be silly. The imposition of 5 [b]orderly sensations upon awareness to yield the perception of a consistently ordered world of abstract "things", must have a cause.

Yep - interactions between matter, energy, and your sensory organs. Well, that's simple enough.

Are you about to waste my time arguing for the possibility that 5 separate sensations just continually pop-up into the awareness (of 6 billion people) from nothing - acausal - and by pure coincidence create the persistent appearance of an orderly world of "things"?

No, this is what you've been wasting our time arguing. Well, no, you argue that these sensations continually pop-up into the awareness of one being with severe multiple personae disorder.

First cometh the sensations... and then from these cometh the awareness of "things".
The things you see within your awareness are abstract constructs, given unto you by your 5 sensations.

Actually, first come the energy and molecular interactions, which trigger sensations. The things you see are representations of real things, as sensed by your multiple (and slightly more than five) sensory organs.


An ACA cannot be a finite/bounded entity, as previously discussed.

A-HA! So an ACA must be boundless and infinite - it must therefore exist in infinite dimensions, not 0 dimensions; and any space can be contained within infinite dimensions. Anything can exist within infinite dimension. So now we have a slightly more sensible definition of the ACA.

So glad we clarified that point - the whole 0-dimensional God singularity thing just didn't make any sense at all.

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by zaayrdragon
A-HA! So an ACA must be boundless and infinite

Note:-
A boundless entity has no beginning or end. To impose the attribute of infinite distance upon an entity requires that it does have a beginning with no end.

Edit: I've also discussed why such an entity must be indivisible in itself. As such, no two separate points or parts of that entity really exist. An ACA is non-spatial, as explained in an earlier post.

[lifegazer]

Will people please stop posting comments that do not refer directly to the definition of an ACA.

[MRC_Hans]

Originally posted by lifegazer
Let's nip this in the bud right-away...

Only, you cannot ;).

We have sensations which themselves paint a portrait of "things". These sensed-things are not real in themselves but are abstract representations of a world.

Mmmokay, for a certain definition of "abstract".

First we have sensations... which then directly yield the awareness of things. Hence "sensed-things".

Should we perhaps call it "observations"?

(1) All sensations have a cause.

Ehr, how do you know that?

(2) All sensed-things have a cause - the sensations themselves.

Make up your mind, now. Do things cause sensations or do sensations cause things? You can't have it both ways.


(3) Any "thing" seen within awareness, through our senses, absolutely-cannot be defined as "acausal" itself.

Wrong. We can observe acausal things.

There is no-thing in the sensed-world that is acausal.

Still wrong. I can prove to you that you can observe acausal things.

Indeed, the concept of acausality only applies to an ACA.

Since the premises don't hold, the conclusion does not follow.

Not much nipping in the bud, ehhh?

Hans

[SezMe]

Originally posted by lifegazer
I defined the ACA as the cause of everything.
No you didn't. Your exact words are "ACA is/was existence itself"
Being something and causing something are entirely different.

[SezMe]

Originally posted by lifegazer
Don't be silly. <Snip>

Are you about to waste my time ... <Snip>
Are you the same person who mentioned civility in the OP?

[Anders]

Originally posted by lifegazer
In this thread, I have three aims:-
(1) To define what an absolute causal-agent must be.
(2) To show you that such an entity exists.
(3) To show you why such an entity must be a living/sentient God.

This first post will cover my first aim. I believe that in itself, this definition will be an interesting read...

1. Dealing with the definition.
[snip]

Firstly:
"When I go
Round, baby
Round round
Spinning out on me"

Circels again? Gazer! C'mon

Secondly, definitions aren't always real. I could define Z to be god. That, however, does not make Z a god.

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by MRC_Hans
"We have sensations which themselves paint a portrait of "things". These sensed-things are not real in themselves but are abstract representations of a world."

- Mmmokay, for a certain definition of "abstract".

(a) Let's get one thing clear here: The whole universe of "things" is discerned via 5 (arguably, 6 [motion/weight/balance]) sensations.
(b) All experience of the universe is given unto awareness by this orderly orchestration of sensations.
(c) There is a distinction to be noted between the reality of something and the subjective sensation of that thing.

... In other words, everything you discern via your sensations is a sensed-thing and not the reality of that thing.

"First we have sensations... which then directly yield the awareness of things. Hence "sensed-things"."

- Should we perhaps call it "observations"?

You can only observe the sensations of something. You cannot observe the reality of anything.

(1) All sensations have a cause.

Ehr, how do you know that?

I refer you to the answer I gave to upchurch:-

The imposition of 5 orderly sensations upon awareness to yield the perception of a consistently ordered world of abstract "things", must have a cause.

Are you about to waste my time arguing for the possibility that 5 separate sensations just continually pop-up into the awareness (of 6 billion people) from nothing - acausal - and by pure coincidence create the persistent appearance of an orderly world of "things"?

"(2) All sensed-things have a cause - the sensations themselves."

- Make up your mind, now. Do things cause sensations or do sensations cause things? You can't have it both ways.

Sensations (red/heat/cold/blue/loud/sweet/itchy/musty/ etc. etc.)
give the impression of "things". A sensation is not an object in itself... is not a finite/bounded existent entity-living beyond the mind's awareness of it.
If your defense is one that can see no difference between the reality of something and the abstract sensation of something, then your defense is pathetic.

"(3) Any "thing" seen within awareness, through our senses, absolutely-cannot be defined as "acausal" itself."

- Wrong. We can observe acausal things.

This is absolutely incorrect. You can only observe your senses - which must have a cause - and which are directly responsible for your awareness of sensed-things.
Don't lie to the members of this forum!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
EVERYTHING that you can observe is a sensed-thing... and since all sensed-things are the proceeding effect of the sensations that occur within awareness, it is a PLAIN FACT that NONE of these [sensed]-things can, in themselves, be defined as acausal.

"There is no-thing in the sensed-world that is acausal."

- Still wrong. I can prove to you that you can observe acausal things.

Then DO IT.
Name one sensed-thing that is not the proceeding effect of a sensation.

[Anders]

Originally posted by lifegazer
Note:-
A boundless entity has no beginning or end. To impose the attribute of infinite distance upon an entity requires that it does have a beginning with no end.
[snip]

Eh, wrong.

Wordplay, you are playing with words Gazer! You still en up with evidence for the invisble pink unicorn, and ganehsa, and satan, and....

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by Anders
Firstly:
"When I go
Round, baby
Round round
Spinning out on me"

Circels again? Gazer! C'mon

Secondly, definitions aren't always real. I could define Z to be god. That, however, does not make Z a god.
It's silly-ass hour again.
I challenge you to use reason to define God as 'Z'. In fact, I demand that you do this.

Do it or retract your garbage from my thread.

[Anders]

Originally posted by lifegazer
It's silly-ass hour again.
I challenge you to use reason to define God as 'Z'. In fact, I demand that you do this.

Do it or retract your garbage from my thread.
Z:=God

Eh, it's not your thread Gazer, I think it belongs to the JREF, and they are the only body that can make me retract my "garbage".

Anyways, the christian god does not exist, soooo, well, dum di dum, I don't know, this i tiring... :slp:

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by Anders
Z:=God

Do you not even feel embarrassed posting this?

Eh, it's not your thread Gazer, I think it belongs to the JREF, and they are the only body that can make me retract my "garbage".

I don't see Randi here or any of his brown-nosed puppets working their butts off to produce a serious argument for the existence of God.
I'm investing serious effort here so please take a back-seat and leave participation to those of a more intelligent quality.

Anyways, the christian god does not exist, soooo, well, dum di dum, I don't know, this i tiring... :slp:
I'm not a Christian.
Don't post here any more. You're a liability to the credibility of sincere skepticism.

[Anders]

Originally posted by lifegazer
Do you not even feel embarrassed posting this?

I don't see Randi here or any of his brown-nosed puppets working their butts off to produce a serious argument for the existence of God.
I'm investing serious effort here so please take a back-seat and leave participation to those of a more intelligent quality.

I'm not a Christian.
Don't post here any more. You're a liability to the credibility of sincere skepticism.
Well, I am a sincere skeptic, and more. I am also an atheist. Also, I have no education whatsoever concerning philosophy, so I take no part in philosophy debates. But I’m sorry to say that your arguments, Gazer, are so bad, even I can see through them.

You can’t prove gods existens by using logic, can’t be done. It has been tried, over and over again and always failed. What you are doing is repeating the Thomas Aquinas god-proof, just in somewhat different variations.

[Zombified]

Originally posted by lifegazer
Do you not even feel embarrassed posting this?
Why should he? G-O-D are just letters, so is Z.

When you make a definition, the term defined is not important. What is important is the properties of the thing you are defining, the conditions something must meet in order to be considered an example of the defined category.

In some ways, unloaded arbitrary variables are better choices than commonly used terms, because they're less likely to be conflated with the common, casual meaning (because of course we must be disciplined in how our definitions are applied). Of course, a term so defined will eventually enter the common language if it is important enough, though usually inaccurately. (look what happened to entropy, for Boltzmann's sake!)

I see we've established that the effect of a sensation is inequivalent to the cause of a sensation above. I would take it we've therefore disentangled the circular error you made describing "things" as necessarily causal, since even if we grant that no effects of sensations (that is, the mental impression received from the senses) that does not establish that the cause of a sensation is itself necessarily causal. Do you have some other reasoning to establish that the cause of a sensation cannot be acausal? Or is that not what you intended to prove?

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by Anders
Well, I am a sincere skeptic, and more. I am also an atheist.

Contradictory. An atheist has closed his mind to God and is not just skeptical to that notion. An agnostic is a skeptic... an atheist is just a fool who believes what he wants to believe, even though he cannot explain existence nor provide reason for why an all-creative God does not exist.

Also, I have no education whatsoever concerning philosophy, so I take no part in philosophy debates. But I’m sorry to say that your arguments, Gazer, are so bad, even I can see through them.

Yet lack the capacity to address those arguments.

You can’t prove gods existens by using logic, can’t be done.
It has been tried, over and over again and always failed.

Whether past-arguments have failed or not is open to debate.
Regardless, the merit of future/present arguments should not be judged by the credibility of those from the past.
Also, you probably haven't realised this since you're so insincere and close-minded that you don't even bother to concentrate on what has been said: but so far in this thread, I haven't even produced an argument for the existence of God.

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by Zombified
... since even if we grant that no effects of sensations (that is, the mental impression received from the senses) that does not establish that the cause of a sensation is itself necessarily causal. Do you have some other reasoning to establish that the cause of a sensation cannot be acausal? Or is that not what you intended to prove?
Nobody here is having a discussion about whether the actual cause of the sensations is acausal or not, though it is my position that It is.
You need to concentrate: the discussion here pertains to whether the actual sensed-things that you aware of are acausal in themselves.
"I sense a thing which I label 'X' and it is acausal."
... Is a load of tosh.

Scientists would have you believe that some of the things that they sense in this world are acausal. They're liars... or just dumb.

[Zombified]

Originally posted by lifegazer
Nobody here is having a discussion about whether the actual cause of the sensations is acausal or not, though it is my position that It is.
You need to concentrate: the discussion here pertains to whether the actual sensed-things that you aware of are acausal in themselves.
"I sense a thing which I label 'X' and it is acausal."
... Is a load of tosh.

Scientists would have you believe that some of the things that they sense in this world are acausal. They're liars... or just dumb.
You are conflating the effect of a sensation with the cause of a sensation. If a scientist calls something acausal, he's not talking about his mental picture of the outside world acausal, he's ascribing that property to the external cause of the sensation.

In other words,

phenomenon X -> sensation Y -> mental model Z

You are accusing the scientist of asserting "Z is acausal" when in fact he is asserting "I infer X from Z, and X is acausal".

See the difference?

Edit to add: Let me guess, somebody's brought up the example of radioactive decay in some previous debate with you? Or some other bit of quantum mechanical indeterminacy?

[uruk]

I don't see Randi here or any of his brown-nosed puppets working their butts off to produce a serious argument for the existence of God.
I'm investing serious effort here so please take a back-seat and leave participation to those of a more intelligent quality

Well so much for LG's philosophy promoting harmony amoungst the masses.
If the progenator of this "philosophy" can't behave with civility how can he expect others to believe his philosophy will bring this universal unity.

You talk the talk LG, but you don't walk the walk. Your such a hypocrite.

[Z]

So it seems LG still can't debate rationally...

1) If a thing is infinite, that means it has neither beginning nor ending. Therefore, it contains infinite space - not no space at all, which is what you claim.

2) Most of your theory hinges upon the concept that human sensation is more important than reality itself. Yet humans have existed for only the briefest fragment of time, whereas the universe is far older and far more vast than human experience. Hence, the universe must exist regardless of 'sensed awareness'. Further, you have yet to explain, in any reasonable way, how an object, item, energy, etc. can affect a person without being detected by their 'sensed awareness'. We know this can and does happen quite regularly, yet if the only reality is that which we sense, how can any thing which we cannot sense affect us?

3) I think it is very hypocritical of you to try getting others to 'stop posting in your thread' on the basis of nonsense or low intelligence when you, yourself, post even more nonsense and lower-intelligence material in these same threads. Frankly, we're going to post in this thread if we want, and you can't stop us.

4) You claim you are 'not a Christian' - and this may be true. But will you claim that your 'God' is not the Judeo-Christian deity? You've already threatened us with Armageddon - a belief which, when so titled, is purely Christian, if I'm not mistaken. Further, the entire flavor of your philosophy is geared toward 'glorifying God' and determining proof of an all-powerful God and the utter importance of Man - all strongly Judeo-Christian values. If, however, you really are NOT a Judeo-Christian, what are you supposed to be?

At any rate, if you spent more time focusing on the problems you've been presented with, and less on trying to insult other people and talk around your proverbial elbow, you might stand a slim chance of getting somewhere.

[MRC_Hans]

Originally posted by lifegazer
(a) Let's get one thing clear here: The whole universe of "things" is discerned via 5 (arguably, 6 [motion/weight/balance]) sensations.

Of course. Why do you keep stating the obvious?

(b) All experience of the universe is given unto awareness by this orderly orchestration of sensations.

Depends on what you mean by orchestration. We can VALIDATE our observations by observing the same phenomenon in different ways. If the different observations show the same phenomenon, we assume it is real.

(c) There is a distinction to be noted between the reality of something and the subjective sensation of that thing.

Stating the obvious again.

... In other words, everything you discern via your sensations is a sensed-thing and not the reality of that thing.

Yes, but this does no imply that the sensed thing is not identical to the reality. If we can validate our observations, we can know the real thing.

You can only observe the sensations of something. You cannot observe the reality of anything.

But, I can infer the reality by correlating observations.

The imposition of 5 orderly sensations upon awareness to yield the perception of a consistently ordered world of abstract "things", must have a cause.

Not a cause, but a source.

Are you about to waste my time arguing for the possibility that 5 separate sensations just continually pop-up into the awareness (of 6 billion people) from nothing - acausal - and by pure coincidence create the persistent appearance of an orderly world of "things"?

You seem to be perfectly able to waste your own time. No, I do not claim that our observations ara acausal in themselves, but that we can observe acausal events. There is a difference, you know.

*snip*
If your defense is one that can see no difference between the reality of something and the abstract sensation of something, then your defense is pathetic.

And that is not my claim. Perhaps you should read my posts; most people have no difficulty understanding what I write.

This is absolutely incorrect. You can only observe your senses - which must have a cause - and which are directly responsible for your awareness of sensed-things.
Don't lie to the members of this forum!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Now, who is pathetic? My senses must have a source (we are not going into imagination here), but the source can be acausal.

EVERYTHING that you can observe is a sensed-thing... and since all sensed-things are the proceeding effect of the sensations that occur within awareness, it is a PLAIN FACT that NONE of these [sensed]-things can, in themselves, be defined as acausal.

Fine, if you want to make a distinction between the observation and reality, the observation is not acausal (except when caused by imagination, perhaps ;)), but the event leading to the observation can be acausal.

Then DO IT.
Name one sensed-thing that is not the proceeding effect of a sensation.

Imagination. But, that was not what I was aiming at. You are putting in this arbitrary distinction of the event and the observation of the event. This may have some philosophical importance, but no one I am concerned with. I am referring to the observation of an acausal event. Quantum events are acausal.


--- And, of course, the realization that acausal events exist refutes determinism, and thus we do not need a divine initiater because the universe can be acausal.

Hans

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by zaayrdragon
... Therefore, it contains infinite space - not no space at all, which is what you claim.

How do you even begin to measure a space that has no beginning [point] to it, least of all an end?

2) Most of your theory hinges upon the concept that human sensation is more important than reality itself.

My philosophy hinges upon the concept that human sensation is the only reality which we experience.
You keep harping-on about a reality beyond the sense of one yet no human has neither experience of such a realm nor can provide reason to show that it exists.
You just keep blurting-out your beliefs about the "real world" as though they had any merit in a philosophical discussion.

Moreover, I've asked you two or three times to target your posts around my OP and you just keep ignoring this (others do too).
Don't waste any more of your time (or mine) posting stuff that isn't relevant to the OP. I won't be addressing any of it until I have completed all three parts of this thread, as planned.

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by Zombified
If a scientist calls something acausal, he's not talking about his mental picture of the outside world acausal, he's ascribing that property to the external cause of the sensation.

Name one thing that a scientist can observe (verify the existence of) that is not a sensed thing.

In other words,

phenomenon X -> sensation Y -> mental model Z

In other words, science - which is supposed to be about verifiable facts - just assumes that for every mental-model Z, there exists a corresponding real-entity X.


If this is aimed at defending the credibility of science, you're not doing a very-good job.
No scientist (or philosopher) has reason to support the notion that there is a reality beyond the sense of one. Hence, what kind of science is it which just assumes the existence of said reality?

I had a thread about this recently - "the rise & fall of science" - which detailed this abhoration of actual knowledge.

Four things can be ascertained here:-
(1) There is no credibility in a science which just assumes the existence of a reality beyond the sense of one.
(2) Science should be reformed to reflect the fact that it can only observe the order of the mind (mental-models Z).
(3) The claim that acausality applies to any sensed-thing is clearly wrong.
(4) Earlier, I explained why 'acausality' can only apply to an ACA.
Also, I explained why a finite/bounded entity cannot be an ACA.
Therefore, we can conclude that even an external-reality exists, no "things" existing within it can be defined as an ACA or, consequently, as acausal.

Edit to add: Let me guess, somebody's brought up the example of radioactive decay in some previous debate with you? Or some other bit of quantum mechanical indeterminacy?
What's your point, exactly?

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by MRC_Hans
(a) Let's get one thing clear here: The whole universe of "things" is discerned via 5 (arguably, 6 [motion/weight/balance]) sensations.

Of course. Why do you keep stating the obvious?

You seem to think that science has definite knowledge of a world beyond the sense of one. It doesn't.
Also, since science only has knowledge of sensed-things, any proceeding facts/theories/laws refer directly to the sensed-world.

Yes, but this does no imply that the sensed thing is not identical to the reality. If we can validate our observations, we can know the real thing.

Our observations are of an order (of sensations) existing within the mind and given by that mind.

But, I can infer the reality by correlating observations.

No you cannot. There is NO rational-link which can make the leap from the mind to a reality beyond that mind.
It takes pure faith to make that leap. Don't tell porkies in this forum by infering that you/science uses reason to make this leap.

Quantum events are acausal.

Give me just one brief example.

[Zombified]

Originally posted by lifegazer
There is no credibility in a science which just assumes the existence of a reality beyond the sense of one.
You are confusing (a) ontology with episotomology and (b) the nature of an operational definition. Technically speaking, you are arguing against a straw man, although I am not sure if you understand this distinction or not.

Science is not concerned with what's real. Science is concerned with the logical relationships between operational measurements. That is epistomological - about knowledge - not ontological - about reality.

Some people - realists - will disagree with that, or find it unsatisfying, but it does not bother me.

Now, as to operational definitions. Measurements are defined by procedures; to paraphrase Einstein, time is whatever clocks measure. These procedures are things that any person can carry out without having to make a subjective judgement call.

So, is there "really" an electron out there? Who knows? and if you're a strict positivist, who cares? Electrons are whatever cause results in a measurement of an electron. It doesn't have to "really" fit our theory about electrons at all, so long as it behaves in a measurement.

Now, when you say sensations cannot be acausal, you are insisting that something must cause the sensation. That's all that's meant by the X in the implication I wrote about, X->Y->Z. But because I can consistently classify groups of similar Y's and Z's, I simply define corresponding classes of X's. If Y is a measurement I define to be an electron, then whatever X caused Y is merely defined to be an electron, even if its a little blue fairy who drew the electron assignment when she got to work that morning.

Now, it's you who insists that there's some X, and I don't disagree. You haven't shown that X is unique or acausal or not. So what are you claiming about X?

[Z]

Originally posted by lifegazer
How do you even begin to measure a space that has no beginning [point] to it, least of all an end?

You don't. And that's OK - we can accept that infinite space cannot be fully measured, only finite spaces within that infinite space. Why is this a problem for you?


My philosophy hinges upon the concept that human sensation is the only reality which we experience.
You keep harping-on about a reality beyond the sense of one yet no human has neither experience of such a realm nor can provide reason to show that it exists.
You just keep blurting-out your beliefs about the "real world" as though they had any merit in a philosophical discussion.

Just as you keep blurting-out your beliefs about the "sensed impressions imposed by the Mind" and about the "Singularity God" as though they had any merit in a logical discussion. Let's face it - philosophy is all about belief, not fact. It may, ultimately, be the 'search for truth', but there is no difference between believing your sensed impressions are caused by a real external world and believing your sensed impressions are the imaginations of God. So either way, these arguments are equally valid in a philosophical discussion.

Moreover, I've asked you two or three times to target your posts around my OP and you just keep ignoring this (others do too).
Don't waste any more of your time (or mine) posting stuff that isn't relevant to the OP. I won't be addressing any of it until I have completed all three parts of this thread, as planned.

And we've asked you two or three times to get to the point and you just keep ignoring this. Don't waste any more of your time (or ours) posting replies, insults, and non-sequiturs that aren't relevant to the purpose behind the OP. But know I will continue to address anything you post, if I feel there is merit to do so, whether you ever complete all three parts of this thread or not.

Your track record thus far for finishing what you start is pretty pathetic - especially since you keep waiting for someone (several someones) to agree with you before you continue. Best, I think, to just lay your cards on the table completely, THEN niggle over the details.

Our observations are of an order (of sensations) existing within the mind and given by that mind.

But what causes the mind to 'give' those sensations? External stimuli. Yet I've demonstrated, in several posts, that sensory awareness of reality is not a prerequisite for that reality to exist; in fact, you can be fully affected by something without ever having any sensed-awareness of that thing. Yet you fail to address this fact, even though there is a perfectly LG-reasonable explanation for this - well, for some of it, but I was hoping you'd at least try to discuss the problem first.

Thus far, you've blown a lot of smoke, and given no reason whatsoever (except those which have been thoroughly disputed) why we should not trust that our senses are reporting facts about a 'real' world beyond them.

Someone remind me - isn't LG the same guy who claimed electrons and electricity don't really exist, that you just flip the switch (or have the sensation of flipping the switch) and the light just comes on (or you have the sensation of light coming on) with no intermediary mechanism? :D

[MRC_Hans]

Originally posted by lifegazer
You seem to think that science has definite knowledge of a world beyond the sense of one. It doesn't.

Science? We all have a definite knowledge of a world beyond our senses.

Also, since science only has knowledge of sensed-things, any proceeding facts/theories/laws refer directly to the sensed-world.

Why got to the trouble of inventing new words? We already have a perfectly good term for "sensed-things". It is called information. We have information about the real world.

Our observations are of an order (of sensations) existing within the mind and given by that mind.

Information, LG, information. I realize this sounds much less fancy and mystical, but, information is the word.

No you cannot. There is NO rational-link which can make the leap from the mind to a reality beyond that mind.
It takes pure faith to make that leap. Don't tell porkies in this forum by infering that you/science uses reason to make this leap.

See below :rolleyes.

Give me just one brief example.

Half-life phenomenon. Usually radioactive decay is mentioned, but I like phosphorescence because you can safely and cheaply exprience that in your own home.

Now, you can pull solipsism and claim it is all an illusion. I have dealed with this before, so I can just cut and paste:

Originally posted by MRC_Hans
Lets get the illusion thingy over with for a start. I originally made this for Franko but I generously make it available to any solipsist or quasi-solipsist out there:

MRC_Hans' practical test of Solipsism .(tm)

Disclaimer: This experiment might not only bruise your ego, but also your body, so you undertake it entirely at your own risk. I will not be held responsible for any consequences, including, but not limited to, loss of pride, peace of mind, teeth, etc.

1) Find a busy city street.

2) Wait for large aggressive looking male to walk by (generally, the more tattoos, the better).

3) Walk up behind said large aggressive looking male and direct a solid kick at the lower, rear portion of his body.

4) When he turns, tell him: "That was because you mother is so ugly".

5) Observe.

You will now have tangible evidence for the following:

a) You exist physically.

b) At least one other entity exists physically.

c) You and that other entity are in communication, both abstractly and physically.

d) The other entity probably has a mother.

You may conclude that all your observations are, after all, part of an illusion, but the experience should convince you that you had better treat the illusion as reality .

Good luck!

Hans :D

Edited to add: You can claim that the existence of the real world is a "leap of faith", but it is evidently a leap of faith you are sharing. Otherwise, please explain why you spend so much time in a real world computer, discussing things with real world people, over the real world internet.

Hans

[H'ethetheth]

Originally posted by lifegazer
Name one thing that a scientist can observe (verify the existence of) that is not a sensed thing.

In other words, science - which is supposed to be about verifiable facts - just assumes that for every mental-model Z, there exists a corresponding real-entity X.


If this is aimed at defending the credibility of science, you're not doing a very-good job.

I'm beginning to think that you have a skewed idea about how science works. As I've told you before, it is irrelevant whether or not external reality exists from a scientific standpoint. If causality exists (devine or material), science works. It's just the mathematic modelling of a reality that appears to exist. If it is all in the mind of an infinite/singular god, so be it. But if there is consistency in this "reality", science is out to find it and understand it.
No scientist (or philosopher) has reason to support the notion that there is a reality beyond the sense of one. Hence, what kind of science is it which just assumes the existence of said reality? Observation points to the existence of an external reality, that's why people tend to assume there is one. It's not certain, but that doesn't matter if you systematically research it, whatever it is.

(1) There is no credibility in a science which just assumes the existence of a reality beyond the sense of one.
(2) Science should be reformed to reflect the fact that it can only observe the order of the mind (mental-models Z)[...]
As science works regardless of point 2, point 1 becomes nonsense. All that is needed to conduct credible scientific research is the assumption that there is consistency and a certain degree of causality in our observations. The history of observation has shown us that both are present. No reform is needed, as point 2 has been "ascertained" and settled centuries ago. I don't understand why you think it's such a novel idea.

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by Zombified
Science is not concerned with what's real. Science is concerned with the logical relationships between operational measurements. That is epistomological - about knowledge - not ontological - about reality.

Some people - realists - will disagree with that, or find it unsatisfying, but it does not bother me.

It's nonsense, to be honest.
Explain to this forum why, if science "is not concerned with what is real", science persists in trying to explain the existence of any sensed- phenomena with objects/things that exist beyond the mind itself.
For example, is science not biased towards the idea that the human experience of sensation, thought & feeling, is a product of a real brain?
... Is this bias towards an external reality also not exhibited by the determined effort to explain all "things" via string-theories?
... Is this bias towards an external reality also not exhibited in scientific attempts to explain life itself solely in terms of chemical reactions?

You might be able to kid yourself here, but you cannot kid me: scientific research is guided by a belief in the existence of a reality beyond the sense of one.
Indeed, some scientific theories are dependent upon this very reality.

You say that science is not concerned with "reality" when it is obvious that science is geared towards explaining "things" in relation to a very specific reality.

Earlier, you said this:
"If a scientist calls something acausal, he's not talking about his mental picture of the outside world acausal, he's ascribing that property to the external cause of the sensation.

You've been rumbled.

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by zaayrdragon
You don't. And that's OK - we can accept that infinite space cannot be fully measured, only finite spaces within that infinite space. Why is this a problem for you?

It's a problem for you hombre, not me.
Explain to this forum how you would measure a finite-space in a realm without any [points of] beginning nor any [points of] end.

The distance between two points quite clearly requires an existence with a beginning and an end.

You've also been rumbled.

An ACA (absolute causal-agent) is boundless and indivisible - without beginning or end. You would not be able to measure ANY distance in an ACA.
An ACA is distanceless.
There is not an infinity of distance in an ACA. There is no space... no distance.

As I said earlier, if an ACA exists, it is a non-spatial entity.
I also remarked upon the profundity of this realisation.

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by H'ethetheth
I'm beginning to think that you have a skewed idea about how science works. As I've told you before, it is irrelevant whether or not external reality exists from a scientific standpoint. If causality exists (devine or material), science works.

Read my previous post to the zombie. You don't know what you're talking about.
The absolute nature of reality is clearly important here. Do you think that any current scientific-theories or scientific-research would be unaffected by a realisation that there is no external reality?
If you answer "No" to this question, then I will call you stupid.
If you answer "Yes, I suppose so", then I will admire your sincerity and integrity for saying so.
You choose. I have high hopes for you.

[Zombified]

Originally posted by lifegazer
It's nonsense, to be honest.
Your inability to comprehend is not my problem. Go check a basic book on philosophy out from the library and see if you can figure out the difference between epistomology and ontology. This is freshman stuff, lifegazer, if you can't figure it out, this is going to keep happening to you.

[uruk]

It's a problem for you hombre, not me.
Explain to this forum how you would measure a finite-space in a realm without any [points of] beginning nor any [points of] end.

The distance between two points quite clearly requires an existence with a beginning and an end.
.

Explain to this forum why you can't do it. We do it all the time. It's ridiculously simple. you get two points set them an arbitrary distance apart and you call that a measurement. It's called a ruler or a meter stick. It works both in "real" reality and in "illusionary" reality.


Why does the universe need a beginning and an end to make measurements?

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by MRC_Hans
"You seem to think that science has definite knowledge of a world beyond the sense of one. It doesn't."

Science? We all have a definite knowledge of a world beyond our senses.

That's a porkie. We only have knowledge of sensed-things.

Why got to the trouble of inventing new words? We already have a perfectly good term for "sensed-things". It is called information. We have information about the real world.

Rubbish. You cannot equate the sense-of-a-thing with "information" for the simple fact that we don't have all the info (or sometimes no info) for the sense-of-a-thing.
The sense of a thing is not the same as the knowledge of a sensed-thing. This is quite evident when one realises how much our knowledge has evolved over the years.

Half-life phenomenon. Usually radioactive decay is mentioned, but I like phosphorescence because you can safely and cheaply exprience that in your own home.

You didn't understand me. I want to know why any of these things prove that there is an existence beyond the sense of one.
The floor is yours again...

Lets get the illusion thingy over with for a start. I originally made this for Franko but I generously make it available to any solipsist or quasi-solipsist out there:

MRC_Hans' practical test of Solipsism .(tm)

Disclaimer: This experiment might not only bruise your ego, but also your body, so you undertake it entirely at your own risk. I will not be held responsible for any consequences, including, but not limited to, loss of pride, peace of mind, teeth, etc.

1) Find a busy city street.

2) Wait for large aggressive looking male to walk by (generally, the more tattoos, the better).

3) Walk up behind said large aggressive looking male and direct a solid kick at the lower, rear portion of his body.

4) When he turns, tell him: "That was because you mother is so ugly".

5) Observe.

.... You will now have tangible evidence for the following:

a) You exist physically.

You're sinking fast squire.
Any pain I senses from the large bloke with tatoos that I sense, is all experienced in my mind.

b) At least one other entity exists physically.

It's true that I sense the existence of more than one physical entity.

c) You and that other entity are in communication, both abstractly and physically.

Do you not talk to people in your dreams?
Who do you think composes their script for them?

d) The other entity probably has a mother.

As sensed, we all have mothers.

You may conclude that all your observations are, after all, part of an illusion, but the experience should convince you that you had better treat the illusion as reality .

My philosophy does not advocate that one should treat one's dreams with indifferent contempt.

Edited to add: You can claim that the existence of the real world is a "leap of faith", but it is evidently a leap of faith you are sharing. Otherwise, please explain why you spend so much time in a real world computer, discussing things with real world people, over the real world internet.

I'm actually spending much of my sensed-time on a sensed-computer, discussing things with people that I sense to exist, over the sensed-world internet.

You don't have a clue Hans. EVERYTHING in your awareness is sensed.
No individual has any experience of an existence beyond itself.

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by Zombified
Your inability to comprehend is not my problem. Go check a basic book on philosophy out from the library and see if you can figure out the difference between epistomology and ontology. This is freshman stuff, lifegazer, if you can't figure it out, this is going to keep happening to you.
Look dude, I'm not interested in the difference between epistomology and ontology. Though I am interested in you telling porkies about science not being interested in "reality".

Are you going to "do an upchurch" and hide behind your dictionary or are you going to face the music of my last post?
I dare you to address it. I double-dare ya.

[Zombified]

Originally posted by lifegazer
Look dude, I'm not interested in the difference between epistomology and ontology.
So you're simply going to refuse to acknowledge that you are attacking a straw man, then?
Are you going to "do an upchurch" and hide behind your dictionary or are you going to face the music of my last post?

There's no music. You just don't understand. You are arguing against a claim I am not making. Straw man.
I dare you to address it. I double-dare ya.
Done.

[Piscivore]

Originally posted by lifegazer
I don't see Randi here or any of his brown-nosed puppets working their butts off to produce a serious argument for the existence of God.
I'm investing serious effort here so please take a back-seat and leave participation to those of a more intelligent quality.

The Blue-Collar Fallacy (ad Foxworthy): I'm working harder at it, so my argument is correct.

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by uruk
It's a problem for you hombre, not me.
Explain to this forum how you would measure a finite-space in a realm without any [points of] beginning nor any [points of] end.

The distance between two points quite clearly requires an existence with a beginning and an end.

Explain to this forum why you can't do it.

I did. To measure a distance requires that both a beginning and an end exist... so how do you measure a distance where neither beginning or end doth exist? It's simple... you cannot.

We do it all the time. It's ridiculously simple. you get two points set them an arbitrary distance apart and you call that a measurement. It's called a ruler or a meter stick. It works both in "real" reality and in "illusionary" reality.

This happens in our awareness... where a sense of things and a sense of space doth occur.
I shouldn't have to explain to you, at this stage, that the sense of any-thing is not "reality". It's illusion.
Up the grade uruk.

Why does the universe need a beginning and an end to make measurements?
Points-of-origin and points-of-end = beginning and end.

... A realm with neither cannot be measured - for distance - since that measurement quite-clearly requires the existence of both.

In the case of saying "Existence is infinite (in distance)", one at least depends upon a beginning (a point of origin) to make that statement... but an ACA is without both... so is distanceless.

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by Zombified
So you're simply going to refuse to acknowledge that you are attacking a straw man, then?

There's no music. You just don't understand. You are arguing against a claim I am not making. Straw man.

I think you're telling porkies. You have claimed that science isn't interested in "reality" and that "reality" makes no difference to science. I think both statements are garbage and I've explained why.
You are now claiming I'm attacking a straw man (a distorted view of your position). But people can read Z... and most of them are bright enough to see a headless chicken when they see one.

[Z]

I did. To measure a distance requires that both a beginning and an end exist... so how do you measure a distance where neither beginning or end doth exist? It's simple... you cannot.

Here, LG, you demonstrate another error to your thinking - we cannot measure the distance across reality, because that would be infinite. But any distance WITHIN reality can be easily measured. Any finite space within infinite space can be measured, because a finite space has both a beginning and an end, but can exist within infinite space.

It is you, then, who are showing blatant ignorance and outright lies, LG. You fail, again.

In the case of saying "Existence is infinite (in distance)", one at least depends upon a beginning (a point of origin) to make that statement... but an ACA is without both... so is distanceless.

This is another error. Saying that existence in infinite in no way requires a beginning (point of origin); in fact, to define something as infinite, one must have NO beginning whatsoever. To have a beginning infers a finite boundary; infinity has no such boundaries, and therefore, to say that something is infinite, we remove the concept of beginings or endings.

However, we also do not claim that existence is infinite; quite the opposite, in fact. (Well, there are some who claim that existence occurs in an infinite chain of bangs and contractions, but that's another story).

Do you not talk to people in your dreams? Who do you think composes their script for them?

Dreams are not reality. Dreams are not of the same substance as reality. Dreams do not conform to physical laws, nor are they consistant and constant. There is no feature that a dream shares with reality other than superficial appeareances. To in any way equate dreams with reality is yet another error.

Further, dreams are entirely the generation of the brain, unlike reality, but our senses still operate even while dreaming; therefore, our senses still have function and form even while dreaming, and can interrupt our dreams, returning us to reality.

So... what can we say about dreams that shows us anything about reality?

The distance between two points quite clearly requires an existence with a beginning and an end.

Not at all. The distance between two points is merely an arbitrary measurement. We can establish any unit of measurement to any given distance; we don't have to have a 'beginning and ending' to do so. However, we have to have SOME space - in your 0-dimensional universe, NO distances would be measurable at all. So - explain how anything at all can be measured - or sensed, or thought - with absolutely no dimensions at all?

... BTW, I find it hilarious that you make all these responses after spouting this rubbish:

I won't be addressing any of it until I have completed all three parts of this thread, as planned.

... but then, we know you have no sense of reality anyway.

[kuroyume0161]

Originally posted by lifegazer
I did. To measure a distance requires that both a beginning and an end exist... so how do you measure a distance where neither beginning or end doth exist? It's simple... you cannot.

- Insert Ad hominem explitive - ;)

I certainly hope this is sarcasm and that you are laughing on the other side because this is about the MOST absurd statement ever made by any sentient being ever in the entire universe.

What is the distance between a point at the origin and ten units aways from the origin on an INFINITE LINE?

Hint 1. - the origin and unit sizes can be arbitrarily designated on the line, infinity > unit > 0. Although you can claim units of 0 or infinity, this does not rule out the results of other units, therefore it is a moot point to attempt.

Hint 2. - If our universe were infinite in both time and space (which it could be), would measurement be impossible? Explain using a MATHEMATICAL proof - none of this linguistic logical mumbo-jumbo.

If you cannot answer this, time to check into the nearest psychiatric ward.

This happens in our awareness... where a sense of things and a sense of space doth occur.
I shouldn't have to explain to you, at this stage, that the sense of any-thing is not "reality". It's illusion.

Define reality and illusion so that we can differentiate, then show definitively using these definitions where they differ.

Robert

[Piscivore]

Originally posted by kuroyume0161
Define reality and illusion so that we can differentiate, then show definitively using these definitions where they differ.

Robert

You can't do that- that amounts to taking away his shiny new toy! :D

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by kuroyume0161
Originally posted by lifegazer
"I did. To measure a distance requires that both a beginning and an end exist... so how do you measure a distance where neither beginning or end doth exist? It's simple... you cannot."

What is the distance between a point at the origin and ten units aways from the origin on an INFINITE LINE?

Hint 1. - the origin and unit sizes can be arbitrarily designated on the line, infinity > unit > 0. Although you can claim units of 0 or infinity, this does not rule out the results of other units, therefore it is a moot point to attempt.

Hint 2. - If our universe were infinite in both time and space (which it could be), would measurement be impossible? Explain using a MATHEMATICAL proof - none of this linguistic logical mumbo-jumbo.

Oy dude, this is a philosophical discussion which seeks to discern the nature of reality and show that our scales and parameters relating to observation only relate to the illusion or dream which is occuring within/upon the awareness of a distanceless entity.
Thus far, I have only gone so-far as to define the nature of an ACA - if one exists. If such an entity does exist, then - as defined - it does so as a boundless-entity without beginning or end. As such, no true distances/spaces can really exist within It, since to measure space/distance requires the absolute necessity of real origin/beginning (at the very least) and an end also (for finite distances).
... Since an ACA - as defined - has neither beginning or end, it is absolutely-incorrect to relate any sort of distance to such an entity - either finite or infinite.

If you cannot answer this, time to check into the nearest psychiatric ward.

Note that your question relates to an origin. Note that an ACA doesn't have one. Also note that our conceptual-mathematics don't have to refer to "reality" but can refer to a hypothetical-reality whereby 'origins' actually exist.
... Hence, the credibility of any mathematics is shown to be reflective of the [hypothetical] reality those mathematics mirror.
Any mathematics which mirror a [hypothetical] reality which has an origin and end can relate to distances. Whereas any mathematics which relate to a reality where there are no origins or ends are clearly b*ll***s.

[uruk]

I did. To measure a distance requires that both a beginning and an end exist... so how do you measure a distance where neither beginning or end doth exist? It's simple... you cannot.
Total and utter absolute B.S. It does not matter wether the universe is infinite and with out beginning or end. I can measure a distance within that infinity. all I have to do is pick two points with an arbitrary distance between them.

To measure a distance requires that both a beginning and an end exist You have yet to say why this is true. you only keep repeating it as if it were true. It not the same thing bloke.

This happens in our awareness... where a sense of things and a sense of space doth occur.
I shouldn't have to explain to you, at this stage, that the sense of any-thing is not "reality". It's illusion.
Up the grade uruk.

Absolutely irrelavent. It does not matter wethere we are talking about an illusion or not. the principal still holds true. We still have sense of a distance . That is the measurement. Our minds sense this reality. It is reality to us. Makes no difference if it is all an illusion in gods mind. It is all the "reality" we know. we still have to deal with it on it's terms.
Get your head out of your a$$ LG.

[uruk]

As such, no true distances/spaces can really exist within It, since to measure space/distance requires the absolute necessity of real origin/beginning
This is not true. To measure space, all I need is two points that are an arbirtary distance apart. I do not need an absolute origin. I can have distance in an infinte universe because there is an infinite amount of distance in that universe. All I have to do is say "between this point and this point (an arbitrary distance apart) is one unit of measure. And there is an infinite amount of these units in this universe."
Makes no difference if the distance is an illusion or if there is no "actual" distance being measured. measurement is just a reference.

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by zaayrdragon
Here, LG, you demonstrate another error to your thinking - we cannot measure the distance across reality, because that would be infinite. But any distance WITHIN reality can be easily measured. Any finite space within infinite space can be measured, because a finite space has both a beginning and an end, but can exist within infinite space.

Wake-up preacher. Read my last post to the intelligent-but-brainwashed kuroyume: mathematics can be applied to any [hypothetical] reality you can imagine. However, when the [hypothetical] reality is one whereby there is NO beginning or end, then those mathematics are a pile-of-pooh when it comes to the mathematics of distances - for the measurement of ANY distance requires a beginning and an end.

This is another error. Saying that existence is infinite in no way requires a beginning (point of origin)

How can there be an infinity of any quality/parameter unless that quality/parameter has a definite existence within reality?
... How can existence be infinite in distance if it has been defined as indivisible and without beginning or end?

Task
... Measure the width of an entity that has no origin or end.

... You cannot even begin to measure that distance - since the entity has no beginning - so explain to the members of this forum how you have calculated this distance to be "infinite".

Wake-up call Z. Do you have a white-handkerchief in your pocket? If so, just wave it and stop digging a deeper grave for your own credibility.
I have nothing against you, but I will destroy ~you~ as I must.

[Piscivore]

Originally posted by lifegazer
I have nothing against you, but I will destroy ~you~ as I must.

Explain again about what the words "unity" and "harmony" mean to you. Please?

Originally posted by lifegazer
How can existence be infinite in distance if it has been defined as indivisible and without beginning or end?

Gee- it couldn't be your definition that's the problem, could it? Nah- you're perfect.

ETA: Hint: Calling it a "definition" does not make it less an assumption.

[uruk]

How can existence be infinite in distance if it has been defined as indivisible and without beginning or end?
The definition of infinity does not include indivisible unless that is you are using a definition that you made up.

An inifinty can be divided up into infinite units. Which is the first unit? which is the last unit? It doesn't matter. There are an infinite amount of miles in an infinity.

Task
... Measure the width of an entity that has no origin or end.

The entity is infinity miles wide, or infinity inches tall, or infinty centimeters deep. It does not matter where I start to measure it will always be an infinity distance.
I can divide up something infinite into infinite parts. The measurement is arbitrary. I just pick two points anywhere in the infinity and say "there are infinite amount of this distance in this infinity". Measurements (or rather the units) are relative and arbitrary.

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by Piscivore
Explain again about what the words "unity" and "harmony" mean to you. Please?

They mean that EVERYONE (capable of rational thought) KNOWS that they are God.
I make no excuses for belittling your pathetic insistence on claiming that you are a bozo who doesn't want God to exist so that you can continue to live ~your~ life at the exclusion of absolute-existence itself.
I have no respect for the entity that thinks itself to be pescivore/uruk/upchurch (whoever). I have no respect for any man.
I can love you (the truth of you) yet despise the identity you present of yourself.
I can be cruel to be kind. Only the ego of man is ever hurt... and in this case, the castigation of all ego is definitely justified.

Wake-up... I hate you whilst you sleep.

[kuroyume0161]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by lifegazer
Wake-up preacher. Read my last post to the intelligent-but-brainwashed kuroyume: mathematics can be applied to any [hypothetical] reality you can imagine. However, when the [hypothetical] reality is one whereby there is NO beginning or end, then those mathematics are a pile-of-pooh when it comes to the mathematics of distances - for the measurement of ANY distance requires a beginning and an end.

Oh, you mean like the hypothetical reality of Cartesian, Euclidean, and Non-Euclidean spaces (all infinite). Mathematics seems to apply fully to them (since they are mathematical constructs involving discreet measurements on infinite spaces).

In other words: When do the concepts of 0 (zero) and infinity NOT involve mathematical concepts? You can't have infinite space and no mathematical concepts usable within it...

Also, I'd like to get back to the ACA. Others have raised this issue and you have done a quite admirable job of swerving from an answer. If the ACA is singular and infinite, how is it anything? How does it move, react, think, change states? You say yourself that measurements in this infinite domain are impossible. Then change is impossible. The universe changes because constituents of the whole change WITH RESPECT TO ONE ANOTHER (just so you can see it). A seamless, singular infinity with no constituents is about as changeless as one can get. So, you have something happening within the 'mind' of this singular infinity point that never changes - that changes (the little illusory lives it lives). Therefore, there must be smaller constituents of the whole and it is no longer indivisible or defiant of measurement.

Quod erat demonstrandum...

Robert

[Piscivore]

Originally posted by lifegazer
I make no excuses for belittling your pathetic insistence on claiming that you are a bozo who doesn't want God to exist so that you can continue to live ~your~ life at the exclusion of absolute-existence itself.

I have no respect for someone who expects me to live within the irrational terms of their delusion, so that works.

Originally posted by lifegazer
I have no respect for the entity that thinks itself to be pescivore/uruk/upchurch (whoever).

But that's god, isn't it? Or have you redefined again?

Originally posted by lifegazer
I have no respect for any man.

Yet I'm the immoral one...

Originally posted by lifegazer
I can love you (the truth of you) yet despise the identity you present of yourself.

What "identity" have I presented? You keep claiming I'm trying to "refute" you, yet all I've done is ask questions.

Originally posted by lifegazer
I can be cruel to be kind.

Anyone can. Can you be kind to be kind? Without qualifications?

Originally posted by lifegazer
Only the ego of man is ever hurt...

You do not even believe that "a man" or the attendant ego exists- how can it be "hurt"? Can god's?

Originally posted by lifegazer
and in this case, the castigation of all ego is definitely justified.

You feel adequate "punish" your own god? And I have the ego problem?

Originally posted by lifegazer
Wake-up... I hate you whilst you sleep.

If you hate everyone that fails to live up to your expectations, you will be a lonely, bitter, angry... Oh. Right.

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by kuroyume0161
Originally posted by lifegazer
Wake-up preacher. Read my last post to the intelligent-but-brainwashed kuroyume: mathematics can be applied to any [hypothetical] reality you can imagine. However, when the [hypothetical] reality is one whereby there is NO beginning or end, then those mathematics are a pile-of-pooh when it comes to the mathematics of distances - for the measurement of ANY distance requires a beginning and an end.

Oh, you mean like the hypothetical reality of Cartesian, Euclidean, and Non-Euclidean spaces (all infinite). Mathematics seems to apply fully to them (since they are mathematical constructs involving discreet measurements on infinite spaces).

You can apply math to lots of hypothetical realities... as long as those realities faciltate the use of those math. Unfortunately for the atheist and closed-minded, the reality of a boundless ACA does not facilitate the use of math relating to distance... since - as defined - that reality is without beginning or end.

In other words: When do the concepts of 0 (zero) and infinity NOT involve mathematical concepts?

Clearly... they do NOT relate to a reality that has neither beginning or end.

You can't have infinite space and no mathematical concepts usable within it...

That's true... but first, you must have a reality that is spatially distinct. A reality that has no beginning or end, is not.

Also, I'd like to get back to the ACA. Others have raised this issue and you have done a quite admirable job of swerving from an answer. If the ACA is singular and infinite, how is it anything?

I never said the ACA is singular and infinite - I said it was singular and boundless... indivisible... without beginning or end... distanceless.

How does it move, react, think, change states?

It doesn't move or change states - it just changes the way it thinks and feels, which are intangible (non-spatial attributes) of said entity.

[Z]

Originally posted by lifegazer
You can apply math to lots of hypothetical realities... as long as those realities faciltate the use of those math. Unfortunately for the atheist and closed-minded, the reality of a boundless ACA does not facilitate the use of math relating to distance... since - as defined - that reality is without beginning or end.

Apparently, you have some extreme confusion regarding the definitions of distance and boundless. When something is boundless, you can measure discrete distances within that thing. That's just a fact, my friend.

[quote]That's true... but first, you must have a reality that is spatially distinct. A reality that has no beginning or end, is not.


Actually, no you don't. Infinite reality has any number of distances within it - that's just a fact, too.


I never said the ACA is singular and infinite - I said it was singular and boundless... indivisible... without beginning or end... distanceless.

Um, dude, have you graduated junior high yet? Infinite means boundless, without beginning or end; however, indivisible means distanceless. Further, indivisible relates well to singular, but infinite does not. A thing cannot be singular and infinite. Simple fact, yet again. Your definitions are moronic and incorrect.

It doesn't move or change states - it just changes the way it thinks and feels, which are intangible (non-spatial attributes) of said entity. [/B]

It doesn't change states, it just changes states. So in other words - your God is the God of Paradox.

LG, you have no idea what you're talking about. You've been rumbled, moron.

I have nothing against you, but I will destroy ~you~ as I must.

Bring it on, big guy. You cannot destroy me. You cannot hurt me. You cannot even give me a paper cut. You are a non-entity to me, an insignificant speck in the vast and endless Universe that is God. There is nothing that you can say or do that can hurt me, stop me, or destroy me. I am invulnerable to you, LG.

Besides, it would take at least a grade school education to even begin to approach me - and you clearly don't even have THAT.

Run away, little boy, and leave philosophy to the grown-ups. And know that Goddess loves even the foolish and the weak-minded, so even one such as you can be loved. But don't you dare throw another childish threat at me without something to back it up. You think we're all God? I know we're all God. And I know how to use that. Do you?

To the rest: Please note how the subject, lifegazer, has no comprehension of the English language, and is incapable of maintaining his philosophy without destroying the normal definitions of common words and terms. Note his complete lack of understanding of simple mathematics, infinity, and singularity. These are the marks of a child. I suspect that LG is none other than a seven to ten year old with some limited exposure to his older sibling or parent's college philosophy books. Certainly, this is about the intelligence level his arguments exhibit.

:D

LG - you are about the funniest man on this forum, just behind 1inC! Though, you'd be funnier if you at least had your basic knowledge straight. Come back after you finish school, OK?

[uruk]

It doesn't move or change states - it just changes the way it thinks and feels, which are intangible (non-spatial attributes) of said entity.
There has to be something that facilitaes the thought and feelings.
Earlier in this thread you said there was a "fabric" to this conciousness. change has to occur in this "fabric" otherwise there is no illusion, there is no thought, there is no feelings.
By the way, thinking and feeling requires a state change.

make no excuses for belittling your pathetic insistence on claiming that you are a bozo who doesn't want God to exist so that you can continue to live ~your~ life at the exclusion of absolute-existence itself.
I have no respect for the entity that thinks itself to be pescivore/uruk/upchurch (whoever). I have no respect for any man.
I can love you (the truth of you) yet despise the identity you present of yourself.
. Uh, oh this sounds dangerously close to "hate the sin but love the sinner." Are you SURE your not christian? By the way why do you hate god? Remember it is not "us" that is insisting that god does not exist. We are the ones that don't exists. We are god having the experiance of being us. God wants to have this experiance. Why do you treat us like we are real? You seem to be confused.
Unfortunately for the atheist and closed-minded, the reality of a boundless ACA does not facilitate the use of math relating to distance... since - as defined - that reality is without beginning or end. If the reality is without begining or end and there are no beginings or endings within this reality, then when did this illusion start?

[MRC_Hans]

Originally posted by lifegazer
That's a porkie. We only have knowledge of sensed-things.

Porkie? Could we cut the baby-speak? Or is that an indication of your intellectual level?

Rubbish. You cannot equate the sense-of-a-thing with "information" for the simple fact that we don't have all the info (or sometimes no info) for the sense-of-a-thing.

Soo, according to your logic, a newspaper is not a newspaper if I don't read al lof it? It is not information if we don't have all the information :confused: :nope: ?? TRY to think again.

The sense of a thing is not the same as the knowledge of a sensed-thing. This is quite evident when one realises how much our knowledge has evolved over the years.

Information does not necessarily equal knowledge, but if you find enough correlating information, then you get knowledge. This is why our knowledge evolves, because we keep collating information.

You didn't understand me. I want to know why any of these things prove that there is an existence beyond the sense of one.
The floor is yours again...

That was not the question you asked.

You're sinking fast squire.

No. But you are nearly at rock bottom. Solipsism, indeed :rolleyes:. Soon you'll start claiming that I'm just a figment of your imagination.

Any pain I senses from the large bloke with tatoos that I sense, is all experienced in my mind.

It's true that I sense the existence of more than one physical entity.

Do you not talk to people in your dreams?
Who do you think composes their script for them?

Yes, but I do not wake up with bruises from them.

As sensed, we all have mothers.

My philosophy does not advocate that one should treat one's dreams with indifferent contempt.

Why not? If the world is just a part of your imagination, why is almost all of it entirely out of your control? Why can't you make the tatooed bloke buy you a drink instead of beating the daylights out of you?

I'm actually spending much of my sensed-time on a sensed-computer, discussing things with people that I sense to exist, over the sensed-world internet.

You don't have a clue Hans. EVERYTHING in your awareness is sensed. No individual has any experience of an existence beyond itself.

Sooo, where do the sensation come from, LG? What is the cause of your sensations?

Hans

[Piscivore]

Originally posted by MRC_Hans
Porkie? Could we cut the baby-speak? Or is that an indication of your intellectual level?

It's Cockney Rhyming Slang. "Porkies" = "pork pies" = "lies".

It is an indication of his intellectual level; because CRS is often obtuse and frequently impentrable, it allows the user to feel more linguistically advance than he is. Sort of like eleven-year-old girls making up their own "code" languages.

I notice that despite his bluffs, LG still has not produced a single page of his "logical" proof of any of this, and still resorts to bald assertion and middle-school insults. I have a whole thread of unanswered questions that await the day he grows up.

It would be fun to take our Mr. LG to a bar in ten years (assuming by then he is old enough) and buy him a beer and have a good laugh over all this nonsense.

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by zaayrdragon

Tough call, LG - I'd be more interested in your logic in part 2 than in part 3 - but I'm only one voice. IMO, prooving something exists at all is more important than proving its nature, function, or properties. Much like homeopathy. Absolutely! Except how can you assess something exists without assessing it has a nature? You begin by trying to describe its properties don't you?

[Z]

Originally posted by Iacchus
Absolutely! Except how can you assess something exists without assessing it has a nature? You begin by trying to describe its properties don't you?

Hey, did anybody hear that tiny buzz? What was that, a fly? A mosquito?

Oh, hi, Iaccus. Decide to join us, did you? Well, there goes the neighborhood... :D

Actually, describing its properties is pointless before you can rationalize/realize it exists. If I describe to you something that is pink, possesses four hooves, a single horn, is invisible, etc. am I helping you at all, unless you already have assertained that the IPU exists (or could exist)?

Now, it is true that some things are determined first by recognizing properties and realizing they do not belong to any existent thing; for example, many particles in the subatomic realm are realized this way. But this is more discovery process than one uses when trying to realize God. Since we can't observe the ACA directly, we must attempt to rationalize/realize its existence first, then understand its properties. Or at least, that's my opinion. YMMV.

[Iacchus]

Again, how can you describe something without its having any characteristics?

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by zaayrdragon
Apparently, you have some extreme confusion regarding the definitions of distance and boundless. When something is boundless, you can measure discrete distances within that thing. That's just a fact, my friend.

Actually, no you don't. Infinite reality has any number of distances within it - that's just a fact, too.

Don't you listen?
To define a realm as infinite in distance requires a beginning [point]. To define a realm as finite in distance requires both a beginning [point] and an end [point].
... An indivisible boundless ACA has neither beginning nor end. Therefore, it cannot be defined as having a distance.

[Z]

And don't you listen? Defining something as infinite means it has neither beginning nor ending; but by definition an infinite space contains an infinite number of finite spaces, each with its own beginning/endings.

[MRC_Hans]

Actually, you can both be right here. Something infinite can be without beginnig or end, boundless. But is can also have one boundary (either a beginning or an end).

Hans

[Z]

If it has an endpoint, though, it is not infinite from an arbitrary point to that endpoint. In fact, I think you'd be hard-pressed to find any object that is truly infinite with a singular start point. Even light dissipates eventually.

Time might be the only thing that violates this concept, as there may be a definite point at which time began; however, this is essentially useless, because there was absolutely nothing before time.

Now, if we use mathematics and theoretical constructs, we can create any number of things which are unidirectionally infinite; perhaps, we should have two terms here: true infinite and unilateral infinite. Might that help the discussion along?

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by zaayrdragon
And don't you listen? Defining something as infinite means it has neither beginning nor ending; but by definition an infinite space contains an infinite number of finite spaces, each with its own beginning/endings.
You are a very stupid person. Why? Because you lack the simple intelligence required to grasp that a realm without beginnings or ends is also a realm without a middle or any other defining point of existence.

Stick your definitions where the sun don't shine pal. They relate to our sense of space alone and we all know how real sensed-things are don't we?

[H'ethetheth]

Originally posted by lifegazer
Don't you listen?
To define a realm as infinite in distance requires a beginning [point].No, it doesn't require that. A "realm" can stretch from minus infinity to plus infinity, making it without beginning or end.
To define a realm as finite in distance requires both a beginning [point] and an end [point].Yes.
... An indivisible boundless ACA has neither beginning nor end. Therefore, it cannot be defined as having a distance.
Boundless space means there is no place a position is not allowed to exist within that space, therefore it is infinite.
Indivisible space means that no internal boundaries can be defined within the space. It's all outer boundary, therefore it's a point.
An indivisible boundless space is about as good a contradiction as they get.:hit: :teacher:

But of course this is somewhet off-topic. :biggrin:

[Z]

Originally posted by lifegazer
You are a very stupid person. Why? Because you lack the simple intelligence required to grasp that a realm without beginnings or ends is also a realm without a middle or any other defining point of existence.

I never argued that an infinite realm has a middle. I said it contains an infinite number of finite points and distances within it.

Did you pass basic math? Or basic physics? Or English I?

However, any point is merely a referential from one object to another within infinite space. That's simple fact, too. So who is the stupid one?

Stick your definitions where the sun don't shine pal.

Very mature. Insults and name-calling do not prove your intellecutal superiority.

They relate to our sense of space alone and we all know how real sensed-things are don't we?

Well, we know it, but do you?

How real are sensed-things? As real as we need be concerned with, as they are the only reality that involves us.

[MRC_Hans]

Originally posted by lifegazer
You are a very stupid person. Why? Because you lack the simple intelligence required to grasp that a realm without beginnings or ends is also a realm without a middle or any other defining point of existence.

Stick your definitions where the sun don't shine pal. They relate to our sense of space alone and we all know how real sensed-things are don't we? My, what an intelligent and educated response. You really demonstrate your superiour debating skills there. Now we must all bow in deep respect of your immaculate academical skills.

Hans

[H'ethetheth]

Originally posted by lifegazer
...Ad hominem blahblah... a realm without beginnings or ends is also a realm without a middle[...] Yes. [...]or any other defining point of existence. No! In fact any and all points inside an infinite (or any other) space define its existence.

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by zaayrdragon

Time might be the only thing that violates this concept, as there may be a definite point at which time began; however, this is essentially useless, because there was absolutely nothing before time. I think you mean nothing in the material sense (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?s=&threadid=46199).

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by H'ethetheth
Yes. No! In fact any and all points inside an infinite (or any other) space define its existence.
For space to exist, it must be a realm with beginnings and ends... which is hardly the same thing as a realm with no beginnings or ends, now is it?

Also, I defined the ACA as existence itself. It is singular. It is indivisible. It is boundless.
It is impossible to move from one side of an ACA to the next since there are not sides, middles, or any differentiating points that exist within such an entity. No two different points can exist within an indivisible existence.
If an ACA exists, it is not an entity that is infinite in space, but an entity that is devoid of space... a distanceless entity.

[MRC_Hans]

Originally posted by lifegazer
For space to exist, it must be a realm with beginnings and ends...

Why?

which is hardly the same thing as a realm with no beginnings or ends, now is it?

And?

Also, I defined the ACA as existence itself. It is singular. It is indivisible. It is boundless.

It is abstract.

It is impossible to move from one side of an ACA to the next since there are not sides, middles, or any differentiating points that exist within such an entity. No two different points can exist within an indivisible existence.

And?

If an ACA exists, it is not an entity that is infinite in space, but an entity that is devoid of space... a distanceless entity.

And if an ACA does NOT exist?

Hans

[Z]

Originally posted by lifegazer
For space to exist, it must be a realm with beginnings and ends... which is hardly the same thing as a realm with no beginnings or ends, now is it?

This definition does not follow. Yes, space must have beginnings and ends - but that does not mean it is not, itself, endless. You are confusing a collection of finite spaces with infinite space. Infinite space contains all finite spaces. But that does not itself make that space finite.

Also, I defined the ACA as existence itself.

So far, so good - you are welcome to do so. However...

It is singular. It is indivisible. It is boundless.

... this is a contradictory series of statements. If it is indivisible, it cannot be boundless. If it is boundless, it cannot be indivisible. In either case, it can be singular - that is, there can be one and only one existence. That much is fine. But being singular does not define any property other than its uniqueness. Further, since you define the ACA as existence, then we know the ACA is not indivisible, since existence has many divisions within it. If existence was indivisible, then we wouldn't even be able to have this discussion.

Of course, we should check your definition of indivisible. If, by indivisible, you mean it is impossible to divide one existence and get two existences, then it would be indivisible. However, if you mean that it is impossible to mark any given space or thing within existence, then that is false.

It is impossible to move from one side of an ACA to the next since there are not sides, middles, or any differentiating points that exist within such an entity.

True. An infinite realm has no 'sides', or 'middles'; however, differentiating points is false. More properly, an infinite entity has no defining points. No given point defines a boundary of an infinite entity. However, an infinite number of points can be differentiated within an infinite entity.

No two different points can exist within an indivisible existence.

Also true, but as explained above, if existence were indivisible, we would not be here to discuss it. There would be no features at all, no thoughts, no reality for us to discuss.

If an ACA exists, it is not an entity that is infinite in space, but an entity that is devoid of space... a distanceless entity.

In which case, as already explained, it could not therefore be existence, since existence has spaces. Therefore, either the ACA is non-singular (since the ACA and existence would exist as two discrete entities) or the ACA is infinite. Your fundamental assumptions are flawed and contradictory. I'd say you really need to re-think your assumptions a bit.

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by MRC_Hans
"For space to exist, it must be a realm with beginnings and ends..."

Why?

To measure a real space requires a beginning [point] of measurement and an end [point] of measurement. Such a space is full of beginnings and ends.

"which is hardly the same thing as a realm with no beginnings or ends, now is it?"

And?

And... a realm without beginning [points] or end [points] is obviously immeasurable in distance.

"Also, I defined the ACA as existence itself. It is singular. It is indivisible. It is boundless."

It is abstract.

You cannot know if it is abstract unless you have a proof that no such entity exists.

"It is impossible to move from one side of an ACA to the next since there are not sides, middles, or any differentiating points that exist within such an entity. No two different points can exist within an indivisible existence."

And?

And this:
If an ACA exists, it is not an entity that is infinite in space, but an entity that is devoid of space... a distanceless entity.

And if an ACA does NOT exist?

Well then we can all be selfish heathens and continue to destroy the world without feeling guilty about it.

[MRC_Hans]

Originally posted by lifegazer
To measure a real space requires a beginning [point] of measurement and an end [point] of measurement. Such a space is full of beginnings and ends.

But you said exist, not be measurable Are you claiming that nothing can exist and yet be unmeasurable? Then you are truly a materialist.

And... a realm without beginning [points] or end [points] is obviously immeasurable in distance.

So?

You cannot know if it is abstract unless you have a proof that no such entity exists.

I cannot know it is not abstract unless I have proof it exists. The onus of proof is on you.

(if no ACA exists)
Well then we can all be selfish heathens and continue to destroy the world without feeling guilty about it.

Or we can be unselfish and ethical humans and try to save our world. Since your ACA does not interact with us, it has no influence on us anyway.

Hans

[Z]

Infinite space is immeasurable. But finite spaces within infinite space are measurable.

You seem confused - do you not realise that any space can contain within it a smaller space, and therefore infinite space can contain within it an infinite number of smaller spaces?

Immeasurable does not mean without space. Immeasurable means it extends into infinity in every direction.

I have a couple of honest questions for you, LG:

1) What country do you live in?

2) How far did you get in school?

3) What kind of grades did you get?

I ask these because it seems evident that you are sorely lacking in some very basic knowledge of simple things like infinity, spacial measurement, and reasoning/logic. Please, I ask out of pure concern and curiosity - I ask that you answer with honesty and without bile.

[H'ethetheth]

Originally posted by lifegazer
For space to exist, it must be a realm with beginnings and ends... which is hardly the same thing as a realm with no beginnings or ends, now is it?

You can keep saying a space or "realm" can't exist without beginnings or ends, but it can, whether you like it or not. Science hasn't figured out yet (to my knowledge anyway) whether the universe we perceive is infinite or not, but it might well be. There is no mathematical or logical inconsistency there.

Also, I defined the ACA as existence itself. It is singular. It is indivisible. It is boundless.
It is impossible to move from one side of an ACA to the next since there are not sides, middles, or any differentiating points that exist within such an entity. No two different points can exist within an indivisible existence.
If an ACA exists, it is not an entity that is infinite in space, but an entity that is devoid of space... a distanceless entity.

So the ACA is existence, and as you would have us believe "distanceless", except you haven't proven that (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=45390) to be a necessity. Furthermore, boundlessness does not imply distancelessness but in fact excludes it. As I said (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&postid=1870631349#post1870631349), boundless space means there is no place a position is not allowed to exist within that space. Positions are essential to any space, including boundless ones. So existence is either

(1)singular
(2)non-singular and bounded
(3)unbounded

These are the three mutually exclusive options.

I see you've made another strange post during the writing of this one. In reaction to this...To measure a real space requires a beginning [point] of measurement and an end [point] of measurement. Such a space is full of beginnings and ends....I want to point out the following.

A space without beginning or end does not mean that you cannot label some point saying "this is a begin point" and start measuring. It simply means that there is no point in that space that you can label "the last point I will encounter travelling in this direction". There will allways be an infinity of points ahead.

[wollery]

Lifegazer, get a grip, and please pay careful attention to the following.

I'm standing on a flat 2-dimensional plane that extends for an infinite distance in all directions. It has no beginning or end, and no middle. Just over there is my friend Snarkhunter. It suddenly occurs to me that I'd like to know just how far away from me Snarkhunter is. So I get a marker pen out of my pocket and, bending down I mark a small cross on the floor. I throw the marker pen to Snarkhunter and he does likewise. Then I get a long piece of string out of another pocket, and attach it to the floor with a drawing pin which just happens to also be in that pocket. I now walk over to Snarkhunter and pull the string taut over the mark he made on the floor. I mark the piece of string at that point. So Snarkhunter was that length, from my mark to his, away from me. I think I'll call that length a Boojum.

Snarkhunter and I are going to a tea party, and we decide that it will be fun to work out how far we have to walk to get there. We know before we start out that it's a fair distance away, and we don't really want to measure it all out with our Boojum length string. So we come up with the idea of getting a rope, measuring how long it is in Boojums and using that. Starting at one end of the rope we carefully measure Boojum lengths, marking off each one as we do so, until we get to the other end. Interestingly enough the rope turns out to be exactly 57 Boojums in length, and after a short discussion we decide to call that length an Alice.

So off we go to the tea party, one of us stands still with one end of the rope, at the point where I made my mark on the floor, whilst the other goes ahead with the other end of the rope. When the rope is taut the one who was standing still starts off, passes the other and continues until he gets an Alice away, and the rope is again taut. We continue in this fashion until we reach the gate to the garden where the tea party is being held. By another remarkable coincedence it turns out to be precisely 94 Alices from where we started, and, pleased with our discovery we call this distance a Bandersnatch.

So we go into the garden and announce to the gatthered guests that we have created a means by which to compare distances, with units of Boojums, Alices and Bandersnatches. We show them the piece of string, and the rope, and Hatter, being mad, works out that one Bandersnatch is 5358 Boojums long.

A couple of days later I meet Snarkhunter for a pint in our local, the Cheshire Cat, and he tells me that Doormouse measured the distance from the garden gate to the bandstand in the park, and it turns out to be 2 Bandersnatch 17 Alices and 44 Boojums.

Remarkable!!


And what was the point of all this I here Lifegazer ask. It is simply to show that there is no problem in measuring finite distances in an infinite space. You just pick an arbitrary starting point, measure to another arbitrary point, and hey presto, you have a unit of measurement for distances. This measure can then be used to compare distances between any other pair of arbitrary points.

edited for spingell

[lifegazer]

On the assumption that space exists and is infinite:

(1) There must exist a point (A) which is an infinity away from another point (Z).
(2) An infinite-line doesn't really connect these two points since if it did, there would be a beginning and an end to the infinity of this line. One cannot complete the length of this line.
(3) No matter how-long one tries, one cannot leave A and get any nearer to Z. Any motion towards Z is futile in regards getting closer to Z.

So, travel from A at a given velocity towards Z for some time and we arrive at another point which we will label point-B.
Yet, from the above, we can see that B is no nearer to Z than is A. B is still an infinity from Z.
Now, travel from B at a given velocity towards Z for some time and we arrive at another point which we will label point-C.
Yet, from the above, we can see that C is no nearer to Z than is B or A.
... And so on. No points along an infinite line are any nearer to Z than any other points.

Bizarre! Z exists - you assume - yet no points between you and it are any nearer to it than yourself!!!

It's time to get real!!
Wake up dudes. This is a discussion about reality. It's time to engage your God-given ability to think about concepts (math) in regards to the reality you want them to portray.
Clearly, there cannot be a point that exists whereby no other points between me and it are any nearer to that point.

Such a realm is where Alice and wollery exist.

[uruk]

You are a very stupid person. Why? Because you lack the simple intelligence required to grasp that a realm without beginnings or ends is also a realm without a middle or any other defining point of existence.
Technicaly where ever you stand in an infinite realm is the middle because everything streches to infinity in all directions away from you. (I know, It's just a word play on my part)

They relate to our sense of space alone and we all know how real sensed-things are don't we?
Well it seems pretty real to you. Your having a heated debate with sensed individuals via a sensed computer and internet. You can't make your thoughts known to us without the unreal, sensed devices. As a matter of fact you can't do anything without interacting with this "sensed" realm. Would't that define it as a reality?

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by wollery
And what was the point of all this I here Lifegazer ask. It is simply to show that there is no problem in measuring finite distances in an infinite space.

You've been rumbled.
The concept of distance and its corresponding parameters is a reflection of the world that we sense.
So, we are measuring finite distances in sensed space
(abstract space)... and not finite distances in infinite space.

... So you see, there is a slight problem here. You're talking through your you-know-what.

[wollery]

Originally posted by lifegazer
On the assumption that space exists and is infinite:

(1) There must exist a point (A) which is an infinity away from another point (Z).
(2) An infinite-line doesn't really connect these two points since if it did, there would be a beginning and an end to the infinity of this line. One cannot complete the length of this line.
(3) No matter how-long one tries, one cannot leave A and get any nearer to Z. Any motion towards Z is futile in regards getting closer to Z.

So, travel from A at a given velocity towards Z for some time and we arrive at another point which we will label point-B.
Yet, from the above, we can see that B is no nearer to Z than is A. B is still an infinity from Z.
Now, travel from B at a given velocity towards Z for some time and we arrive at another point which we will label point-C.
Yet, from the above, we can see that C is no nearer to Z than is B or A.
... And so on. No points along an infinite line are any nearer to Z than any other points.

Bizarre! Z exists - you assume - yet no points between you and it are any nearer to it than yourself!!!

It's time to get real!!
Wake up dudes. This is a discussion about reality. It's time to engage your God-given ability to think about concepts (math) in regards to the reality you want them to portray.
Clearly, there cannot be a point that exists whereby no points between me and it are nearer to that point. And once again Lifegazer proves, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that he has no idea what he's talking about.

Yes it is bizarre, but that's what happens when you start talking about infinity. It can't be measured in conventional terms, yet you seem to be hung up on treating infinite distance as measurable in the same way as a walk to the shops!

Go do a course in mathematics LG, you really need it before you can even hope to comprehend how wrong you are.

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by wollery
Yes it is bizarre, but that's what happens when you start talking about infinity. It can't be measured in conventional terms, yet you seem to be hung up on treating infinite distance as measurable in the same way as a walk to the shops!

Go do a course in mathematics LG, you really need it before you can even hope to comprehend how wrong you are.
A course in mathematics is futile in regards to what I just told you.
Get real you plonker and start relating mathematical concepts to the reality you want them to portray!!

In infinite-space a point Z must exist which is an infinity away from you. In such a space ALL OTHER POINTS BETWEEN YOU AND IT ARE NO NEARER TO IT THAN YOURSELF.

This is the reality you are stupid enough to believe in?
I suggest you need to go to the doctors and stop reading books about Alice.

[wollery]

Originally posted by lifegazer
You've been rumbled.
The concept of distance and its corresponding parameters is a reflection of the world that we sense.
So, we are measuring finite distances in sensed space
(abstract space)... and not finite distances in infinite space.:dl:
Good squirming lifegazer, but I'm afraid that it is you who are rumbled. You can't claim that an infinite space cannot contain a finite distance and then say that finite distances are only sensed when someone shows you that finite distance do exist in infinite space. That would imply that the infinite space is only sensed, and not real, which kind of puts the mockers on your whole argument!!

... So you see, there is a slight problem here. You're talking through your you-know-what. My mouth, it's called a mouth LG, although I'm actually typing, not talking, but what the heck.

[Z]

Originally posted by lifegazer
On the assumption that space exists and is infinite:

(1) There must exist a point (A) which is an infinity away from another point (Z).

WRONG.

In fact, the moment you define any two points, you instantly define a finite space. Therefore, the rest of your argument is moot.

It's time to get real!!
Wake up dudes. This is a discussion about reality. It's time to engage your God-given ability to think about concepts (math) in regards to the reality you want them to portray.
Clearly, there cannot be a point that exists whereby no other points between me and it are any nearer to that point.

Such a realm is where Alice and wollery exist.

Yes, it is time for you to wake up, and get an education. Fool.

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by wollery
Good squirming lifegazer, but I'm afraid that it is you who are rumbled. You can't claim that an infinite space cannot contain a finite distance and then say that finite distances are only sensed when someone shows you that finite distance do exist in infinite space. That would imply that the infinite space is only sensed, and not real, which kind of puts the mockers on your whole argument!!

Fact: Distance is a concept which we glean from our sense of [abstract] space.
Fact: Therefore, it is true to say that we measure finite-distances in sensed-space.
Fact: Consequently, nobody measures finite distance in infinite-space. Like I said, you've been rumbled.

Get real pal. Get real.

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by zaayrdragon
On the assumption that space exists and is infinite:

(1) There must exist a point (A) which is an infinity away from another point (Z).

[B]WRONG.

I was right about you: you are exceedingly stupid.

If space exists and is infinite, then - whether we can get to it or not - there must exist a point in this space that is an infinity away from you.
How dumb would it be to advocate the existence of an infinite-space where there were no existing points of that space that were an infinity of distance from you?

In fact, the moment you define any two points, you instantly define a finite space.

You're kinda killing your own argument for the existence of a space that IS infinite here.

Yes, it is time for you to wake up, and get an education. Fool.
Do you have to finish all of your posts with the same boring line?

[uruk]

The concept of distance and its corresponding parameters is a reflection of the world that we sense.
So, we are measuring finite distances in sensed space
(abstract space)... and not finite distances in infinite space.


And?
This completely irrelavent. This sensed realm is all that we can percieve. That distance is just as real to you or me as if it actually exists. WE CANNOT DEAL WITH IT OTHERWISE!
Any realm that is superceedent to this realm can only be academic, abstract and ultimately unprovable because we cannot detect it's presence. Reason alone is insufficient to prove it's existance. You need an observation or an experiance to verify it's existance inorder to insure that the premisis are not faulty or false. And the problem with that is that your world view discounts any observation or experiance we can have as illusionary. That makes the reasoning unprovable.
I think we have already hit the solipsitic bottom here

[Z]

Originally posted by lifegazer
Fact: Distance is a concept which we glean from our sense of [abstract] space.

Inserting abstract doesn't make it so.

Fact: Therefore, it is true to say that we measure finite-distances in sensed-space.

True.

Fact: Consequently, nobody measures finite distance in infinite-space.

False. This statement depends upon proving that sensed-space is not infinite-space. Further, it is not Fact but Hypothesis. At best, we can say that we measure finite distance within space which may or may not be infinite.

Like I said, you've been rumbled.

You say that so often. I wonder what your definition is.

Get real pal. Get real.

[Z]

Originally posted by lifegazer
I was right about you: you are exceedingly stupid.

If space exists and is infinite, then - whether we can get to it or not - there must exist a point in this space that is an infinity away from you.

And why do you believe this to be true? Any two fixed points in space have a finite amount of distance between them. Otherwise, you are conjecturing that there is such a thing as an unfixed point. Only a point in motion would be an infinite distance from anything. Since the definition of a point when used in measuring distance is a fixed point, any two fixed points define a finite space.

How dumb would it be to advocate the existence of an infinite-space where there were no existing points of that space that were an infinity of distance from you?

How dumb would it be to claim the existence of points that move? Or of not understanding basic science?

You're kinda killing your own argument for the existence of a space that IS infinite here.

No, as I've stated before, infinite space is filled with an infinite number of finite distances. Finite distances are defined by any two or more fixed points, of which infinite space includes an infinity.

Do you have to finish all of your posts with the same boring line?

Well, that just proves you don't read most of my posts, doesn't it?

[Z]

Originally posted by uruk
And?
This completely irrelavent. This sensed realm is all that we can percieve. That distance is just as real to you or me as if it actually exists. WE CANNOT DEAL WITH IT OTHERWISE!
Any realm that is superceedent to this realm can only be academic, abstract and ultimately unprovable because we cannot detect it's presence. Reason alone is insufficient to prove it's existance. You need an observation or an experiance to verify it's existance inorder to insure that the premisis are not faulty or false. And the problem with that is that your world view discounts any observation or experiance we can have as illusionary. That makes the reasoning unprovable.
I think we have already hit the solipsitic bottom here

I think this has been pointed out to him before, time after time. Since this ACA of his cannot be detected, nor any evidence of it discovered, and since it takes no active and detectable role in our reality, it is irrelevant. Since our reality is the only reality we are capable of existing in and interacting with, that is the only reality we need concern ourselves with. His entire philosophy, aside from being based on false premises and incorrect knowledge, is also utterly irrelevant.

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by zaayrdragon
Inserting abstract doesn't make it so.

Of course it's abstract space. Do you not yet understand the distinction which exists between the sense of a thing and the reality of that thing?
Do you not yet realise that the things we sense are abstract representations of those things?

"Fact: Consequently, nobody measures finite distance in infinite-space."

False. This statement depends upon proving that sensed-space is not infinite-space.

So, awareness is possibly infinite? Kinda ruins your hope that there is a reality beyond the sense of one, doesn't it?

Further, it is not Fact but Hypothesis. At best, we can say that we measure finite distance within space which may or may not be infinite.

We measure finite distances in abstract space. It's not a hypothesis but a bleedin' obvious fact.

[Z]

Depending upon your definition of 'abstract', I could agree; yet abstract space represents true space, and true space may or may not be infinite. So where does your argument lie?

By one of the cogsci definitions of abstract, "not representing or imitating external reality or the objects of nature", we do not measure finite distance within an abstract space. Therefore, by this definition, you are wrong.

IN fact, by any definition of 'abstract' that I can find, you would be wrong. Only if we are attempting to measure distance on a hypothetical system are we dealing with abstract space. However, since our senses provide us with representations of real space, the sense of space we have is not abstract, not in the least.

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by zaayrdragon
And why do you believe this to be true? Any two fixed points in space have a finite amount of distance between them.

Correction:- Any two points in SENSED space have a finite amount of distance between them.

No, as I've stated before, infinite space is filled with an infinite number of finite distances.

You're very silly. If space exists and is infinite, then there must exist parts of that space that are an infinite-distance from where you are. End of story pal.
If there are no parts of space existing which are an infinite distance from you, then space cannot be infinite.

[Z]

Let me start by noting that I edited my lasts post, LG.

Originally posted by lifegazer
[b]Correction:- Any two points in SENSED space have a finite amount of distance between them.

You're very silly. If space exists and is infinite, then there must exist parts of that space that are an infinite-distance from where you are. End of story pal.

No, that doesn't follow at all. A measure of distance requires two fixed points; there is no 'end' of an infinite distance, so there is no 'point' at the other end. You really need to learn more about infinity.

If there are no parts of space existing which are an infinite distance from you, then space cannot be infinite.

Again, incorrect. This statement is badly written. A 'part of space' can only be noted by a point - and a point defines a finite distance. But for any point we define, if we can move beyond that point, then there is still a case for infinity.

We don't know if space is infinite. We don't know if you can keep travelling forever. But there is no reason to believe it is finite, either. It remains unproven, eternally, and will always remain unproven until we reach a limit where we absolutely can go no further.

SO - is your ACA infinite, or not?

[Piscivore]

Originally posted by lifegazer
...an infinity...

This is not a quantity. Your understanding of "infinity" is "a really big number". It is not. To say a point is "an infinity away" is to redefine "infinity" to a finite distance.


Oh, and in keeping with the level of civility you have opted for: Prat. Doofus. Poopy-underpants man.

[Z]

Consider, LG:

In space, the furthest objects we can detect are luminous in some form (I think some non-visible radiation, I don't know). Our experience, which is highly consistant, tells us that any luminous body radiates its luminosity from most every direction, assuming no major flaws like a dead zone, etc. Thus, we can infer that those objects that exist at the absolute limits of our detection are radiating something away from us.

Since the nature of radiation is that it travels until either reflected or absorbed by some other thing, we can conjecture that this radiation must either continue to travel until it is reflected or absorbed. As of yet, we have not detected large amounts of reflected radiation from a non-specific source, so either a) that radiation is still travelling, b) it is being reflected, but is so weak that we can no longer deteced, or c) it is being absorbed by some unknown object. Of course, since we don't know if we have yet reached the hypothetical limits of the Universe, we can't be sure of anything yet.

However, if, one day, we detect this reflected radiation, or finally discover some boundary which absorbs and negates that radiation, then we can declare that our universe is finite. Yet we can still conjecture that there may exist SOMETHING beyond that boundary. So it can never truly be proven whether reality is infinite or not.

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by zaayrdragon
yet abstract space represents true space, and true space may or may not be infinite.

Err, true space may not even exist.

So where does your argument lie?

Our math, like our concept of distance, relate to the SENSE of the world.
You literally do have to "get real" if you want to have a philosophical discussion about any specific reality.

[Z]

In which case, LG, any ' philosophical discussion about any specific reality" would be impossible, except in purely hypothetical terms, by your definition. I.E. it would be irrelevant.

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by Piscivore
This is not a quantity. Your understanding of "infinity" is "a really big number". It is not. To say a point is "an infinity away" is to redefine "infinity" to a finite distance.

I'm not the one here arguing for the reality of an infinite-space.

Listen, if you advocate the reality of a space that is infinite, then you advocate the reality of parts of that space that exist an infinite-distance from you. That's the way it is. And that's why, ultimately, such a reality is impossible.

That's the problem here: people fail to "get real" with the philosophies that they advocate.
For example, if I claim to be holding a stick that is infinitely-long, then I MUST also claim that there are parts of that stick that exist an infinite-distance from me. Those parts must exist or else the stick is not infinite.
Same with infinite-space.

[lifegazer]

In the last few posts, you hopefully saw why a reality of infinite-space is absurd.

But what of a finite space?
Can there be a reality that is finite?

... Well, let's "get real" again:-
If we advocate the reality of a finite existence, we are advocating the reality of something completely bounded by absolutely nothing. Clearly, absolutely-nothing cannot embrace a finite reality.
Therefore, there is no finite reality either.
Therefore, reality must be non-spatial.
Therefore, get praying you bozos.

[uruk]

Fact: Distance is a concept which we glean from our sense of [abstract] space.
Fact: Therefore, it is true to say that we measure finite-distances in sensed-space.
Fact: Consequently, nobody measures finite distance in infinite-space. Like I said, you've been rumbled.
.

Now you shuffle First you talk about infinite boundless entity, erroneously claim it is indivisible. Use this to define your ACA. you do so right here:An ACA cannot be a finite/bounded entity, as previously discussed.
Now that you have been shown your error, you switch as say "oh wait, distance is is just sensed". We aint talking about sensed distances. The distance thing was an example to show that something that is infinite and boundless CAN be divisible. You say the ACA is infinite and boundless. Infinte and boundless in what? Volume? Power? Will? Thought? But wait you say it is a non spacial entity. you say it right here:
This realisation opens the door to another: An indivisible entity is a non-spatial entity.
Therefore, if an ACA exists, it is a non-spatial (non-physical) entity.

Well then, the ACA is definitly not infinite in volume. What is it infinite in then? By this I mean what about the ACA is infinite?

BTW it is not physical in reference to what? Physical is defined as "composed of or relating to things that occupy space and can be percieved by the senses : concrete, corporeal, material, objective, phenomenal, sensible, substantial, tangible." (from Roget's thesaurus.)
Non-physical implies that there is something that is physical. If the ACA is all that there is, then it defines the physical part or the reality or what is real.
If the ACA is not physical even in refrence to itself, then it does not exist. Then ACA is no more real than we are. Hmmmm, yet here we are. Paradox, don't you think?

[Piscivore]

Originally posted by lifegazer
...an infinite-distance... infinitely-long... infinite-distance...

Did you even read my post? You are repeating the same error.

Space can be infinte. This means it doesn't end. This may or may not be true- I am not advocating either.

But is does not follow that there "has to be" something "an infinite-distance" from me- because as soon as you do that, you've defined a point in space and that distance becomes finite. And you can go just a little farther than that, conceptually.

Let's go the other way with this, since infinity goes the other way, too. What is the smallest, non-divisible "distance" we can "sense", or mathematically determine, that is not "zero"?

ETA: Oh, I forgot- "Get to a maths class, you snot-nosed kneebiter"

[uruk]

Therefore, reality must be non-spatial.

If the ACA exists, it's existance defines your first point.
I say again. What about the ACA is not finite and not boundless?

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by uruk
Now you shuffle First you talk about infinite boundless entity, erroneously claim it is indivisible.

That's a lie. I have not defined an ACA as infinite (in space).

Use this to define your ACA. you do so right here:

"An ACA cannot be a finite/bounded entity, as previously discussed."

No part of that statement defines an ACA as being infinite in space.

Now that you have been shown your error

There's only one of us making any errors here and it aint me.

you switch as say "oh wait, distance is is just sensed".

I've switched nothing... and distance IS sensed.

We aint talking about sensed distances.

Well that means you're making realities up.

The distance thing was an example to show that something that is infinite and boundless CAN be divisible.

But I've just proved that an infinite-space cannot be divisible:-
If all points between yourself and infinite-point Z are no nearer to Z than yourself, then you cannot really divide that space into smaller portions.
The distance between A and Z has been defined as infinite (which I will denote as 'i' for the proceeding mathematics)...
i = i/2 = i/3 = i/4 = i/1000 = i/100000000000

... Get the point? Infinity is truly indivisible.

You say the ACA is infinite and boundless.

I never said it was infinite.

[Piscivore]

Originally posted by lifegazer
But I've just proved that an infinite-space cannot be divisible:-
If all points between yourself and infinite-point Z are no nearer to Z than yourself, then you cannot really divide that space into smaller portions.
The distance between A and Z has been defined as infinite (which I will denote as 'i' for the proceeding mathematics)...
i = i/2 = i/3 = i/4 = i/1000 = i/100000000000

... Get the point? Infinity is truly indivisible.

I never said it was infinite.

But there cannot be an "Infinite-point Z" As soon as you define "Z", the distance is finite.

[H'ethetheth]

Originally posted by lifegazer
So, awareness is possibly infinite?
[...]
We measure finite distances in abstract space. It's not a hypothesis but a bleedin' obvious fact.

Awareness is possibly infinite? Do you infer that because the sensed space is infinite? It should be clear that even though infinity is a construct created by humans, infinity cannot be grasped completely by our minds. So the reprensentation of space cannot be infinite. Thinking about infinity does pose some strange problems. I observe for instance that you do not see that you cannot define a point at infinite metres away from you.
Think of it this way: You can pick a point far away from you, but there are allways points further away, so you will never define a point infinitely far away. I admit this is a very weird thought, but it is the way infinity works.
Representation of space in our minds is not infinite, since we deal only with the finite in everyday life, but if external space exists, it may very well be infinite.
The problem is that neither our philosophies can be proven ultimately true. Your philosophy is a sort of theistic instrumentalism, which assumes little about the true nature of the world; only true solipsism presumes less. However it gets us nowhere else than if the "world" would be real. Whatever it is we perceive, it has been modelled with ever greater succes.

Further, you did say the ACA was boundless, which implies infinity in some respect, spatial or otherwise.

And would it kill you to stop calling people names when they disagree? No beers for you until you're nice.
:neth:

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by Piscivore
Space can be infinte.

Says who?

This means it doesn't end.

Yes it does mean that. But it also means that there must be existing parts of that space which are an infinite-distance from you. If such parts do not exist, then we cannot define the existence of space as infinite.
Didn't you read the bit about an infinite-stick?

But is does not follow that there "has to be" something "an infinite-distance" from me

If reality X is infinite, then there must be parts of X which are infinitely distanced from each other, by default.

because as soon as you do that, you've defined a point in space and that distance becomes finite.

But in your own way you're just noting the absurdity of a reality X which is said to be infinite. As I said, this is not my position.

And you can go just a little farther than that, conceptually.

I know this. It's irrelevant. If there is a reality of infinite X, then we cannot escape the necessity that certain parts of X
must exist which are an infinite distance from other parts of X.

Let's go the other way with this, since infinity goes the other way, too. What is the smallest, non-divisible "distance" we can "sense", or mathematically determine, that is not "zero"?

A plank?
I'm not calling you a plank btw... that's my answer.

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by Piscivore
But there cannot be an "Infinite-point Z" As soon as you define "Z", the distance is finite.
Once more, your complaints do nothing to alter the argument.
If no points like Z actually exist, then infinite-space does not actually exist, does it?

[Piscivore]

Originally posted by lifegazer
Yes it does mean that. But it also means that there must be existing parts of that space which are an infinite-distance from you.

"Infinite distance" is a meaningless oxymoron. I'm not calling you a moron; that's my answer.

Originally posted by lifegazer
If reality X is infinite, then there must be parts of X which are infinitely distanced from each other, by default.

No, because "infinite distance" is meaningless. You cannot have a "distance" marked "infinite" that you cannot add to.

Originally posted by lifegazer
A plank?
I'm not calling you a plank btw... that's my answer.

So why can there not be 1/2 of a plank (and isn't it a planck? after the scientist?), or 1/4 of a plank? At what point can you not divide anymore?

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by Piscivore
"Infinite distance" is a meaningless oxymoron. I'm not calling you a moron; that's my answer.

Listen you oxy: I keep trying to explain to you why your complaints are only highlighting the absurdity of a reality X which somebody claims to be infinite. I am not the one making that claim. But those who are MUST also claim that certain parts of X exist which are infinitely-distanced from others or their claim is false.

No, because "infinite distance" is meaningless. You cannot have a "distance" marked "infinite" that you cannot add to.

Stop repeating yourself. It's irrelevant and proves nothing. Whether you like it or not, the claim that there is a reality of X which is itself infinite must mean that certain parts of X
are an infinite-distance from other parts of X. Yes, such a claim is absurd... and no, I am not making this claim... they are.

So why can there not be 1/2 of a plank (and isn't it a planck? after the scientist?), or 1/4 of a plank? At what point can you not divide anymore?
It's an irrelevant question. The plank or planck is a SENSED parameter of distance... and we all know that sensed-distance is truly indivisible anyway.

[uruk]

That's a lie. I have not defined an ACA as infinite (in space).
Then answer the other question in my post. What is the ACA infinite in?

No part of that statement defines an ACA as being infinite in space.
Then WHAT about the ACA is not being finite? WHAT about the ACA is not being bounded?


Well that means you're making realities up.
Well isn't that what you are doing?

But I've just proved that an infinite-space cannot be divisible:-
If all points between yourself and infinite-point Z are no nearer to Z than yourself, then you cannot really divide that space into smaller portions.
The distance between A and Z has been defined as infinite (which I will denote as 'i' for the proceeding mathematics)...
i = i/2 = i/3 = i/4 = i/1000 = i/100000000000

... Get the point? Infinity is truly indivisible.

This is nonsense. I can have a infinite number of miles between me and the "infinte point". An infinite point would be a point that is constantly moving away from you. all you have to do is keep adding a unit. (+1+1+1...infinitum) it does not matter in the slightest if I can't reach it or not. I can divide up and infinity into an infinite amount of units. I do not need an "absolute point". Why is that so hard for you to comprehend? Or is it that you are refusing to understand it?

[uruk]

And would it kill you to stop calling people names when they disagree? No beers for you until you're nice.
Didn't you read his post? He is insulting the part of you that disagrees with him. He loves the other part.

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by H'ethetheth
I observe for instance that you do not see that you cannot define a point at infinite metres away from you.

I do see it. My previous posts have centred around the fact that no existing entity can be infinitely-distanced from another.

Representation of space in our minds is not infinite, since we deal only with the finite in everyday life, but if external space exists, it may very well be infinite.

External space cannot be infinite. I've just explained why. Deal with those posts if you want to sustain your claim.

Further, you did say the ACA was boundless, which implies infinity in some respect, spatial or otherwise.

A boundless singular-entity is neither finite or infinite. It's non-spatial.

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by uruk
An infinite point would be a point that is constantly moving away from you.

I'll make a rocket for you which will send you into space forever, getting progressively further from me every single second. At no point from now till doomsday will that rocket ever be more than a finite distance from me.
In other words, you are talking through your bum.

[uruk]

I keep trying to explain to you why your complaints are only highlighting the absurdity of a reality X which somebody claims to be infinite. I am not the one making that claim.
Yes you did. Right here:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
An ACA cannot be a finite/bounded entity, as previously discussed.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


If the ACA is not finite then it is infinite. The ACA is the ultimate reality, is it not?

A boundless singular-entity is neither finite or infinite. It's non-spatial. O.k. the ACA is niether infinite or finite, we won't get into the paradox that brings up. So then what about the ACA is boundless?.

[uruk]

I'll make a rocket for you which will send you into space forever, getting progressively further from me every single second. At no point from now till doomsday will that rocket ever be more than a finite distance from me.
Semantical obfuscation.
the achievement of infinity is not the issue. That an infinity can be divided up into smaller unit is.

Oh, BTW. would you mind answering my question. What is it about the ACA that is boundless?

[kuroyume0161]

Alright, this has gone on long enough. I invoke MY law: thou shalt not defend an argument based on infinity. :)

Infinity is a concept. And something at infinity can never be reached since it is an unbounded set. The basic argument goes like this:

For every number N, there is a number N+1.

That's it. Number can be replaced with anything. It is an iterative process that goes on forever(). Infinity is something that cannot be reached, quantified, or divided in and of itself. This does not mean that the parts that constitute the infinite set cannot be reached, quantified, or divided.

Note that any infinity is the culmination of finite parts, almost like a limit is the culmination of an infinite number of subdivisions to yield a result in Integral Calculus (literally: integration of infinitesimals).

LG, your infinite, boundless ACA will become an imaginary concept if you continue to bolster infinite qualities upon it. While we're at it, boundless and infinite are somewhat synonymous, so you can remove the redundancy.

Addendum: there are bounded infinities - which is the current candidate for what our universe might be. The explanation of this is somewhat beyond my understanding, so maybe someone else can impart knowledge on this.

Robert

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by kuroyume0161
Infinity is a concept. And something at infinity can never be reached since it is an unbounded set. The basic argument goes like this:

For every number N, there is a number N+1.

That's it. Number can be replaced with anything. It is an iterative process that goes on forever(). Infinity is something that cannot be reached, quantified, or divided in and of itself. This does not mean that the parts that constitute the infinite set cannot be reached, quantified, or divided.

Who are you talking to here? I already know all this. And I'm not the one making the claim that an existing reality X can be infinite.
... Others are. Yet this claim brings upon the necessary conclusion that such a reality must have parts that are infinitely-distanced from one another. In other words:-
For any point A, there must be point(s) Z that are infinitely-distanced from each other [in this reality].
If this is not the case (and we see that it cannot be), then there can be no existing reality that is infinite.

Note that I highlight the word "existing". This is very important in regards this discussion, which is why I keep telling people to "get real" with their philosophies about infinity.

LG, your infinite, boundless ACA will become an imaginary concept if you continue to bolster infinite qualities upon it.

For the umpteenth time, I have not defined my ACA as infinite.

While we're at it, boundless and infinite are somewhat synonymous, so you can remove the redundancy.

No they are not synonymous. An existence that is boundless and singular is in fact indivisible and therefore non-spatial... meaning that boundlessness is not the same as being infinite.

Addendum: there are bounded infinities

Bounded by what? You mean like an infinity of sheep bounded by an infinite pen?
Well, let's drop the garbage and "get real".

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by uruk
O.k. the ACA is niether infinite or finite, we won't get into the paradox that brings up.

That's because there is no paradox. Reason does not demand that "distance" be reality.

So then what about the ACA is boundless?.
Itself.

[lifegazer]

Reason dictates that there cannot be a reality of X that is infinite since this requires that different parts of X (A and Z, for instance) actually exist an infinite-distance from each other.
This is plainly dumb since it means that ALL parts traversed on an attempted journey from A to Z are no nearer to Z than A itself. This of course is a ludicrous notion and therefore there can be no acceptance of the notion that there is any existing reality X that is infinite.

Also, I made a post about finite reality and everyone ignored it. But it's important so here goes again:-

Can there be a reality that is finite?

... Well, let's "get real" again:-
If we advocate the reality of a finite existence, we are advocating the reality of something completely bounded by absolutely nothing. Clearly, absolutely-nothing cannot embrace a finite reality.
Therefore, there is no finite reality either.
Therefore, reality must be non-spatial.
Therefore, get praying you bozos.

Behold... the truth:
Reality is non-spatial my friends.

[lifegazer]

This is too good to be lost half-way down page-5. I'm going to start another thread with it, so talk about it over there please.

[Z]

Why? So you can change subject and avoid admitting you are wrong yet again?

There cannot be any point an 'infinite' distance from another point - yet infinity can certainly exist. This is the simple truth, and if you cannot grasp that then it is you who lack the intelligence to carry on this conversation.

[Z]

And, for the record, boundless has two meanings when used with regards to space: either it means infinite, or it means non-existent i.e. hypothetical. So the ACA is either infinite, or it is hypothetical. Since you insist it is neither infinite nor finite, then it is hypothetical - a.k.a. it does not exist and is therefore totally irrelevant.

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by zaayrdragon
Why?

I don't want a proof for God's existence lost half-way down page-5 of this thread. That's why.

So you can change subject and avoid admitting you are wrong yet again?

Wrong about what?

There cannot be any point an 'infinite' distance from another point

Agreed, which is why the notion of an EXISTING infinite-reality is a load of cobblers... which is why there cannot be an
EXISTING reality of infinite-space.

If you claim there is an EXISTING reality of infinite-space, then you are claiming that some parts of that space EXIST an infinite-distance from other parts. That's it in a nutshell and that's why there cannot be an existing reality of infinite-space.

- yet infinity can certainly exist.

See, you keep claiming that infinity can exist. Key word "exist".

This is the simple truth, and if you cannot grasp that then it is you who lack the intelligence to carry on this conversation.
I'm way up of your league pal. You should be paying me to read this stuff.

[Z]

Oh, puh-LEEEZE. I've seen better reasoning from pre-schoolers than this.

Saying that an infinite reality exists does NOT demand the existence of an infinite distance between fixed points. It DOES demand infinite distance to the 'edge' of reality - this being a semantical game, essentially. An infinite reality has no 'edge' because it extends an 'infinite distance' in any direction. The only applicable use of 'infinite distance' is in discussion of the non-existent 'edge' of infinity. The use of 'infinite distance' between two fixed points - or even between two mobile points - is entirely erroneous. If you have an infinite line, that does NOT demand that the line MUST contain two points an infinite distance apart - that is nonsensical.

Will you also claim that mathematics is finite? If you can add one to any number and get another number, does this mean that you there must exist two numbers that, when subtracted, equals infinity? Because that's the mathematical translation of what you're babbling about. But that's not the case, and nor is what you propose.

[lifegazer]

Anyone wanting to discuss this proof please do so in my other thread "Here's your proof for God".

[Anathema]

Originally posted by lifegazer
Anyone wanting to discuss this proof please do so in my other thread "Here's your proof for God". Or, "I've Got Your God, Right HERE" (with grabbing gesture thrown in for emphasis....)

[Z]

Typical spammer - he just keeps making new threads so people have to chase him around. Forget the fact that, with email notification, it's easier to continue the discussion in one thread - no doubt, he hopes they'll miss his new thread and therefore miss the discussion as it progresses - or probably doesn't progress.

And he never did finish his three points.

[uruk]

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

So then what about the ACA is boundless?.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Itself.
:
Meaningless.
What is "itself" made of? what is it that constitutes "itself".
What is "itself"?

[uruk]

Reason dictates that there cannot be a reality of X that is infinite since this requires that different parts of X (A and Z, for instance) actually exist an infinite-distance from each other.
This is absolutely nonsensical reasoning. No where in any rational thought does a in infinite existance require two points to be infinite distance apart. This is rediculous.
[QUOTE... Well, let's "get real" again:-
If we advocate the reality of a finite existence, we are advocating the reality of something completely bounded by absolutely nothing. Clearly, absolutely-nothing cannot embrace a finite reality.
Therefore, there is no finite reality either.
Therefore, reality must be non-spatial.
Therefore, get praying you bozos.
:-[/QUOTE]
More rediculous grasping at straws.
Man LG, you are a total loss.

[H'ethetheth]

Originally posted by lifegazer
I do see it. My previous posts have centred around the fact that no existing entity can be infinitely-distanced from another.

External space cannot be infinite. I've just explained why. Deal with those posts if you want to sustain your claim.

I know that that's what you're saying, however what I see in those posts is a naive (excusez le mot) grasp of the infinite. Two defined points within a space cannot be an infinity apart, that's where you're right, however there is an arbitrary number of points that are an arbitrary distance farther away, allways. That is what infinity means, that is what boundlessness means. There is no boundary, nothing disallows space to exist beyond a certain point.
It is very counter-intuitive, I'll give you that. I've struggled with these notions as well.
Your reluctance to accept the implications of the infinite, well established within mathematics, is understandable but naive.
There is no physical or mathematical reason why the universe could not be infinite. If you claim this, you must prove these things using correct math and logic, but all arguments you've produced on this so far are mostly emotional and clearly stem from a misunderstanding of infinity and infinitesimality (okay that's probably not a word).

A boundless singular-entity is neither finite or infinite. It's non-spatial.
Non spatial things cannot be boundless in space, bounds have nothing to do with them. It's the zero-distance mistake all over again, only now pertaining to the infinite.
It is only true if you redefine the word "boundless" to mean "having nothing whatsoever to do with bounds".

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by H'ethetheth
Two defined points within a space cannot be an infinity apart, that's where you're right, however there is an arbitrary number of points that are an arbitrary distance farther away, allways. That is what infinity means, that is what boundlessness means. There is no boundary, nothing disallows space to exist beyond a certain point.

Like the Wiccan priest, you are failing to grasp the significance of my posts: Claiming that there is an existing infinity also makes the claim that some parts of that existence must be infinitely-distanced from one another. As such, point A of an existing-infinity must be infinitely-distanced from point-Z - as per my explanation.

It is very counter-intuitive, I'll give you that. I've struggled with these notions as well.

You've struggled with them because, subconsciously at least, you've understood that no existing entity can be infinitely-distanced from any other existing entity.
Therefore, subconsciously at least, you've understood that there cannot be an existing reality that is infinite in itself.

Your reluctance to accept the implications of the infinite, well established within mathematics,

Forget concepts... forget mathematics... it's time to "get real".

There is no physical or mathematical reason why the universe could not be infinite.

Math don't worry about "reality". Math relate to our sense of things, for starters, which means that math realites to UN reality (of "things").

If you claim this, you must prove these things using correct math and logic,

You cannot prove anything about "reality" with math alone. The math of our sensed-existence relate to the math of UNreality.
Your inability to differentiate science and math from the reason of "reality" has lead you into this fog of unsound reasoning.

but all arguments you've produced on this so far are mostly emotional

My arguments are purely rational pal. I only get emotional when I see a jerk vomit over them via an inability to grasp truths about the limitations of science and math when considering "reality".

[kuroyume0161]

Originally posted by lifegazer
Forget concepts... forget mathematics... it's time to "get real".

Well, now you know why I wanted to drop all of this "infinity" stuff. Let's have no more of it!

Even if anyone here is to postulate that the universe is infinite in space, there is no means to show it using evidence. Id est: there will never be a time when someone says, "Eureka, I've found the infinite distance from here!" Won't happen.

Now that we've established that infinities are basically useless in philosophy, logic, mathematics, and reality, how's about we get down to a real proof (evidence would be better) of your ACA?

As for "bounded infinities", if you think I pulled that out of my a$$, why don't you just do a f#cking Google search, ya moron!

Robert
P.S.: Sorry, but I've had enough of the arrogant spew.

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by kuroyume0161
Even if anyone here is to postulate that the universe is infinite in space, there is no means to show it using evidence.

Then why do you evade that evidence as provided by myself?

Id est: there will never be a time when someone says, "Eureka, I've found the infinite distance from here!" Won't happen.

Exactly: won't happen cos it can't happen: there cannot be an existing reality that is infinitely-distanced from some of its own parts.

Now that we've established that infinities are basically useless in philosophy, logic, mathematics, and reality, how's about we get down to a real proof (evidence would be better) of your ACA?

I wanted to try, but 5+ pages of protests against my definition of an ACA have made the job seem almost futile. What's the point of me providing evidence for points 2 & 3 when I've had people complaining about my opening post for 5+ pages, since?

As for "bounded infinities", if you think I pulled that out of my a$$, why don't you just do a f#cking Google search, ya moron!

I wasn't saying that you pulled it out of yer ass. I was saying that it's easy to say, mathematically, that an UNreality of infinite sheep could be bounded by an UNreality of an infinite pen. Therefore, I was pleading to your ability to reason to "get real".

P.S.: Sorry, but I've had enough of the arrogant spew.
Be sure of one thing before you condemn me any more: I'm not here to reap praise or fortune for myself. I have no interest in gaining reward for 'lifegazer' through this philosophy. [Indeed, I've had nothing but scorn]. My sole aim in being here is to contribute towards the ideal that "the word of God shall be fulfilled." [or words to that effect].

If you want to make this a personal-battle between two intelligent egos, then that's your decision. I would rather make it a battle between two philosophies which disregards the value of the ego espousing those philosophies.

I like you because you are one of the most intelligent skeptics that frequent this forum. I wish you would participate more. But when you instigate a rivalry of egos between us two, you blunt that respect and that desire.

[Zombified]

Originally posted by lifegazer
Forget concepts... forget mathematics... it's time to "get real".You realize this is exactly the same reasoning 1inChrist uses: logic doesn't mean anything.

There's nothing irreal about mathematics. It's just a sophisticated application of reasoning.

[Z]

Well, here's more proof that LG is a lying troll - He has claimed, repeatedly, that he is not 'a religious person'. Yet here, he posts, 'My sole aim in being here is to contribute towards the ideal that "the word of God shall be fulfilled."' Ergo, he is just another liar.

And if he wonders why, after 5 pages, he still hasn't gotten people to accept his definition of ACA, it's because his definition is flawed, incorrect, and contradictory. The reason why this is has been presented, again and again, yet he continues to deny proper logic and reasoning.

Yep, LG, you're no better than 1inC.

Ergo, you are a lying troll.

[H'ethetheth]

Originally posted by lifegazer
Like the Wiccan priest, you are failing to grasp the significance of my posts: Claiming that there is an existing infinity also makes the claim that some parts of that existence must be infinitely-distanced from one another. As such, point A of an existing-infinity must be infinitely-distanced from point-Z - as per my explanation.
No, you take 'infinity' to be a number in the regular sense, but it isn't. It just indicates that there is no limit to a certain quantity. So you might say that only the boundary of such a space is infinitely far away, however there is no boundary. That is all we can do as humans to grasp the ungraspable and calculate things pertaining to infinity.

You've struggled with them because, subconsciously at least, you've understood that no existing entity can be infinitely-distanced from any other existing entity.
Therefore, subconsciously at least, you've understood that there cannot be an existing reality that is infinite in itself. No, i wasn't equipped by nature to completely understand infinity, a n-th spatial dimension, quantum mechanics etc. However, the formal system of mathematics has enabled us to model these things with some succes.

Forget concepts... forget mathematics... it's time to "get real"

Math don't worry about "reality". Math relate to our sense of things, for starters, which means that math realites to UN reality (of "things").. Physics is mathematical modelling of perceived reality, it's the best thing we've got and so far it doesn't forbid infinite space. You clearly do not accept that, and try to convince us using some sort of ill-conceived mathematical 'proof', that has been dealt with for centuries, and only the fact that you don't understand how it works makes you think it can't work. That's not rational, that's emotional.

You cannot prove anything about "reality" with math alone. The math of our sensed-existence relate to the math of UNreality.
Your inability to differentiate science and math from the reason of "reality" has lead you into this fog of unsound reasoning.The soundest reasoning leads to the conclusion of solipsism and apathy concerning the observed world. Physics is the formal reasoning about the observed world, it has been meticulously developed for centuries, tried and tested, improved steadily, yet you discard these methods just because you do not grasp some of its concepts. That's arrogant, or naive. I'd hope the latter.

My arguments are purely rational pal. I only get emotional when I see a jerk vomit over them via an inability to grasp truths about the limitations of science and math when considering "reality". No, your arguments are reasoned from an uninformed standpoint. Your arguments often stem from intuition, which is no reliable guide when it comes to infinity etc.
Science has known its limitations for quite some time now, the exact same limitations as you would like to impose with your 'novel' philosophy. Every physical theory there is today is about our observations, and can at any time be discarded for a better theory. It works, regardless of the origin of our observations, because the origins cannot be found using sound reasoning, only inference works here.

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by H'ethetheth
No, you take 'infinity' to be a number in the regular sense, but it isn't. It just indicates that there is no limit to a certain quantity. So you might say that only the boundary of such a space is infinitely far away, however there is no boundary. That is all we can do as humans to grasp the ungraspable and calculate things pertaining to infinity.

My stick analogy was very apt.
If I claim that the stick I am holding is infinite, then I also make the claim that certain parts of the stick exist which are infinitely-distanced from myself and other parts of the stick.

Deal with it H. Stop waffling and dancing.

[Z]

You still don't understand what infinity is. An 'infinite stick' could not exist, not even hypothetically. Clearly, you have no grasp of the basics involved here.

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by zaayrdragon
An 'infinite stick' could not exist, not even hypothetically.
Exactly.
The same reasoning given for the stick equally applies to 'infinite space'.
Deal with it.

[Z]

No, it doesn't. Space is not a strictly 'matter-thing'. Deal with it.

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by zaayrdragon
No, it doesn't. Space is not a strictly 'matter-thing'. Deal with it.
You cannot equate the existence of space with 'absolutely-nothing', especially when you want to differentiate between different parts of that space.

[Z]

Of course you can.

You are once again, as you did with the point, confusing a 'thing' with a 'concept'. Space is like that point. It is a convenient method of labelling the nothing in which all things exist. This nothing has no 'parts', only conceptual 'points' at which things exist. Quantity, which is also a conceptual thing, can be infinite - that's simple mathematical philosophy for you, and accepted universally. Since this is true, then there can be an infinite quantity of matter things, all existing in 'space'. This being true, and it also being true that no thing can co-occupy the same space-time position, then 'space' must be infinite.

Simple reasoning.

[Z]

I mis-spoke myself in that last post. Let me correct myself, lest I fall into the same abyss LG often does.

This being true, and it also being true that no thing can co-occupy the same space-time position, then 'space' MAY be infinite.

Since any given point in infinite space is a fixed location, all spaced marked by any two points are finite spaces. No point can exist at an 'infinite distance' from any other. LG admits this is logically impossible, yet he makes a leap - with no apparent connecting reasoning - that claims this proves infinite space is impossible. As long as a point remains a fixed value, there can be an infinite number of points. Yet each and every point is a finite distance from each and every other point.

If you were to plot a graph showing distances between points in infinite space, it would be an infinite line as well. Yet no given point on that graph would represent 'infinite' distance - such a thing simply doesn't exist between two fixed points. It is a conceptual thing - like a point - which can only be used when referring to infinity itself.

So the only infinite distance in this infinite reality is the distance from any fixed point to infinity itself - which is a no-thing. Ergo, reality may be infinite, but no given space within that reality is, itself, infinite - because in order to define said space, you define an edge and therefore reduce it to a finite measurement.

LG, let's turn away from infinite/finite for a moment. Let's discuss your concept of a non-spatial reality.

How can anything, even illusion, exist in a 0-dimensional, non-physical, non-energy reality? And what would such a reality matter, if everyone and everything within said reality in fact perceived a universe of 4 or more dimensions, and nothing else? In fact, isn't it true that the perceptual reality we are locked in, since it is utterly impossible to move beyond this reality, becomes, in fact, the only true reality, for the simple fact that we are eternally and systematically bound into it?

If a thing is 0-dimensional, it can contain neither matter nor energy. Therefore, it is unreal - immaterial - and completely irrelevant. Such a thing can affect nothing, since it is nothing, and it cannot BE anything - again, since it IS nothing. This 'nothing' has no canvas on which to paint illusions; it has no neurons to process thought or imagination; it certainly has no 'interior' in which to create universes. It would also necessarily be a non-existent entity. Since this is all true, then discussing God as a 0-dimensional entity returns us, once again, to the starting point - that God is either utterly irrelevant, or just another fantasy; certainly, it makes God no more or less valid than IPUs, Dionysus, the Great Turtle, or any other mythological character.

[The Don]

The "distance" between any two points in spacetime is finite.

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by zaayrdragon
You are once again, as you did with the point, confusing a 'thing' with a 'concept'. Space is like that point. It is a convenient method of labelling the nothing in which all things exist. This nothing has no 'parts'
Explain to this forum why your nothingness of space is warped by matter. Explain to this forum how "nothing" bends.

:cool:

[The Don]

Originally posted by lifegazer
Explain to this forum why your nothingness of space is warped by matter. Explain to this forum how "nothing" bends.

:cool:
I believe that this technique is referred to as spamming the boards. Nevertheless, here is a link which describes how masses distort spacetime:
http://library.thinkquest.org/25886/yrelcont.htm

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by The Don
I believe that this technique is referred to as spamming the boards. Nevertheless, here is a link which describes how masses distort spacetime:
http://library.thinkquest.org/25886/yrelcont.htm
The question was a lead to highlighting the idiocy of a claim which relates space(time) to 'nothingness'.

[Z]

I admit, I don't know everything about spacetime. I admit, I have no idea how nothing bends.

But, does it?

It is true that matter and energy moving through spacetime exhibit unusual warping effects when moving near high gravities - but does this mean that the nothing is bending, or merely that the physical objects' dimensions become warped by gravity? Since we cannot measure the void, we cannot know whether or not the void is itself affected by this effect. We can only know that matter and energy are affected in a manner that suggests to us they exist on a fabric of space-time - this fabric may well be a simple mental construct that helps us understand their behavior.

Remember, nothing is just that: nothing. You cannot measure any effect or quality of a region of nothing - you have to put something there, thereby negating the void, in order to measure any effects or qualities caused by other things within that vicinity.

[The Don]

The bending of spacetime has been observed by considering how photons travel around a massive object.
The new theory of curved space-time was called general relativity to distinguish it from the original theory without gravity, which was now known as special relativity. It was confirmed in spectacular fashion in 1919, when a British expedition to West Africa observed a slight shift in the position of stars near the sun during an eclipse. Their light, as Einstein had predicted, was bent as it passed the sun. Here was direct evidence that space and time are warped, the greatest change in our perception of the arena in which we live since Euclid wrote his Elements about 300 B.C. from here http://www.time.com/time/time100/poc/magazine/a_brief_history_of_rela6c.html

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by zaayrdragon
I admit, I have no idea how nothing bends.

*Belly laughing*

[Z]

Curious - isn't the mouth that usually laughs?

:D

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by zaayrdragon
Curious - isn't the mouth that usually laughs?

:D
I'd say that your credibility rating was pretty close to "nothing" right now.

[Z]

Oh good - that puts it way above yours.

:D

After all, you can't explain why the existence of infinite space demands infinite distances between points - or how the existence of a 0-dimensional object requires that no other dimensions exist - or how an indivisible object can be boundless - or how it can in any way change - or how the illusion of reality is played upon the canvas of mind if no divisions exist and no dimensions exist.

I can't explain one thing. You can't explain anything.

[Z]

Here's the lovely thread whereupon all he did was fixate on my admission that I cannot conceive of how 'nothing bends', without addressing what I postulated as what we perceive of as 'bending' but which is more probable. Notice, he degraded into name-calling, then never came back to address the issue.