5 ms·
Clearly, the controversy is about whether reality needs a cause in order to manifest.
by smhost 8y ago
Clearly, the controversy is about whether reality needs a cause in order to manifest.
- coldtea 8y agoWhy wouldn't it? Everything else does...
- smhost 8y agoWhy would it? "Everything else" may behave the way it does because it's embedded within reality. But reality in itself isn't "in" anything, so it may or may not have the same properties as ordinary objects. So it may or may not be legitimate to carry out that final inductive step. Who knows. Who cares.
- coldtea 8y agoReality though consists of many tons of "everything else".
- smhost 8y agoBut in order to carry out the final inductive step, you have to invoke something outside of nature that causes nature to exist. And the problem is that we don't even know whether reason can be applied to things outside of nature. I mean, our rules of reasoning about objects realiably break down when we try to apply induction to objects even at the fringes of our ability to observe. What makes you so sure that we can reach the supernatural realm with reason?
- coldtea 8y ago>But in order to carry out the final inductive step, you have to invoke something outside of nature that causes nature to exist. And the problem is that we don't even know whether reason can be applied to things outside of nature. In terms of proof, we also don't know whether reason can be applied to things within nature -- it's still depending on axioms. But we still believe it to be true and to be applicable everywhere inside nature regardless of specific context, and I see no reason (pun intended) not to extend this belief even outside nature.
- smhost 8y agoThere has to be some measure by which we can say that something is reasonable. And I think that measuring our reasoning against nature is the only way we can approach a valid model of the world. In contrast, we can't measure our reason against the supernatural realm. And like I said before, there are areas where our reasoning does break down even within nature (such as at the center of a black hole), and there we say "we don't know" rather than believe that our reasoning holds.
- squirrelicus 8y agoI think the definition for cause you're using is heavier than the definition I'm using. This is probably because religions have traditionally framed extra-universal things as ordering events inside the universe, but it seems that is not possible if you exit spacetime. In other words, branes, strings, gods, or anything we discover could, in my definition, "cause" reality to manifest without a temporal cause/effect coupling. Perhaps I need a better word to remove the cause/effect temporal baggage
- FeepingCreature 8y agoPersonally, I prefer the thesis that everything exists.
- squirrelicus 8y agoHmmm. There is the set A. It contains all elements except itself. There is a subset of A called P, which is all possible things. There is a subset of P called M, which is all things that manifest in reality. Traditionally we call elements of M "things that exist (or did exist or will exist)" You're saying that P=M? I find that position extraordinary and lacking evidence.
- kybernetikos 8y agoIs a common view among those who believe in parallel universes whether spatial, quantum or mathematical. Its sometimes described as 'everything that can happen does happen'. If there's infinite matter arranged randomly then you would expect to eventually find one of everything finite.