Logical Hierarchies

Jan and Tom,

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><b>I relate the beginning issue with "ex nihilo", which is assumed to be nonsense, so that all forms in the universe existed without being created. Thus, we cannot point to a moment in time when it suddenly appeared out of nowhere. Likewise, the no-end issue begs the question where should all forms go when the universe reaches its end. </b><hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

I fully agree that each must decided for themselves what scenario seems to best fit ones view in that none have strong physical evidence upon which to compare views.

However, I still do have a bit of trouble understanding MM's position and apparently yours as well.

So this is not an arguement but more of a question as to why you favor the one you choose over other choices.

While my specific view of creation ex nihilo doesn't provide an understanding of how or why, it does at least appear to be mathematically permittable. N

---

&gt;(+n)+(-n); plus we actually see events even today that correspond to such a view in virtual particle activity.

On the other hand the view that something has existed for eternity and hence never "came" into existance simply doesn't logically seem to provide any answer but merely casts aside any attempt to ever learn anything further about or origins.

It simply makes no sense to me to suggest something that is physically tangiable was never created. This question must go beyond forms. That is I am addressing physical existance vs any specific form of existance.

Can you add any depth to your logic as to why the latter view is preferred or is considered superior to that of mine?





Knowing to believe only half of what you hear is a sign of intelligence. Knowing which half to believe can make you a genius.

Mac,


<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">On the other hand the view that something has existed for eternity and hence never "came" into existance simply doesn't logically seem to provide any answer but merely casts aside any attempt to ever learn anything further about or origins.

It simply makes no sense to me to suggest something that is physically tangiable was never created. This question must go beyond forms. That is I am addressing physical existance vs any specific form of existance.

Can you add any depth to your logic as to why the latter view is preferred or is considered superior to that of mine?<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">


I certainly do not think my view is superior to yours or someone else's. Because we are not able to proof anything regarding the beginning-end issue, we are bound to talk in concepts that feel right to us. For example, you feel comfortable with some creation scenario, whereas I think that non-creation could fit the bill. In any case, it is metaphysics, so no solid proof can be tabled.

If we assume a point of creation, then you obviously feel compelled to study the origin of the universe. On the other hand, non-creation will not motivate anyone to look for the origin since there is none. This may look like an "ease way out" to some, but it is a logical consequence of non-creation and has nothing to do with deliberate evasiveness.

Jan,

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><b>If we assume a point of creation, then you obviously feel compelled to study the origin of the universe. On the other hand, non-creation will not motivate anyone to look for the origin since there is none. This may look like an "ease way out" to some, but it is a logical consequence of non-creation and has nothing to do with deliberate evasiveness. </b><hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

I agree 100% with the fact that neither is actually superior but what I was hoping for was some insight as to why you would lchoose one over the other. I don't argue that non-origin is being a copout but just would like to understand how one can accept that view.




Knowing to believe only half of what you hear is a sign of intelligence. Knowing which half to believe can make you a genius.

Whichever model is true (if indeed one can. in principle. disprove the other), it should be decided within a century or two by collecting ever more refined data. If people are still asking this question 100,000 years from now, it's a safe bet that it's insoluble.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">I agree 100% with the fact that neither is actually superior but what I was hoping for was some insight as to why you would lchoose one over the other. I don't argue that non-origin is being a copout but just would like to understand how one can accept that view.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

Since I firmly believe that every effect as an antecedent proximate cause, the moment of inception must have a cause, so the inception is an effect in its own right. Then, logically, one would look for a cause inducing this inception. I therefore seek a clear event staged by a form, an object, or substance that mapped non-being into being in an absolute unambiguous manner. But can there be a form that is in a state of non-being? Can such a form exist without a construct or reference framework that has no properties? So I'm compelled to conclude that the inception may not be a true mapping from non-being into being after all, but merely another change of state. Hence, there can only be changes of configuration of forms.

So I'm tempted to say that we'll never get an answer to why or what put us here. [V]

Jan,

Fair enough answer. Thanks.

Knowing to believe only half of what you hear is a sign of intelligence. Knowing which half to believe can make you a genius.