4 ms·

Something I have been thinking about related to this story: we, as humans, will never know what reality is (not just "our" reality as in "our" universe, but "ev

Something I have been thinking about related to this story: we, as humans, will never know what reality is (not just "our" reality as in "our" universe, but "everything"). You either a) have to accept the idea of infinite as in realities have always existed and have bootstrapped inner realities with time. They never "were created", they just "always existed". So whenever we get to know the details of reality N, we don't know yet 100% what reality N-1 is about (we may have an idea, a theory, but just that). We would never reach to understand/experience reality 0. Or b) you don't accept the idea of "infinite" and you think everything has one single beginning, one original "big bang" that bootstrapped everything and that nothing ever existed before that moment, not even time. But as humans I don't think our brains are wired in a way to understand "there was nothing before something", we will always ask ourselves "what is the cause of that?".

Schiphol 6y ago
This is Kant's [first antinomy of pure reason] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kant%27s_antinomies https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kant%27s_antinomies)
- lmarcos 6y ago
  Thanks for the link!
throw0101a 6y ago
> But as humans I don't think our brains are wired in a way to understand "there was nothing before something", we will always ask ourselves "what is the cause of that?". Parmenides would like a word: * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nothing_comes_from_nothing https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nothing_comes_from_nothing One also has to ask "what keeps reality/realities existing?". Why doesn't everything simply just go poof into non-existence? Aristotle (and Thomas Aquinas, in this Second Way): * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Five_Ways_(Aquinas)#Secunda_Via:_The_Argument_of_the_First_Cause https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Five_Ways_(Aquinas)#Secunda_Vi... argue that there must be an Uncaused Cause. Not a "cause" in the temporal sense of a first domino knocking over a second, third, etc, starting with the Big Bang; but rather like Yo-Yo Ma playing his cello causing music. What is the cello player of reality that is causing the reality that we perceive? Whatever said entity is, it itself cannot be caused by something else, as you get into an infinite regress.
- mannykannot 6y ago
  This conclusion requires, as an independent postulate, the premise that there cannot be infinite regress, which, if asserted without independent justification, amounts to begging the question.
  - throw0101a 6y ago
    > If every constituent member of that order is causally dependent on something prior to itself, then it appears that the order in question must consist of an infinite chain of causes. Yet Aquinas denies this implication (fourth premise): if the causal order is infinite, then (obviously) there could be no first cause. But without a first cause, then (necessarily) there could be no subsequent effects—including the intermediate efficient causes and ultimate effect (ST Ia 2.3). In other words, the absence of a first cause would imply an absence of the causal order we observe. But since this implication is manifestly false, he says, there must be a first cause, “to which everyone gives the name God” (Ibid.). * https://iep.utm.edu/aq-ph-th/#SH2b https://iep.utm.edu/aq-ph-th/#SH2b
    - mannykannot 6y ago
      > But without a first cause, then (necessarily) there could be no subsequent effects. This is where there seems to be a somewhat subtle implied premise, as the most one can say about necessity here is that without a first cause, then either there could be no subsequent effects or there is an infinite causal regress. And regardless of that, this argument tells us nothing about what sort of first cause there might be, so when Aquinas says “to which everyone gives the name God”, he's just winging it, in that just about everyone's notion of God has some specific characteristics. The use of "manifestly", and appeals to plausibility, intuition or convention such as "to which everyone..." are something of a tell: when philosophers resort to such language, we know they cannot prove that they have a sound argument. These sort of arguments are quite entertaining to discuss, but Alvin Plantinga, for one, is under no illusion that they actually prove the existence of God.
      - 6y ago
seqizz 6y ago
But isn't "reality", in this usage, enforces the idea of always having the N-1? Suppose you can jump between realities (duh) and you've found the reality 0 by asking the right questions on every step, what would be the first question to ask there? Edit: Just to support that I am on 2nd solution :)
- lmarcos 6y ago
  > what would be the first question to ask there? I would ask: what originated reality 0. If the answer is "something" then reality 0 is not reality 0. If the answer is "nothing. It existed since ever" then I would be dissatisfied because my brain cannot conceive that.

Schiphol 6y ago

This is Kant's [first antinomy of pure reason] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kant%27s_antinomies https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kant%27s_antinomies)

lmarcos 6y ago
Thanks for the link!

throw0101a 6y ago

> But as humans I don't think our brains are wired in a way to understand "there was nothing before something", we will always ask ourselves "what is the cause of that?". Parmenides would like a word: * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nothing_comes_from_nothing https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nothing_comes_from_nothing One also has to ask "what keeps reality/realities existing?". Why doesn't everything simply just go poof into non-existence? Aristotle (and Thomas Aquinas, in this Second Way): * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Five_Ways_(Aquinas)#Secunda_Via:_The_Argument_of_the_First_Cause https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Five_Ways_(Aquinas)#Secunda_Vi... argue that there must be an Uncaused Cause. Not a "cause" in the temporal sense of a first domino knocking over a second, third, etc, starting with the Big Bang; but rather like Yo-Yo Ma playing his cello causing music. What is the cello player of reality that is causing the reality that we perceive? Whatever said entity is, it itself cannot be caused by something else, as you get into an infinite regress.

mannykannot 6y ago
This conclusion requires, as an independent postulate, the premise that there cannot be infinite regress, which, if asserted without independent justification, amounts to begging the question.
- throw0101a 6y ago
  > If every constituent member of that order is causally dependent on something prior to itself, then it appears that the order in question must consist of an infinite chain of causes. Yet Aquinas denies this implication (fourth premise): if the causal order is infinite, then (obviously) there could be no first cause. But without a first cause, then (necessarily) there could be no subsequent effects—including the intermediate efficient causes and ultimate effect (ST Ia 2.3). In other words, the absence of a first cause would imply an absence of the causal order we observe. But since this implication is manifestly false, he says, there must be a first cause, “to which everyone gives the name God” (Ibid.). * https://iep.utm.edu/aq-ph-th/#SH2b https://iep.utm.edu/aq-ph-th/#SH2b
  - mannykannot 6y ago
    > But without a first cause, then (necessarily) there could be no subsequent effects. This is where there seems to be a somewhat subtle implied premise, as the most one can say about necessity here is that without a first cause, then either there could be no subsequent effects or there is an infinite causal regress. And regardless of that, this argument tells us nothing about what sort of first cause there might be, so when Aquinas says “to which everyone gives the name God”, he's just winging it, in that just about everyone's notion of God has some specific characteristics. The use of "manifestly", and appeals to plausibility, intuition or convention such as "to which everyone..." are something of a tell: when philosophers resort to such language, we know they cannot prove that they have a sound argument. These sort of arguments are quite entertaining to discuss, but Alvin Plantinga, for one, is under no illusion that they actually prove the existence of God.
    - 6y ago

seqizz 6y ago

But isn't "reality", in this usage, enforces the idea of always having the N-1? Suppose you can jump between realities (duh) and you've found the reality 0 by asking the right questions on every step, what would be the first question to ask there? Edit: Just to support that I am on 2nd solution :)

lmarcos 6y ago
> what would be the first question to ask there? I would ask: what originated reality 0. If the answer is "something" then reality 0 is not reality 0. If the answer is "nothing. It existed since ever" then I would be dissatisfied because my brain cannot conceive that.