Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

The Origin of the Cosmo: The Jocaxian Nothingness

Rate this topic


jocax

Recommended Posts

I think you dont understand.

The kalam argument use (is compatible to) the aristotilian logic.

The argument is logical.

We can see that you do not think that we understand.

You wish to base it on Aristotilian logic and that the argument is logical - fine - Upon which axioms do you derive your antecedent conclusions?

The fact that axioms are available to perception does not mean that all human beings accept or even grasp axioms in conscious, conceptual terms.

Lacking explicit philosophic identification of this knowledge, they have no way to adhere to the axioms consistently and typically fall into some form of contradicting the self-evident, as in the various magical world views, which (implicitly) deny the law of identity.

The three axioms I (Ayn Rand) have been discussing have a built-in protection against all attacks: they must be used and accepted by everyone, including those who attack them and those who attack the concept of the self-evident.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 59
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

I think you dont understand.

The kalam argument use (is compatible to) the aristotilian logic.

The argument is logical.

It's not a logical argument, since Aristotle's logic happens to have been built on the Law of Identity. Since the Universe is everything that exists, it cannot not exist, and time cannot exist outside of the Universe.

1-If something happen in the infinite PAST it would get an INFINITE TIME to reach to the present (now).

2-But, what is an infinite time to get something? R: Its is NEVER.

.

So, If there were something happened in the infinite past ago, it would NEVER have the present !!

Infinite time = NEVER

It is the kalam argument.

Because this, we MUST HAVE the beginning to the time!

That's not an accurate representation of the Kalam argument, IMHO.

But I'll answer your version (the Kalam argument is also wrong, and I'm sure people refuted it on this forum before -by mentioning that it isn't true that the basic constituent elements of the Universe are caused by something, so I'm not gonna bother digging it up just to keep myself busy).

Instead, here's the answer to your version: Infinity is not a concept that can be applied to time, since it is a mathematical device, not a description of reality. If you apply it anyway, you get nothing that makes any sense. You certainly don't get a valid statement from which you can draw a conclusion about reality. That's not logic. Another senseless phrase is "beginning of time". The concept of beginning is contingent upon the concept of time. Something begins in time. "Time begins in blank" is not a meaningful statement.

What is true about the Universe is that it is eternal. That means that time is a part of it (it is an attribute of it, in fact), not the other way around. This is an obvious truth, since The Universe is everything that exists, including time. If you're searching for what existed before the Universe, stop searching, and start trying to figure out how time is a part of the Universe, instead.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We can see that you do not think that we understand.

You wish to base it on Aristotilian logic and that the argument is logical - fine - Upon which axioms do you derive your antecedent conclusions?

1-To spent infinite time = never

2-Some event X have ocurred infinite time ago

3-The distance (in time) that event X in the past to now is infinite.

4-Thus (1) and (3) we have that never would be the present (now)

It's not a logical argument, since Aristotle's logic happens to have been built on the Law of Identity. Since the Universe is everything that exists, it cannot not exist, and time cannot exist outside of the Universe.

The K.A. do not say that the event have ocurred outside of the universe !

The event in the infinite past were in this universe.

That's not an accurate representation of the Kalam argument, IMHO.

Perhaps it is my version of the Kalan Argument.

I would lovely put my name in it but.... I think it is not right.

Infinity is not a concept that can be applied to time,

since it is a mathematical device, not a description of reality.

Therefore there is no infinite time in the past, anyway.

What is true about the Universe is that it is eternal.

In JN the universe was eternal but there is NO time.

Time only exists if there is change. If have no change thre is no time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1-To spent infinite time = never

2-Some event X have ocurred infinite time ago

3-The distance (in time) that event X in the past to now is infinite.

4-Thus (1) and (3) we have that never would be the present (now)

These are not axioms. Hint: Ayn Rand points out, and outlines Existence, Consciousness and Identity as the 3 axioms that underscore, and are implicit within all knowledge, understandings and percepts.

The K.A. do not say that the event have ocurred outside of the universe !

The event in the infinite past were in this universe.

As Jake points out, you are applying a mathematical concept to an attribute of the universe. Time is more to the universe as Length, or Weight, or Shape is to any entity within the universe.

Perhaps it is my version of the Kalan Argument.

I would lovely put my name in it but.... I think it is not right.

Therefore there is no infinite time in the past, anyway.
See Jake's point above.

In JN the universe was eternal but there is NO time.

Time only exists if there is change. If have no change thre is no time.

You are creating an arbitrary 'JN' as eternal - you obviously can grasp eternal - now you just need to apply it to that which is, rather than create that which isn't to apply it to.

Ponder this - perhaps motion (change) IS the natural state of the universe.

As for me and mine. I am back to gathering thoughts on 'Circular Time Theory'.

Keep searching and inquiring though. If you are intellectually honest, you will be asking, 'What do I know', and 'How do I know it' at every stage of the quest.

Edited by dream_weaver
Link to comment
Share on other sites

These are not axioms. Hint: Ayn Rand points out, and outlines Existence, Consciousness and Identity as the 3 axioms that underscore, and are implicit within all knowledge, understandings and percepts.

These are premisses. Axioms are the base of logic ( no contradictions and identity and 3 excluded).

If you do not refute these conclusion (1+2+3=>4)

you have to think it is right.

As Jake points out, you are applying a mathematical concept to an attribute of the universe. Time is more to the universe as Length, or Weight, or Shape is to any entity within the universe.

You have to think time do not exist by itself like Newtons thought.

Time depend on the events , if do not have change (no event) then there is no time too.

Without changes without time too !

.

You are creating an arbitrary 'JN' as eternal - you obviously can grasp eternal - now you just need to apply it to that which is, rather than create that which isn't to apply it to.

.

No.

The concept 'Eternal' I was using is that there is NO before.

JN is eternal because there is NO BEFORE it.

** The time 0 is when the universe is in the JN state. **

There is no time before JN.

Ponder this - perhaps motion (change) IS the natural state of the universe.

NO WAY.

Because eternal moviment that have ocurred for ever in the past violate

the Kalam Argument.

'Keep searching and inquiring though. If you are intellectually honest, you will be asking, 'What do I know', and 'How do I know it' at every stage of the quest. ' :P

Link to comment
Share on other sites

These are premisses. Axioms are the base of logic ( no contradictions and identity and 3 excluded).

If you do not refute these conclusion (1+2+3=>4)

you have to think it is right.

Yes, you are listing premises.

My question is what axiom(s) are you basing your premises upon?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Premisses do not need to be based in axioms.

There is an invisible leprechaun making you type in this forum.

If you cannot refute this conclusion, you have to think it is right

Premise

1 a : a proposition antecedently supposed or proved as a basis of argument or inference; specifically : either of the first two propositions of a syllogism from which the conclusion is drawn b : something assumed or taken for granted : presupposition

Axiom

3 : an established rule or principle or a self-evident truth

Your premises are not self-evident. If you want myself or others to accept the validity of the claims of this J(uxtaposed)N(onsense), you will have to demonstrate their veracity in this arena.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There is an invisible leprechaun making you type in this forum.

If you cannot refute this conclusion, you have to think it is right

But it is NOT a *conclusion*. Its is only an assertion you said.

Meanwhile I can argue this assertion go against the occans razzor.

.

Your premises are not self-evident. If you want myself or others to accept the validity of the claims of this J(uxtaposed)N(onsense), you will have to demonstrate their veracity in this arena.

With of mine argunets/premises are not self-evident or dubious?

and WHY you do not agree with it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...