I still don't know what you think is the difference between "real to me", and just, "real". A fake diamond may be real to me. But it is not real. The dagger hovering over Macbeth's head (in the play) was real to him, but it was an halluncination. So it wasn't real.

you are right, but it was real to macbeth. he believed it was real and he was wrong according to everyone else's standards and perception. that is the meaning of 'real to me' or for that matter 'not real to me'.

but what did they have to go on? that they couldnt see it? so if it fell on his head and killed him while they couldnt see it, but they saw him drop down dead and bleeding, would they have concluded what he saw was real?

these are only word games. in most cases they are not that important, but it is necessary to be aware of the entrapment of rigid definitions and labels.

Yes, Macbeth believed (for a little while) that the dagger was real, but he didn't since he tried to touch it, and found that it was an hallucination. So, as I pointed out before, "real to me" means, "I believe it is real". So, money is not real to me must mean, "I don't believe that money is real". Isn't that right? So is it that you believe that all money is counterfeit? Or maybe that it is a mass hallucination of some kind?

i do suggest we dont take up any more space on this thread about it!

No one in this entire thread has bothered to refer to Kant.

This isn't unusual, since this isn't a forum where I would expect to find any experts on Kant.

That's too bad however, as the thread might bring more interesting responses from a Kantian perspective ... but by that I mean by someone who truly understands Kant; and there are not many Kantians who understand Kant well.

Kant offered a challenge and it is that challenge that the argument posted to begin this thread answers.

Since no one bothered to say anything in this regard I now consider this thread pointless, unless someone with an understanding of Kant is able to offer anything to keep it going. I can certainly do this, but I began the thread, and I won't keep it going on my own.

I'll but quote one excerpt from Kant's Prolegomena in this regard:

"But he who undertakes to judge or, still more, to construct a system of metaphysics must satisfy the demands here made, either by adopting my solution or by thoroughly refuting it and substituting another. To evade it is impossible." [From the Introduction, 2nd last paragraph]

The argument posted to start the thread follows Kant's critical demands. I have not attempted to evade Kant, because the questions and demands he raises are just as he claims, unavoidable. The Causal Argument follows Kant's demands, and as such, it qualifies as a science of metaphysics, regardless of the unrelated criticisms of some of the forum members here. None of these criticisms touched on this aspect of the argument, and this was the main point in posting the argument.

I also made the statement that the argument amounts to a 'synthetic cognition, a priori.'

This statement in itself would likely be taken to task on a forum on Kant, but it was ignored here. Again, this is understandable. The number of Kant experts worldwide amount to a mere handful.

Quote:

I tried to explain to you that we cant have nothing so we must always have had something. If we have something then that's it, no cause, no eternity, just something.

The tricky question is: What was that something?
Don't you feel that it should or can be defined, rationally, if not empirically?
I think it can be defined. And I'm not beginning with nothing. I am beginning with something. And it is defined, as rationally as I am able to define it. The premise throws out the dictionary definition of nothing.

Quote:

We dont have to invent a creator, only an imagination that can accept the facts.

We can't reach such a conclusion unless we've more clearly defined the concepts and judgments whereby we can reach this conclusion.

The facts are not denied in the argument I've posted. They are accepted, and confirmed, a priori, just as Kant demanded for a science of metaphysics. The argument that is to say, necessitates an expanding universe. This is significant. And the conclusion is reached independently of big bang cosmology. Isn't this an important consideration?

---------- Post added 11-04-2009 at 10:11 AM ----------

salima;101702 wrote:

Quote:

so have you taken the argument to any other forums where kant is the main interest? are there any?

I can think of a university professor/expert on Kant who teaches in Japan and he has a website dedicated to Kant.

He couldn't grasp my argument when he read it over 10 years ago. Maybe it's time to get back to him with the newest version of the argument to see if he can grasp it this time. The name is Steven Palmquist. You can do a search to find his cite ... it's quite interesting.

Quote:

The idea that the universe started gives the impression that we had nothing before hand.

But it is just as you said, the impression.

Have you read Kant's Prolegomena ... ?

What I find compelling about Kant, even though his CPR was published in 1781, and the Pro shortly after, is the references to a possible science of metaphysics in answer to the cosmological questions ... the first antinomy. And Kant's dismissal of common sense in the formation and evaluation of judgments pertaining to pure reason. There are multiple interesting quotes that I had in my earlier version of the argument, which I still have a copy of; so I'm reintroducing them into the argument.

Again, I have to repeat that the premise is not nothing. It still amounts to something; and the logic begins with what is defined as 'the simplest of all possible states' which can by some be mistakenly taken as conjecture. But my argument and reasoning is that it is not conjecture is grounded upon the a priori necessity of the reasoning behind the argument.

To address the 'impression' that we are beginning with nothing: As we are speaking of a state prior to which all that now exists was reduced to its lowest common denominator ... whatever that is, it was not nothing, but rather, it was a unified, singular essence ... and a 'something' which then increased in its intensity to the point where it could no longer intensify. This point was reached when the causal process obtained to an Absolute intensity, beyond which Spacetime, Mass, and Mind, could intensity no further.

The 'something' that you are thinking about therefore amounts to that 'something' that we can propose the universe ultimately began from.

Hegel says something similar by denying that nothing is just nothing. He rejects the dictionary definition of nothing which is a common-sensed defintion, and thus, he is following Kant's judgment concerning the throwing out of common sense in metaphysical speculation. I agree with Kant's judgement that it is just as ridiculous to base geometry calculations or mathematics upon common sense ... common sense is something we apply to practical life ... not to such questions as: "Does the universe have a beginning?"

The A and B representations are a critical definition of the Absolute, and it is the Absolute and this critical definition that provide the premise of the argument I've posted. The premise again, is not nothing ... but 'something.' Just as you have it. The exact quality/nature of this 'something' we can never know, or observe empirically, with our senses, but we can arrive at a rational and logical deduction, that this 'something' was at the ultimate beginning, a unified state, that underwent a dynamic transformation to what we now have. Even the Idea of the singularity, postulated by the Einsten de-Sitter cosmological model dating back to the 1920's, can be said to be a 'unified' state; and it points us back to this same beginning. The Causal Argument pushes this regress back as far as possible, logically speaking, and then takes Kant's first antinomy to task. The first antinomy was grounded upon the common sensed judgment (an error according to Kant's own thinking) that only nothing follows from nothing ... he used the magic wand of so-called common sense to form a judgment in metaphysics ... and this is against his own criticl dictates. But he also asked his critical reader to devote to this antinomy his chief attention. And this is exactly what I have done. The result is the premise that 'nothing' is not 'nothing' but 'something' and that something is explained by means of the A and B representations. All else follows strictly, a priori, and necessarily.

Quote:

As we cant have nothing, it is incorrect to say it started.

But then how do we explain the whole of big bang cosmology, which rests upon the evidence of the expanding universe; which fits in and agrees with Einstein's General Theory of Relativity, which pushes the universe back to a singularity?

Not only this, but everything within the realm of our individual and collective personal experiences, tells us that all things have a beginning. We did not always exist. Neither did the Earth, the stars, the galaxies ... and why then would the universe be immune to this Idea of a universal beginning?

Yes, the universe too, had an ultimate beginning, and we can use pure reason to come up with a rational/logical deduction as to how it began.

Quote:

I keep asking what is nothing and something what are they. If we could imagine never having nothing we can only ever say we have something. Now by dating the universe we infer it had beginning. So the quandary remains.

I no long exist in a quandary. I have the argument in my head, and it answers the question as to how the universe began, and why it exists, sufficiently.

The other point made is that the argument could have been thought out by anyone, including any member of this forum, because it is a universally valid, objective solution to the question. It is not something arbitrarily chosen. It is a priori, necessary; and as such it fits Kant's definition of a 'synthetic cognition, a priori --just what he demanded from metaphysicians ... and short of which, he said that metaphysics, as yet, does not exist.

Quote:

The problem is you keep denying but then keep saying i...in the beginning.. It assumes a state of not being. What is not being but nothing. As we cant have nothing then we have always had something.

Perhaps you can refer to my quoting Hegel. I referenced him because he also denies that nothing is just nothing.

The reason I quote Kant is because he also had some interesting things to say on this point that reflect a different thinking than he expresses in the formulation of the first antinomy (based on the presumption that nothing only leads to nothing). It is not the presumption I take issue with. What I take issue with is the fact that Kant dismisses common sense in the evalutation of judgments in metaphysics.

This is a metaphysics thread, is it not?

Common sense tells us what nothing is. We can find the definition in a dictionary. The definition is a practical one, for our everday experience. This definition is carried over by Kant in his first antinomy; and perhaps realizing himself that something wasn't right, Kant asks his critical reader to devote to the antinomy his chief attention.

Hegel offers a definition of a first beginning that defies the dictionary definition of nothing. He offers his definition of what that something was that began everything.

I do the same thing with the A and B representations. To deny that there was a beginning leaves me with a conflict in my own thinking, and I do not think I'm alone in this. Here are tworeasons why I conclude that there was an ultimate beginning to the universe.

1. Everything we can point to was something that at one time did not exist. There is nothing that we can point to that proves an exception to this rule. We had a beginning, so did the Earth, so did the Milky Way galaxy, and according to big bang cosmology, it appears the universe itself is no exception. It too regresses back to a state of infinite density contained in zero spacetime.

So why should it be strange for us to think that the universe had a beginning, like everything else?

2. Human curiosity compels us to press the question regarding the origin of any state, or condition, or even Idea, that we propose as either now existing, or that may have existed, or may be porposed as having existed. This includes the Idea of a Supreme Being at the ultimate beginning ... this Idea as well compels me to ask: From where did this Supreme Being originate? This same pressing of the question applies to everything short of a total void ... Hence, it is this same beginning that Hegel begins with.

But here is the trick question: What is, or how de we rationally define such a state. Is it simply nothing?

I say no, it was not simply nothing, because I'm dismissing the practical dictionary definition of nothing that has no place in evaluating judgments in metaphysics. We are discussing the ultimate origin of all things here, and our thinking has to press itself harder on these matters that go beyond the world of our everday practical experience.

Further on this point: To state that it is not necessary to question the existence of something (as some do) is to deny legitimacy to what appears to me to be a logical, intuitive need to press the question regarding the origin of all things as far as possible. I can't see how this need to press the question can be defeated, but by deducing that this intuitive need to press the question stems from a need to question the existence of the universe, and everything in the universe, and it also clues us in the right direction as far as finding the solution to the question of its origin is concerned. That is, it clues us in the direction of accepting the most logical premise (that no longer compels a further need to press the question), that the universe began from a state approximating nothing at all ... but this again, as I've stated, is the trick in the puzzle; for if we fall for this trick we stumble; and the way to avoid this stumbling block is to follow Kant's advice, and dismiss the tendency to use our common sense (our practical everyday thinking) here in forming a judgment. Judgments in metaphysics cannot be so easily made. So the alternative is to provide/come up with, a critical definition of what it is we have in mind when we think nothing. The answer is: We still have an Absolute state, and the Absolute cannot be defined simply as nothing. Hence, I've proposed the A and B representations; and from this the Causal Argument follows.

Quote:

Quote:

Two alternatives , one..something external to this universe occurred to create this universe or,

There is an illogicality in this statement. Can you see it?

It's lodged in the idea of something outside the universe creating the universe.

The illogicality is exposed as follows: Before the universe was created assumes the nonexistence of the universe before its creation ... so, how can there be something outside the universe before the universe existed?

It would make more sense to asume simply the existence of the Absolute, and it is the Absolute in which the universe is contained, that can be logically deduced as being the First Cause/Ultimate Cause to the universe, and all that exists.

To make this logical deduction though I need to understand the causal process that brought the universe (spacetime, mass, and mind) into existence.

The Causal Argument provides the explanation for this causal process. The premise it begins with it the Absolute (not the common sensed dictionary definition of nothing ... which is where Kant's thinking went wrong). Hegel also threw aside the common sened dictionary definition of nothing.

Quote:

two, it was always here but we cant see the beginning because its hidden by circumstance. Circular arguments, we are back where we started

We can use pure reason to arrive at a rational explanation for the existence of the universe, and that's just what I've provided in the above argument.

I'm in the process of revising the argument and I'm reintroducing more quotes from Kant's Prolegomena and Critique that are directly related to what you've posted with regard to the idea of nothing and something.

This is a rather long reply to your short post, but you might find these quotes worth contemplating:

"Now there is a gradual transition possible from empirical to pure consciousness, till the real of it vanishes completely and there remains a merely formal consciousness (a priori) of the manifold in space and time; and, therefore, a synthesis also is possible in the production of the quantity of a sensation, from its beginning, that is, from the pure intuition =0, onwards to any quantity of it ...

"That quantity which can be apprehended as unity only, and in which plurality can be represented by approximation only to negation =0, I call intensive quantity. Every reality therefore in a phenomenon has intensive quantity, that is, a degree. If this reality is considered as a cause (whether of sensation, or of any other reality in the phenomenon, for instance, of change) the degree of that reality as a cause we call a momentum, for instance the momentum of graivty."

[From the Critique: A: 166-169; B: 208-211]

And from the Prolegomena this line of reasoning (that is directly relevant to the logic used to arrive at the premise of the Causal Argument) takes the following form:

" ... there is between reality (sense-representation) and the zero, or total void of intuition in time, a difference which has a quantity. For ... between every degree of occupancy space and of totally void space, diminishing degrees can be conceived, in the same manner as between consciousness and total unconsciousness (psychological darkness) ever-diminishing degrees obtain. Hence there is no perception that can prove an absolute absence; for isntance, no psychological darkness that cannot be considered as consciousness which is only outbalanced by a stronger consciouness." [306-307]

This line of reasoning contrasts with the common sensed reasoning on which the presumption of the antithesis in the first antinomy rests: that is, the common sensed presumption that nothing is only nothing, and nothing only follows nothing.

The premise I've explained rejects nothing, and draws the conclusion that spacetime, mass, and mind, can only regress to a point approximating, most closely, but (just as Kant has it above) never obtaining to a total void. You seem to be suggesting over and over that I'm beginning with nothing ... which is not the case. I'm denying that there ever can be any such state as a pure nothing, or a total void. Hence, there can be a beginning, with something, leading to something more.

Again, this beginning begins with the Absolute, and it is the Absolute that makes possible all else.

Quote:

i wonder why no one is questioning how did the Absolute come to being and what was before it if it had a beginning and if not why not etc...

If they accept that it is just that ... an infinite, and the least of all possible states it doesn't press us to ask the question: Where did it come from? It's eternal.

Quote:

as far as i am concerned, your argument explains that very well, but i find it hard to believe everyone understands and accepts it as i do.

Some posts above seem to question it ... so it's not likely everyone has the same idea. Note the debate with Xris on 'nothing' and the premise the argument presents. The definitions need some debate but one can only do so much here, before giving in to the conclusion that not everyone is going to agree.

Quote:

As you say Shos, for me its the notion of nothing and something that I can not define.

What do you think of the quote on Hegel in the argument?
Did you read what he has to say concerning a beginning?

Quote:

Nothing is impossible, so what have we ever had? and how long is it if nothing does not exist. Looking for external causes gives us more logical problems than searching for this illusive nothing.

The logical problem in the Causal Argument is defining the Absolute. We can only use reason to try and define it, logically. The only way I can understand all things beginning with the Absolute, and ending with the Absolute, is to think of a finite causal process as being contained between the infinite Absolute at the beginning of the process and the infinite Absolute at the end of the process. It is the process itself that is finite, but its Cause is the Absolute. Finite things are things that come into existence. The Absolute never came into existence. It has always been and it is the Absolute that brings all particular, finite things, including finite beings, into existence. The universe also, is a particular thing, brought into existence by the Absolute. The causal process explained in the Causal Argument defines how the finite universe arose, beginning from the simplest possible state approximating most closely, but not obtaining to, nothing at all, and following this causal process, by means of a succssively intensifying series of expanding and contracting stages, to an absolute intensity. The big bang arose as the final stage in this series, and the causal process explains the singularity as that simplest state to which each of the preceding stages collapsed, before expanding again. Its infinite density is explained in that the series did obtain to the absolute at this final stage. The series can be thought of as a finite process compelled to movement by and towards the Absolute, which the process obtained to at its end. But the Absolute is still that state the infinitely transcends the finite universe.

So while we open the door to more logical problems these can also be resolved. The Causal Argument does resolve them.

Quote:

Im glad you find sense in your logic but you still need to convince me of its value.

Its only value is in its providing a purely philosophical, rational, logical defense for one's belief in the existence of a Supreme Being. This may be of no value to some people. It does hold value for me because I try and look at the world rationally, and I can't accept everything as an accident, which is the best science can give us as a reason for our existence. Existence is too complex a thing to have happened by accident.

Quote:

Attempting to unravel these mysteries should be a mutual endeavour, not a battle of wills.Thanks xris..

That's the only reason I ever bothered joining this forum.

I'll post my argument again if I'm accepted into the social group where philosophical papers can be submitted. I've revised the argument and introduced some important quotes from Berkely, Hume, and Kant.

The main agreement I see that I have with you is the idea that there has always been something, and not nothing. All I can repeat is that this does not in any way logically contradict the idea of an ultimate beginning; this is why I quote Hegel. And my premise, grounded on the two pure representations negates the idea of nothing. I'm beginning that is, with something. If you follow the idea of B as a dynamic, mobile force of mind, expanding towards the Absolute, you'll understand that it constitutes an effect ... and the causal process that follows from the premise, being driven by an Absolute, which is constant, necessitates that B must obtain to A. Everything follows necessarily, a priori, just as Kant demanded in his Prolegomena.

The importance in the argument is that it fits Kant's description of a science of metaphysics, and no other argument can claim to do this:

"If anyone thinks himself offended, he is at liberty to refute my charge by producing a single synthetical proposition belonging to metaphysics which he would prove dogmatically a priori; for until he has actually performed this feat I shall not grant that he has truly advanced the science, even if this proposition shoud be sufficiently confirmed by common experience. No demand can be more moderate or more equitable and, in the (inevitably certain) event of its nonperformance, no assertion more just than that highterto metaphysics has never existed as a science." [368-369]

Another quote in this regard:

" ... as concerns the sources of metaphysical knowledge, its very concept implies that they cannot be empirical. Its principles (including not only its maxims but its basic notions) must never be derived from experience. It must not by physical but metaphysical knowledge, namely, knowledge lying beyond experience. It can therefore have for its basis neither external experience, which is the source of physics proper, not internal, which is the basis of empirical psychology. It is therefore a priori knowledge, coming from pure understanding and pure reason."
[265-266]

The argument is from pure reason. It was not thought out by piecing together various empirical observations, although it confirms everything science can tell us. It also adds pure, a priori, philosophical confirmation to the big bang theory. The argument also puts to rest the false notion that human reason is not capable of meeting Kant's challenge.

Im sorry shos but i cant get my head around your theory. It could be me but your absolute is not absolute at all, but a claim that an eternal creator by thought alone created this universe. Am I wrong?

With respect, to claim a beginning, is to infer a prior state of something else. It is not an absolute beginning , it cant be, only by faith could it exist. We as humans can only observe and conclude from what we see not what we imagine it to be. NOTHING is an impossibility, so something is the only thing we have ever had. If the universe appears to have beginning it has to be an illusion. What is it they lies beyond that illusion, it may well be your proposal but it appears to be driven by faith rather than logic. You are no different to any one else in your thought process you make assumptions and once that is done it becomes a matter of perspective. I have tried and tried to see something new in your proposal but through my inability or your use of complex language the image is far from clear.

I go back to my idea of what is something and what is nothing. If the state of being before the universe became visible was something but invisible, what is the difference between apparently nothing and nothing. The difference is that something was nothing in that it existed when there was apparently nothing. It only then begs the question what instigated it to become visible and expand into the universe we see now. Your view of the absolute could fit into this but I'm not sure.

Quote:

maybe this is the part where will comes into play. xris, suppose we dont think of the absolute as supreme being, but only as mind...mind being not an object or tangible something but still a condition that has always existed because even the word always has no meaning before time was created.

The moment we put more into the Idea of the Absolute we go too far, if we attribute to the Absolute anything aside from what we can deduce for a certainty, and that is:

1. The Absolute is not conditional. It is dependent upon nothing else for its existence. It just is.

2. The Absolute is not contained within any finite boundareis. It is infinite and we cannot imagine or think of a point where the Absolute must end. Should be set some purely arbitrary limiation/boundary upon it, we must then ask ourselves: What exists outside of the Absolute. Since the answer leads back to the Absolute, the question is illogical.

3. The Absolute is a pure, whole, indivisible unity that encompasses all. There are no finite particular objects (including the universe) that cannot be said to be enveloped by, or contained within, the Absolute.

4. If the Absolute encompasses all ... all that it encompasses is known to the Absolute.

The Causal Argument defines the Absolute as Absolute Mind. Whether we can attribute Absolute Will to this definition would depend upon whether we can attribute the creation of the universe to this Absolute Mind. Since the conclusion of the CA is that this Absolute Mind is the Cause/Creator of the universe, it follows as an implicit conclusion that this Absolute Mind possesses determination, or will; otherwise, no creation would follow.

Quote:

in that light, there was not ever nothing. and it doesnt have to be on faith, it was reasoned out by the reversing of the concept 'i think therefore i am'. this is the way i think of it anyway. in other words, if i do not think i do not exist, and until i think about something it does not exist. there are theories leading towards these ideas today in quantum physics i believe, though i may be wrong and they may not be widely accepted. i am sure of having heard ot these thoughts before, but never as being applied to the absolute the same way as in the causal argument. to me this is the best part of it.

The premise of the argument can be put this way: The Absolute, being infinite, leads inevitably to the Absolute looking in upon its own existence as the Absolute ... but this what we might call 'ultimate original conception' is something finite. B follows from A, and B then moves back to a perfect unity with A by the end of its movement. The difference between the beginning and the end is that the finite universe (spacetime, mass, and an Absolute Mind equal in force to mass) have undergone an intensification from their simplest possible state, to their greatest possible state. Absolute Mind, after splitting off from this mass, then resolves itself to the creation of the universe.

Quote:

so once we have agreed that since we know and all agree that there is something, we can surmise that something/someone had to be there to think of it-before it was created as well as afterwards. the most logical original thinker to me would be a diffused single mind...some would want to call that a supreme being, and the absolute is also used as a term for supreme being.

This is what the argument concludes.
So it seems, Salima, that you have the best overall grasp of the argument, compared to anyone else in the forum.

Quote:

now as the supreme being, composed of mind only, eventually generates thoughts of greater complexity, there you have the beginnings of the universe, or universes if there be others. and as one thinks of anything, will comes into play-shall i do this thing, shall i try that thing, etc, becomes i want to...becomes i will. maybe there has to be this will as the impetus, and that is the key part i have been missing in understanding. (divine will)

The argument has the Principle of Progressive Design: This follows from the preceding principles. It states that the Absolute Mind that created the universe did this over 15 billion years of progressive, creative thought, manipulating all things towards greater and greater complexity, and eventually to the creation of higher life forms with the capacity to think and thereby take part in this creation.

Quote:

(as a sidenote: many of these thoughts are familiar from ancient spiritual texts and scriptures-in the qur'an is 'He has only to say 'Be' and it is." the bible says ":in the beginning was the word, and the word was god." word can be comparable to thought since god wouldnt have a mouth or speech per se. i dont believe that certain concepts which are universal to all human history and so many various traditions can be baseless.)

There are theological considerations based on scripture that I can't get into. They are too heretical. Especially for empiricists, who seem to control this forum.

Quote:

shostakovich-
forgive me if i have misunderstood anything you said, and correct me, but i was hoping to put some things in different words because i believe it is a concept that xris in particular would find quite acceptable, but your vocabulary is quite daunting! had i not meditated and mulled over these things for so many years i am sure i would be a lot farther from being able to grasp any of it.

I'm sure as well. Look at the trouble other people are having by their posts above, which entirely miss the mark.
---------- Post added 11-14-2009 at 06:47 PM ----------

sorry,

Quote:

xris i anticipate you will say that the things the mind thought of were created out of something and since there was not anything, etc...
the mind has thoughts, and they are created out of mind i think you would agree. you can have thoughts, where do they come from? but the difference is that with the absolute mind, when it is willed that the thought manifest, it will do so-not as if made from some material, but as a reflection of thought itself. that is probably related to the concept of the world being an illusion-we have out empirical sciences to measure and count things, but the things we use to do that are no more physically really existing than anything else. there is nothing but the absolute, and the word 'created' does not really fit in my understanding either. thought gives substance to anything...a thought or a dream or a hope eventually becomes much more than an idea...

The word 'created' would apply to an Absolute Mind as the creator or designer who transformed the mass of the universe into what it is now. The design we see did not create itself ... it was governed over by and shaped into what we see. Natural selection and all else that science has conjured up to explain creation, may be processes that this Absolute Mind set in place, as everything else, that moves creation to be what it is. So how can the word 'created' not come into play?

Quote:

these things are indeed difficult to put into words....i think i should quit now.

The difficulty, as Henri Bergson would say, lies in our habitual ways of thinking. It is hard to escape from the practical world of our everday lives and begin contemplating such a thing as the beginning of the universe, is it not? To attempt such an argument as I've done above required that I escape the practical world and escape from outside influences and use pure reason (the only possible tool at our disposal) to find an answer. I would except that this is what would be required for someone to actually comprehend the argument; but this is asking far too much for the average person who is caught up by the malestrom of outside influences that a part of everday life.

---------- Post added 11-15-2009 at 04:53 PM ----------

xris;103422 wrote:

Quote:

Im sorry shos but i cant get my head around your theory. It could be me but your absolute is not absolute at all, but a claim that an eternal creator by thought alone created this universe. Am I wrong?

I've put down what I think the Absolute is in the response to Salima. It is Absolute. But what comes out of my theory/argument is that there is a secondary force B, that through its movement by means of the series explained, obtains back to A (but this B is still contained within the Absolute). It is B that at the end of the series becomes Absolute Mind, and as B is equal in force to X (the mass of the universe ... generated by the series, and that B splits off from at the end of the series) it is this Absolute Mind=B, that is the Creator (deisgnor or author) of the universe.

This is a purely logical, rational deduction based upon the argument. It is not an arbitrary deduction. It just follows, a priori, and necessarily. In other words, there's no getting around the conclusion.

Quote:

With respect, to claim a beginning, is to infer a prior state of something else. It is not an absolute beginning , it cant be, only by faith could it exist. We as humans can only observe and conclude from what we see not what we imagine it to be.

This line of reasoning with negate the possibility of any mathematical theories, including Einstein's General Theory of Relativity.

It also would spell an end to Metaphysics, if it were true. But as Kant had it, metaphysics is built into our fundamental nature, as human beings. We have imagination and we have reason. There is no argument against the proposal that we can use reason and creative imagination to come up with solid, rational conclusions about why we exist. To think otherwise, I believe, amounts to an insult directed at our this human capacity of reason that all of us share.

Quote:

NOTHING is an impossibility, so something is the only thing we have ever had. If the universe appears to have beginning it has to be an illusion.

As Salima has stated in her post, the world you see in front of you is an illusion, given this same line of reasoning. And she's right. Everything we see is made up of atoms, and what are atoms made up of ... electrons, protons, and what are electrons and protons made up ... charms etc., and other illusionary particules that quantum physicists have dreamed up in their imaginations. So who's really suffering from an illusion?

The answer: All of us.

But the Causal Argument gives me some certainty to hold onto. Its grounded upon pure reason, not the illusion of the everyday practical world that controls, dominates, manipulates and transforms our thinking into a mass comfortity of sickening empiricist thinking.

Quote:

What is it they lies beyond that illusion, it may well be your proposal but it appears to be driven by faith rather than logic.

Everything is driven by faith, including science. But you couldn't be more wrong. The argument is driven by strict and undeviating logic and pure reason that is a priori, necessary.

Quote:

You are no different to any one else in your thought process you make assumptions and once that is done it becomes a matter of perspective.

How can you make such a generalized/tautological statement when you've admitted you can't understand the argument? That would be like me going to a rocket scientist and dismissing his assessment of a problem with a missile because I disagree with his method of reasoning. I could use the same reasoning to dismiss everything ... its tautological. The argument is just like everyone's elses. Therefore it doesn't say antying. It has no value.

Quote:

I have tried and tried to see something new in your proposal but through my inability or your use of complex language the image is far from clear.

I believe it's the conceptual theory not the words used to explain it that presents the problem. It's not an easy conceptual theory to imagine, or think out. But it's not impossible. It took me 25 years to grasp the whole of it. And it took considerable effort. So, when someone tells me that they can understand it, I'm skeptical. When someone admits they can't understand it, I can accept that. I have so far, met only two or three people who can actually grasp it.

Quote:

I go back to my idea of what is something and what is nothing. If the state of being before the universe became visible was something but invisible, what is the difference between apparently nothing and nothing.
The difference is that something was nothing in that it existed when there was apparently nothing. It only then begs the question what instigated it to become visible and expand into the universe we see now. Your view of the absolute could fit into this but I'm not sure.

I suppose this is why Hegel calls the beginning a not-being which is yet being, and a simple immediate, besides calling it the absolute, and then making the connection to God. But Hegel's approach is anti-Kantian. He does not show how all things have moved from the beginning, by means of a logical causal process, to the state that we now observe. The Causal Argument provides for the explanation of the causal process that led from the beginning it proposes, to what we now observe. The Absolute begins and ends the process. The finite universe arose out of the causal series. The series begins with Mind, and the physical universe, is the creative work of that Mind. The 'stuff' of the physical universe, if reduced to its simplest possible esssence, would revert to Absolute Mind.

What expanded into spacetime was the mass that was generated by this Mind, through the causal process explained in the argument, and the Mind that moved from the beginning to the end of the series, separated from this mass, and then maniupulated/formed it into what we observe.

This also, is not based upon faith. It follows as a logical deduction from the four principles of the argument, and all the principles together constitute a synthetic cognition, a priori ... which is Kant's definition and requirement for a science of metaphysics.

---------- Post added 11-15-2009 at 04:58 PM ----------

xris;103432 wrote:

Salima whatever our thoughts, its beyond language at times. I appreciate that trying to give an impression of ones thoughts can be an almost impossible task. It has been a preoccupation with me, the BB, and its consequences. I have listened to a few theories on how it came about but they all fail to recognise it is just an illusion.

When you talk about thoughts we assume a thinker, when you think of a thinker you make proposals based on your own thoughts. I can not let myself have the luxury of speculation on unsubstantiated creation. It is what it is and no more, till we learn more. Till then we have a something that appears from a nothing that does not exist, nothing that is.

What I can't understand Xris is your statment here: "I cannot let myself have the luxury of speculation on unsubstantiated creation."

Can you explain? I can't grasp what exactly you mean by 'unsubstantiated creation.' I'm only guessing that you're implying by this any idea or theory as to what caused creation.

But as I've posted above, this would negate mathematical theories including metaphysical speculations addressing the question. And I can't accept this. It is the equivalent of telling myself (if I followed the same strict limitations) that I am not allowed to think. I'm sorry, but that won't happen. I think. Therefore, I am.

And actually, that's an idea that's implicit in the argument's premise.

Salima has mentioned something to this effect above.

The Ideas of Something and Nothing are themselves only Ideas.

I can ask: What is Something?

Something is: a congomeration of particulars arranged in such a way as to lend the impression of their existence as something with form, body, weight, mass, force ... capable of forming an impression on one's sensory faculties, or capable of forming an impact upon one's physical form ... by touch, or possible injury, or possible sense of pleasure.

But in the final analysis, what is something? Paticulars that have been brought into existence by some powerful force, and arranged in this particular way, but for what reason?

Is the world I see illusionary? Can it be torn into pieces? Can it revert to what it all was before it came to be? And if it all reverted to what it all was before it came to be, what would it then be? Something? Or, as Hegel defines it: A not-being which is yet being, and a nothing that flies from itself to become something other than nothing?

I have formed an argument that puts more of a critical definition to the beginning. What I've avoided with this beginning is begging the question: "Where did this something (this more complex something) that is proposed as the ultimate beginning of all things, itself come from? What preceded it? What caused it?"

The Absolute had no Cause. It simply always, was.

It is the Absolute alone that avoids begging the question: What came before?