First Principles

[Ouroboros]

IT,

 

I hope I didn't come out as harsh, I rushed it when writing it.

 

Sorry for intruding on your dialogue with one of the others, but you asked "but do you agree that there are things that we can know with 100% certainty", and I'd like to say, "I don't think there we can know things with 100% certainty, but I'm not 100% certain about it." The reason is that it is a systemic problem. We know things because our brain thinks it know things, and the brain is made out of the same stuff we can know about, and we know that these things are a bit uncertain at times and we know that our brain can fail and fool us with halucinations, so in the end we suspect that we can't know anything for sure. It's the uncertainty principle of knowledge.

[infotheorist]

IT,

Only if infinite uncaused first causes exists can they be unleashed from the bounds of causality. But since everything that is finite and caused must be caused by something else finite that is caused, an infinite causation can not be a cause and hence can't exist.

Han, I am not familiar with the stipulation in the principle of causality that requires all finite effects to have finite causes. Is there a citation that I might be able to look at to see where that comes from? I just have not heard that before. The principle of causality is a philosophical metaphysical assumption, not a scientific assumption.

 

I would kind of like to get your position on the origin of the universe. Forgive me if you already stated it. I don't remember. If the evidence of the beginning of the universe is true, how do you account for the beginning?

 

As far as your reference to infinte causes or infinite number of integers, I make a distinction between some things that seem mathematically and logically correct, but may not necessarily be true in a material world. I don't know if you are familiar with Zeno's paradox. Mathematically speaking, there are an infinite number of midpoints on a line from point A to point B. Zeno used this concept to say that motion is just an illusion. He said it would be "logically impossible" for a runner running from point A to point B to even reach the point B because he would have to cross an infinite number of midpoints. You probably already know this, but everything that is true must be logical, but everything that is logical does not necessarily have to be true in a mterially universe.

 

Thanks Han, I look forward to hearing from you (By the way, I love Star Wars).

[NotBlinded]

...That is why it is also a violation of logic to say that an infinite uncaused first cause is bound by the principle of causality.

 

I'm starting to smell presuppositionalist here or perhaps a neoplatonist? If you are a presuppositionalist, you are a very polite one.

Chef, so very true.

 

IT,

Only if infinite uncaused first causes exists can they be unleashed from the bounds of causality. But since everything that is finite and caused must be caused by something else finite that is caused, an infinite causation can not be a cause and hence can't exist.

 

Or in simpler terms, if all that we observe and if logic points to that the finite "must" have a cause, we also know by observation and logic that this "causator" is also finite. Can you prove to me that the infinite causator can cause a finite? I guess not, since you never have observed it or can argue from logic nor math for this to be the case. The only reason to leap to the "inifinite" is because the thought of an infinite regression (or chain) of finite causes is too scary, it's easier to create a null-point which is definied is infinite. Take the infinite sequence of integers again, but go back as far as you can to its beginning. If you assume that Zero is the beginning I must disappoint you that I also include the negative integers in my sequence. So 'tis the infinite sequence of no beginning and no end, and yet the integers exists. But observe, there's no "infinite" that starts the sequence.

 

And when it comes to truth, yes, the absolute truth exists, but it is unattainable for any being.

 

I'd like to say: "I exists, therefore I think" instead of the traditional version.

But, what if everything that appears finite is actually infinite? Does anything actually ever disappear? Energy? This would make time an illusion. There is only eternity that happens now all the time.

 

(You don't need to answer...just pondering.)

[infotheorist]

But, what if everything that appears finite is actually infinite? Does anything actually ever disappear? Energy? This would make time an illusion. There is only eternity that happens now all the time.

 

(You don't need to answer...just pondering.)

I know you said no response was needed, but I thought I would add a little bit. I hope you don't mind. Anything that has a beginning would not be considered infinite. The question of where does energy come from is kind of the ultimate question.

[infotheorist]

I hope I didn't come out as harsh, I rushed it when writing it.

Thanks for your concern, but I did not take it harshly. I really commend everyone for the evenness of the atmosphere here so far. And you did not intrude. Please offer whatever comments you like.

 

It's the uncertainty principle of knowledge.

I am familiar with the uncertainty principle with reference to quantum physics, but I am not familiar with it in this context. Are you referring to the philosophy of David Hume? If it is true, I assume we can apply it to your previously stated theories?

[Ouroboros]

Han, I am not familiar with the stipulation in the principle of causality that requires all finite effects to have finite causes. Is there a citation that I might be able to look at to see where that comes from? I just have not heard that before. The principle of causality is a philosophical metaphysical assumption, not a scientific assumption.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but that's what you were suggesting, or at least that's how I interpreted your previous responses. My bad if I misunderstood you.

 

I would kind of like to get your position on the origin of the universe. Forgive me if you already stated it. I don't remember. If the evidence of the beginning of the universe is true, how do you account for the beginning?

The problem lies in the definition of the word "beginning". It either means the beginning of the universe, or the beginning of existence or "everything". The universe came from something. Time as we understand it and can measure it began at one point (according to BB), but still some was there that "began". And this "something" that didn't exist the same way as we do, and didn't have time as we understand it, could have come from yet something else as far as we know. Time could also have been negative before the BB. So it all boils down to what we mean when we say the things we say, and since most words' definitions are elusive and arbitrary we constantly fail to understand the things we talk about. Logic, Philosophy and Math even when they're perfectly defined still contain axioms accepted through intuition and paradoxes we can't explain. Nothing we have can be used to completely understand the things we talk about, and we end up with a "I think this is the way" or "I'm fairly certain this is how it is".

 

My opinion of BB is that it is the closest explanation so far in science to how the Universe came to be, but I have a strong suspicion that it is incorrect in many areas. I can't say why, it's just my gut feeling. The whole problem with vacuum energy and dark energy etc kind of makes you wonder.

 

As far as your reference to infinte causes or infinite number of integers, I make a distinction between some things that seem mathematically and logically correct, but may not necessarily be true in a material world. I don't know if you are familiar with Zeno's paradox. Mathematically speaking, there are an infinite number of midpoints on a line from point A to point B. Zeno used this concept to say that motion is just an illusion. He said it would be "logically impossible" for a runner running from point A to point B to even reach the point B because he would have to cross an infinite number of midpoints. You probably already know this, but everything that is true must be logical, but everything that is logical does not necessarily have to be true in a mterially universe.

Yup. I agree. Mathematics and Logic are systems to reference the "perfect" state of things, while reality isn't perfect but in constant chaos and change. One of the reasons why Zeno's paradox doesn't work in the real world is explained by the Planck's Time and Planck's Space. You can't divide time nor space infinitely.

 

Thanks Han, I look forward to hearing from you (By the way, I love Star Wars).

My too. I love sci-fi in general, it makes the cog-wheels in the brain turn and you start questioning everything.

 

Your previous responses kind of led me to believe that you were trying to make an argument for the validity of the first cause, and I'm just not so convinced there is one. And I'm sorry if I made that mistake.

 

Currently the BB is an approximation of what is believed to be a beginning of space and time (i.e. Universe), but there are competing theories (or rather hypotheses) that doesn't require the BB, and maybe not a "first cause" either (or first mover). Even there we have a problem with what we mean with a "first cause" or a "first mover". Traditionally that would imply God (of some sorts), but really, if a rock roll down a mountain and knocks over a tree, the rock was a "first mover" to overturn the tree, but the rock maybe started to roll because of an earthquake, so the earthquake was the first-first-mover, and so on. So what do we mean with 'first", the first in a specific sequence of events we're referencing in our context, or a "first" in the sense that no other mover ever exists in the sequence or any other possible sequence? The latter suggests an open context or open ended set with no beginning, and hence the "first" now isn't an entity of the sequence at all. ... Man oh man, isn't this confusing or what? Hehe...

[Ouroboros]

But, what if everything that appears finite is actually infinite? Does anything actually ever disappear? Energy? This would make time an illusion. There is only eternity that happens now all the time.

 

(You don't need to answer...just pondering.)

I will answer anyway... with a question...

 

Look at this image:

 

Is it finite or infinte?

[Ouroboros]

I know you said no response was needed, but I thought I would add a little bit. I hope you don't mind. Anything that has a beginning would not be considered infinite. The question of where does energy come from is kind of the ultimate question.

It all comes down (again) to the definition of words. "Finite" in its definition means "something that has a beginning". So when we say the something "finite" would have a first cause is obvious since the word itself has a definition that imply it. It's almost a tautology, right? So by saying the Universe is finite is already assuming that it has a beginning, and on the other hand when we make a statement that the universe has a beginning we already are making the statement that it is finite. Right?

[Ouroboros]

It's the uncertainty principle of knowledge.

I am familiar with the uncertainty principle with reference to quantum physics, but I am not familiar with it in this context. Are you referring to the philosophy of David Hume? If it is true, I assume we can apply it to your previously stated theories?

It was my little tongue-in-cheek version of the uncertainty principle, applied to knowledge. It was because the other discussion that started here about knowledge and truth. How do we know that we know what we know?

[NotBlinded]

I know you said no response was needed, but I thought I would add a little bit. I hope you don't mind. Anything that has a beginning would not be considered infinite. The question of where does energy come from is kind of the ultimate question.

No problem.

 

Yes, about the energy. This is why I speculated yesterday about this here:

 

I don't see Bohm's ideas violating these principles, although it might entail a constant that was present before the big bang and after the big bang. Maybe it's this quantum vacuum or superquantum field?

Is it impossible for something that is infinite to exist in forms that appear finite? Like Bohm was saying about the quantum fluctuations going out and then crsytalizing again over and over.

 

I haven't really thought this through but it seems that forms are nothing more than energy popping in and out of "perceived" existence.

 

And if time is an illusion, there was no beginning and there is no end. It's a circle.

 

I'm going to bring Bohm over here again:

 

"everything material is also mental and everything mental is also material, but there are many more infinitely subtle levels of matter than we are aware of ... The separation of the two -- matter and spirit -- is an abstraction. The ground is always one."

 

Another one:

 

In the enfolded [or implicate] order, space and time are no longer the dominant factors determining the relationships of dependence or independence of different elements. Rather, an entirely different sort of basic connection of elements is possible, from which our ordinary notions of space and time, along with those of separately existent material particles, are abstracted as forms derived from the deeper order. These ordinary notions in fact appear in what is called the "explicate" or "unfolded" order, which is a special and distinguished form contained within the general totality of all the implicate orders (Bohm, 1980, p. xv).

wiki

 

Both existing together as one.

 

I posted a link earlier to Chef's article about new matter. Compare what this articles states below:

 

"It would provide a unified explanation of how both light and matter arise." So in their theory elementary particles are not the fundamental building blocks of matter. Instead, they emerge from the deeper structure of the non-empty vacuum of space-time.

Article

 

with what Bohm says here and above:

 

"the world is assumed to be constituted of a set of separately existent, indivisible and unchangeable 'elementary particles', which are the fundamental 'building blocks' of the entire universe … there seems to be an unshakable faith among physicists that either such particles, or some other kind yet to be discovered, will eventually make possible a complete and coherent explanation of everything" (Bohm, 1980, p. 173).

Same wiki link.

 

It appears that others are finding the same thing.

[NotBlinded]

But, what if everything that appears finite is actually infinite? Does anything actually ever disappear? Energy? This would make time an illusion. There is only eternity that happens now all the time.

 

(You don't need to answer...just pondering.)

I will answer anyway... with a question...

 

Look at this image:

 

Is it finite or infinte?

It's a finite form appearing in the infinite.

 

(I don't know, but it's cool looking)

 

That's a fractual isn't it?

[Ouroboros]

That is the famous Mandelbrot's set, and it's a fractal. It's appears to us as a finite image, because we set boundaries to what we look at in the fractal, but the fractal itself is infinite and have repeating properties too. I'll try to find some random subsets of it to show the "mimicking" that happens in it.

 

Here's the wiki.

 

If you want to see the repeating patterns, start with this image, scroll down and click on image 1, 2, 3 etc, and they show you which part of the subsection they are zooming into:

 

Zooming in

 

This can be done infinitely. There's no borders to the formula, there's only borders or limits to our representation of it. So where is the "beginning" to this fractal?

[NotBlinded]

That is the famous Mandelbrot's set, and it's a fractal. It's appears to us as a finite image, because we set boundaries to what we look at in the fractal, but the fractal itself is infinite and have repeating properties too. I'll try to find some random subsets of it to show the "mimicking" that happens in it.

 

Here's the wiki.

 

If you want to see the repeating patterns, start with this image, scroll down and click on image 1, 2, 3 etc, and they show you which part of the subsection they are zooming into:

 

Zooming in

 

This can be done infinitely. There's no borders to the formula, there's only borders or limits to our representation of it. So where is the "beginning" to this fractal?

That is cool! We could enlarge this forever and continue to see the images. No beginning...no end. Awesome.

 

I wasn't too far off when I said it was a finite form appearing in the infinite then was I? I love where this leads my thoughts.

[Ouroboros]

That is cool! We could enlarge this forever and continue to see the images. No beginning...no end. Awesome.

Imagine now that this could be done in 3 dimensions (which is done in game software generators), or in 4D, 5D... if the Universe is 11D, then maybe the Universe isn't much more than the 11D fractal,

 

I wasn't too far off when I said it was a finite form appearing in the infinite then was I? I love where this leads my thoughts.

No, you were pretty close. But I'd probably reverse it by saying "the infinite appearing as a finite form".

[chefranden]

Chef, again I do sincerely appreciate you trying to help me better understand your view of truth. It is always good to fully know where someone is coming from without making unsubstantiated accusations. It is from these foundations that all of your conclusions in life will be based. Thanks again.

Please, You don't need to sooth my ego. I realize the dangers of internet communication that leaves out tone of voice and other non-verbal info about another's intention. So I attempt to cut everyone some slack in these semi-conversations.

 

However, it is a quirk of my internet personality that when some one insists on their sincerity I begin to doubt it.

 

I am really not trying to be difficult, but I am still having a hard time understanding your position, so bear with me. You are still saying that people do not have a capacity to know anything absolutely, but yet you seem to know that fairly absolutely. I am sorry, I still don't get it. I apologize.

 

That's the proper why to phrase it, "fairly absolutely." I'm fairly absolutely certain that if one holds a bowling ball 3 ft over one's bare toe and drops it that one will suffer some sort of toe damage. Now perhaps something will intervene, but I'm certain enough not to make the experiment.

 

In the same way I'm fairy absolutely certain that no human has the capacity for absolute knowledge. Sure there might be one or several such people, and perhaps several sexy babes will demand a week of hot sex from me the next time I show up on the beach, but I'm not going to bet the farm on it.

 

My certainty in this conversation is contingent on you not bringing me such a person or demonstrating that the existence of such a person existence is likely.

 

If you are sincerely interested in this philosophical thread, check out Philosophy in the Flesh.

 

I agree about naturalism just being descriptive. How do we get from physical brain chemistry to the metaphysical?

 

What metaphysical?

 

When Bodhidharma came to China, the future second patriarch came to visit him. Bodhidharma would not talk to him. To show that he was sincere in his quest, the second patriarch cut off his arm and presented it to Bodhidharma. Seeing this, Bodhidharma asked him, "What do you want?"

 

The second patriarch said, "My mind is not rested. Please pacify it for me."

 

Bodhidharma said, "Bring me your mind and I will pacify it."

 

The second patriarch was nonplused: "I cannot find my mind when I look for it."

 

"There," said Bodhidharma, "I have pacified it for you."

 

When you bring me the metaphysical I will connect it to brain chemistry.

[NotBlinded]

I wasn't too far off when I said it was a finite form appearing in the infinite then was I? I love where this leads my thoughts.

No, you were pretty close. But I'd probably reverse it by saying "the infinite appearing as a finite form".

I said "in" you said "as"...same thing though. hehehe

 

Okay, okay...maybe I should have said finite forms appearing in the infinite.

 

Okay...okay, I like yours better!

[infotheorist]

Han, I am not familiar with the stipulation in the principle of causality that requires all finite effects to have finite causes. Is there a citation that I might be able to look at to see where that comes from? I just have not heard that before. The principle of causality is a philosophical metaphysical assumption, not a scientific assumption.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but that's what you were suggesting, or at least that's how I interpreted your previous responses. My bad if I misunderstood you.

 

The principle of causality says that finite effects require causes. It does not limit the causes to being finite.

[infotheorist]

When you bring me the metaphysical I will connect it to brain chemistry.

Consider it done. We are using logic and thoughts, thus metaphysical. My question was, how does that arrive through puely naturalistic processes? How could we ever decide what was good logic and what was bad logic?

 

By the way, I am sorry you question my sincerity. I guess you don't know me, so that is OK. No offense. I will just stay sincere.

[Kuroikaze]

Thanks for clarifying your statement kuroikaze. As you noticed, I simply turned your statement of truth on itself because I assumed you believed it to be true. It seemed to embrace a contradiction.

 

Take an example, I am personally an atheist, but I do realize that with my limited knowledge of the universe that I could be wrong and there indeed could be a god out there somewhere.

I totally agree with you on the fact that none of us have exhaustive knowledge. No one knows everything there is to know about everything. That is obviously why neither of us can prove with absolute certainty that there is or is not a god. But do you agree that there are things that we can know with 100% certainty?

 

Uh no I don't, but for the sake of discussion give me an example of something you think can be known with 100% certainty and I'll think about it.

[NotBlinded]

Thanks for clarifying your statement kuroikaze. As you noticed, I simply turned your statement of truth on itself because I assumed you believed it to be true. It seemed to embrace a contradiction.

 

Take an example, I am personally an atheist, but I do realize that with my limited knowledge of the universe that I could be wrong and there indeed could be a god out there somewhere.

I totally agree with you on the fact that none of us have exhaustive knowledge. No one knows everything there is to know about everything. That is obviously why neither of us can prove with absolute certainty that there is or is not a god. But do you agree that there are things that we can know with 100% certainty?

 

Uh no I don't, but for the sake of discussion give me an example of something you think can be known with 100% certainty and I'll think about it.

Can it be said that I'll never grow another leg naturally with 100% certainty?

[Kuroikaze]

When you bring me the metaphysical I will connect it to brain chemistry.

Consider it done. We are using logic and thoughts, thus metaphysical. My question was, how does that arrive through puely naturalistic processes? How could we ever decide what was good logic and what was bad logic?

 

By the way, I am sorry you question my sincerity. I guess you don't know me, so that is OK. No offense. I will just stay sincere.

 

I think the answer to that is most likely found in the study of sociology or anthropology.

 

In other words, logic, reason...and indeed morality as well are just large ongoing experiments. We reason a particular way because it works for us, because various "experiments" that show us that said reasoning is mostly likely correct. For instance the "argumentum ad hominem" is considered a fallacy because we have observed that even if one usually lies it doesn't mean his current statement is a lie.

 

I don't know if this answers your question or not, it could be you are asking something more basic, like how does the brain develop the capacity understand cause and effect (necessary to develop the capacity to reason) On this topic I am much less educated, as my areas of expertise are mostly in history, philosophy and religion, I honestly don't have a very detailed knowledge of science, perhaps someone who understands neurology might have an answer or at least a good theory.

 

My only thoughts on this is that complexity tends to give rise to a higher capacity for understanding cause and effect.

[Ouroboros]

The principle of causality says that finite effects require causes. It does not limit the causes to being finite.

That's true. The principle doesn't disallow the cause to be infinite. I can agree to that, but I'm not sure if I like the principle.

[Ouroboros]

Consider it done. We are using logic and thoughts, thus metaphysical. My question was, how does that arrive through puely naturalistic processes? How could we ever decide what was good logic and what was bad logic?

I see what you're saying. You mean metaphysical in the sense of how thought is a result of process in the physical world, not supernatural, but only as a meta-level on top of the "processor" (the brain). Just like MS Windows (may Nahweh have mercy on our souls) is a meta-level *stuff* on top of the hardware, CPU etc.

[infotheorist]

I see what you're saying. You mean metaphysical in the sense of how thought is a result of process in the physical world, not supernatural, but only as a meta-level on top of the "processor" (the brain). Just like MS Windows (may Nahweh have mercy on our souls) is a meta-level *stuff* on top of the hardware, CPU etc.

I think you understand my question. Naturalism only produces what is. How do we even get to the concept of morality? How can we define morality in naturalistic terms? How does the purely physical brain chemistry produce something metaphysical like deciding what is "good" behavior and what is "bad" behavior?

[chefranden]

When you bring me the metaphysical I will connect it to brain chemistry.

Consider it done. We are using logic and thoughts, thus metaphysical. My question was, how does that arrive through puely naturalistic processes? How could we ever decide what was good logic and what was bad logic?

 

By the way, I am sorry you question my sincerity. I guess you don't know me, so that is OK. No offense. I will just stay sincere.

 

I'm assuming that by metaphysical you mean understanding stuff that isn't there, like a soul. If you just mean understanding the abstract, that is just thought and thought is a function of what ever it is that the brain with it's body is doing in the relatively minuscule* activity of consciousness. Thus it is connected to brain chemistry. No brain, no thought.

 

*Consciousness is a rather small bit of everything the brain does.

 

Now as how a concrete physical object generates abstract ideas a bit of one my old essays. The essay was dealing primarily with morality, which you may consider a metaphysic.

 

A human is a body is closer to what is real than a human has a body.

 

Embodied Reason

 

Conception is grounded in a physical body. That is human conceptual systems must use the physical senses to acquire information that is consequentially shaped by the way the senses operate and the way they are placed in the world. If for example we could see nearly 360 degrees of the world like a horse does, then our concept of the world would be different, because our visual metaphors would be different.

 

Conceptualization can only take place through the body. Humans have no contact with what is outside of themselves except through their physical systems of contact and interpretation. Therefore concepts are framed and shaped by the physical construction of the human body.

 

Embodied Reason makes use of basic concepts shaped by the functions of the senses and the functions of motor skills as the body learns to move and actually does move in its environment. This is the mode in which humans have the most contact with what is real.

 

Sensual and motor information inform rational inferences. For example we assume that which is best is upright, because we feel best and physically function best in an upright position. If we happened to be rational worms, horizontal metaphors would perhaps predominate instead of vertical metaphors in describing the good.

 

Since our concepts of the world are inferred from our largely unconscious physical contact and interaction with what is out there truth and knowledge are embodied.

 

Because what we know of the physical universe comes from the physical nature of our bodies, the mind cannot be elsewhere then the body. The mind cannot be independent of the body, just as is shown by modern cognitive science. This does not mean that there is no mind, only that there is mind only with a sufficiently functioning body.

 

Metaphoric Reason

 

Human reason is grounded in primary metaphor like: Affection is warmth, "She gave me a chilly greeting." Important is big, "Howard is Mr. Big now." Happy is up. "I feel on top of the world today." Intimacy is closeness. "Sally and I are beginning to drift apart." Bad is stinky. "This deal doesn't smell right." Difficulties are burdens, "Jeff was given a crushing amount of paper work in hopes he would quit." More is up, "That screaming is over the top." Categories are containers, "Blue is in the electromagnetic spectrum." Similarity is closeness. "That isn't the right part, but it is near enough to work." Linear scales are paths. "Sue's understanding of our network has gone beyond John's." Organization is physical structure, "How does the substance of your argument fit our model?" Help is support, "Support the troops." Time is motion. "Time in prison drags by." States are locations, "Go to your happy place more often." Change is motion, "I'm heading towards the poor house." Personal actions are self-propelled motion, "I think I can swing the new mortgage." --- and so on. (see Lakoff and Johnson pp.50-54)

 

All of these metaphors can be shown to originate in physical being. Two examples from Lakoff and Johnson:

 

Causes are physical forces

Subjective Judgment: achieving a results

Sensorimotor Domain: Exertion of force

Example: “They pushed the bill through congress.”

Primary Experience: Achieving results by exerting forces with one’s physical body on physical objects to move or change them.

 

Control is up

Subjective Judgment: Being in control

Sensorimotor Domain: Vertical orientation

Example: “Don’t worry; I’m on top of the situation.”

Primary Experience: Finding that it is easier to control another person or exert force on an object from above, where you have gravity working with you.

 

The human is able to project these base physically derived metaphors beyond basic level experiences into more abstract areas of life: science, philosophy, religion and so on. Nevertheless the abstract understanding is always grounded in the mundane.

 

Because this embodied conceptual system is dependant on the subjective experience of individuals and on a range of biological differences in sensorimotor construction between individuals no exact agreement on the description of reality between individuals is possible. The differences in perception will increase as the experience of individuals diverge, however it will diverge only within certain parameters set by the similarities of physical construction of being members of the same species.

 

For this reason there will be no universal rational morality that humans can make for themselves. In addition for the same reasons no externally provided morality will bring uniform behavior between individuals or peoples that would have to relate to that externally provided morality with differing embodied constructs. Neither objectivists nor religionists will be able to supply the “one right way to live.” No objective morality is possible because people are always subjects.