Existence: stuck in the middle


Have a lovely weekend and I do look forward to speaking to you again about this come Monday.

To field your question myself:

Were time removed from the equation, all things would cease to move, for one. All motion would cease, and owing to that, no interactions of any sort could take place, nor could any interactions (such as chemical bonds) cease.

Have a lovely weekend and I do look forward to speaking to you again about this come Monday.

The discussion is over now. I found my absolute, and I thank you for your help. Thanx again for your time and effort. :D
Prince_James said:

I've found it funny that I chose to return and this thread is brought back to life by you. It's a topic I find very interesting and shall hope to clear things up.

Quoting from your original post...

"If we think in linear terms (as is the custom of our species), then we find ourselves asking the question: When was the moment that things came to BE? And, if that question is at all plausible, then we might as well ask the question: What was it before it came to be?"

Before I start: Whenever I say existence, I do not mean "the universe". If the universe has a beginning, then it is not existence, but exists within a larger existence. Just keep that in mind.

Though rude of me, I shall answer your question with a (rhetorical) question of my own: Can there be a moment where things come to be?

Aristotle is perhaps history's most favourite opponent of the concept of infinite regression, that is to say, a link of cause-and-effect stretching eternally back is preposterous. For this he proposed his "Unmoved MOver" argument, which has come to be known as the Cosmological Argument for the Existence of God. However, his argument states that "all which is an effect, must have a cause, which itself must have had a prior cause", yet then argues soon after that God - or the Unmoved Mover - has no cause himself, in which case the foundation of causality is itself uprooted in the very argument. Infinite regression, I then propose, may offer us an alternative. But we'll get back to that in a moment, let's consider some other things first.

First, ultimately there can either be something or nothing. Correct? You may either have somethingness, or existence, and nothingness, or non-existence. Now it can be furthermore said that nothingness, by virtue of being nothingness, cannot exist. If it exists, it must not be nothing - it must be something. In order to prevail as nothingness, it must then remain forever a null-thing, which has no existence whatsoever, but is its antithesis in everyway. Let's then apply this to space: What would happen if somethingness ended? Well, as there can only be somethingness and nothingness, then nothingness would have to be beyond it. But hold on a moment, if nothingness is beyond it, it ceases to be nothingness, for it is interacting with somethingness, whereas if it is beyond something, it too cannot remain being nothingness, as it would have a place and position, and therefore exist in part of space. So you are met with an undeniable conclusion: Somethingness cannot end, for nothing would prevail beyond it, and nothing cannot do so. In essence: Existence is infinite.

Let's shift to time in a way similar to before. Either you can have something-time, or no-time. No-time cannot exist, as it is the absence of existence, whereas something-time is every day time. Now, what would happen if time ceased to be or had a point of origin? Well, in either case, you have no-time replacing nothingness in the above argument, which I declare, is impossible. Therefore, if time ends, we have the absurd notion of no-time existing. In essence: Time must be eternal.

Another proof of eternity can be rendered thus: If existence is infinite, and the infinite can never be reached in time, then existence must be eternal, have always been and never having begun.

As I said before, infinite regression might give us something here, also. Now let's take as a given - and if you want, I can validate this more fully - that causality exists and is a -law-. Something must have a cause, no matter what it is. Now if you accept as truth eternity, you realize that this is not at all a problem, for an infinite chain of cause-and-effect can indeed be infinite if it can stretch back infinitely. That if somethingness has no beginning, it allows for something to always have a cause as far back as you go, because there will never be a beginning to this cause whatsoever. In essence, an infintie regress is not only logical, it is mandated if causality, time, and space exist.

Let me add two more things:

1. Necessity: All which is infinite and eternal must be necessary, for if it has existed always, it cannot be anything but. But what might be said to cause necessity? Well let us consider two diametrically opposed statements, one of which I affirm is necessary:

"There are no absolute truths."

"There are absolute truths".

As I argue in "On the Necessity of Truth's Absolute Nature", the first statement denies its own validity, whereas the second is not only in accords with what is true, but to affirm otherwise is to fall into the absurdity of the first's failures. In essence, it is necessary because it cannot be otherwise but be so, and this is in part due to its opposition of the false opposite. Now, surely somethingness and nothingness are opposites. And like all opposites, through their opposition, I would say in someway allow for the other to be real. For instance, if you have large, you must also have short - if you have top, you must also have bottom. Both are dependent on one another and create what it means to be the other. If we take this as true, then if you have something, you must also have nothing, and indeed if you have nothing, you must also have something, and just as the second of our statements above is absolutely true, the opposite is absolutely false, just as somethingness is absolutely existent, whereas nothingness is absolutely non-existence. In this eternal opposition we can speak of something of an "eternal cause-and-effect", where somethingness, standing in opposition to its non-existent opposite (which is only its opposite because it is non-existent) and two eternally "co-create" one another.

2. In contradiction to C7's website and George Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel, nothingness and something -cannot- be the same. If nothingness is to be nothingness, it cannot be anything but a null state, which is completely in opposition to existence, and as it is nothing, it cannot cause anything. Even when it "causes" existence as an opposition, it is not a cause in the normal sense, but in the sense explained above. For something to come out of nothing in a normal causal relationship, whereas nothingness is present before somethingness, and somethingness is the result of nothingness' prior action, than nothingness is not nothing, but something, and thus we aren't speaking of nothing at all anymore! For in ordre to have causal power, in order for it to create something, it must exist. Moreover, it is clear and apparent that somethingness and nothingness are not the same - again, in contradiction to Hegel and C7 - because, for instance, nothingness, in order to be nothingness, cannot be infinite, for it has no space. No space is not infinite. No space is the absence of space all together, whereas infinity is extension of space without limit. Somethingness has substance, whereas nothing has no substance, and where there is no substance, there is not substance, and thus we have another contradiction. Et cetera, et cetera, et cetera...

The idea that nothingness = something is impossible and wrong.

The interesting part of the chain of cause and effect is that it indeed indicates that the chain started somewhere, even though existance is eternal and infinite, the mere idea of a chain of causes indicates, or rather yells at us, that it too had a cause, somewhere in eternity (or beyond).

It's hard to understand, we are dealing with things far beyond our scope. Yet something tells me that there is a answer, maybe not for us to construct, but for us to find for those who seek honestly and carefully enough.

"The interesting part of the chain of cause and effect is that it indeed indicates that the chain started somewhere, even though existance is eternal and infinite, the mere idea of a chain of causes indicates, or rather yells at us, that it too had a cause, somewhere in eternity (or beyond)."

Are you so sure? For if we assume that even casuality has a cause, what caused that cause? And what caused that cause? And if causality had a cause, how could it be a cause? For casuality is the process where cause and effect can exist. If it does not exist, it cannot have a cause to be caused.
In response to 'Stuck in the middle' - Thread by pragmethen:

A Relativistic Model of Infinity - no beginning, no end?
In a proposed physically expanding universe (where the three recognized dimensions are moving perpendicular to their collective three dimensions), yesterday's square mile is smaller than today's, and today's square mile is smaller than tomorrow's, ad infinitum. Yesterday's sixty miles per hour is slower than - when compared to - today's sixty miles per hour; is slower than tomorrow's sixty miles per hour.

A diagrammatic model of constant physical expansion can be represented by a pie chart shape < with the intersection of the two lines representing the smaller past (moment A - ever smaller and more dense, ad infinitum) , while physical reality moves - expands - from left to right (----->A--->,B--->,C) - the middle of the pie chart representing larger moment B ('the eternal now'), with the widest portion as moment C (ever larger and more tenuous, ad infinitum, when compared to its own past). The same square mile (on earth, in a physically expanding universe) occuring ever more largely - maintaining its relative density - at different moments in time.

In this setting, yesterday's sixty miles per hour is slower than today's sixty miles per hour, and today's slower than tomorrow's. Accordingly, the speed of light at moment A (yesterday) is slower than today's, and today's is slower than tomorrows, while, the speed of light is constant, relative to the coordinate system from which it originates and with which it is associated. The value of space determines the value of time and the C of E=MC2. Another way of perceiving this is, that the value of time is determined by the value of space it - time/motion - occurs in.

The continuum of change maintains the constant.

The earth and everything upon and within it at moment A is much smaller and more dense than the same relatively enlarged earth at moment B (when compared with itself at the earlier moment), just as moment B earth will be relatively much larger and less dense at moment C, when compared with itself at moment B. Inhabitants of this earth are in a uniform process of enlargement they remain unaware of, because their entire physical environment, along with themselves maintains a uniformly changing density and size.

There is no contradiction of the law of conservation of mass energy, because it's the same amount of energy distributing itself over an ever increasing volume of space. The relatively larger, slower moving people at moment C, are unaware of the constant change in their size and corresponding change of time standards, relative to the relatively smaller, correspondingly more dense, faster moving people (themselves) at earlier moments B and A.

Is this not - among other relativistic considerations - a reasonable scenario of time dilation. non absolute space-time, the celeritas constant, and a model of the meaning of infinity itself when applied to the universe at large (that which has no beginning or ending - a quasi scientific heretical proposal), and, if not, why not?

(Please note: this is a modified innovation of a previous post <transformed to accomodate pragmethen's thread - 'stuck in the middle' - issue at hand> by KaiduOrkhon)
Please refer http://forums.delphiforums.com/EinsteinGroupie