1 of 2
1
Paradox and Creation
Posted: 02 September 2016 10:21 AM   [ Ignore ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1541
Joined  2012-04-25

I was telling my son about the paradox, whose name escapes me, of getting from point A to point B. If you know its name reply back. It’s this: in order to get from a to b you have to move half way first. Then to get from half way to B you need to move half THAT distance first. And so on. So it seems like you’d never actually arrive at point B because you always have to go half way first. But of course in reality we do get from a to b.

The Creation question seems similar in some way I can’t explain. We ask, how’d we get here. They answer, God created us. We reply but who created God, God’s creator. Who created that creator. So there’s this infinite regression of “half ways” about something getting created. So logically it seems we shouldn’t be here, and yet we are.

Thoughts? (And I mean this to be a philosophical thread, not a religious one).

Profile
 
 
Posted: 02 September 2016 01:11 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 1 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  6640
Joined  2007-10-05

That is Zeno’s Paradox, which as I recall even Zeno did not believe. Calculus proved why it is wrong.

Philosophically, an uncaused creator makes no sense. Scientifically we have no need for that assumption.

 Signature 

You cannot have a rational discussion with someone who holds irrational beliefs.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 02 September 2016 07:31 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 2 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1541
Joined  2012-04-25
DarronS - 02 September 2016 01:11 PM

That is Zeno’s Paradox, which as I recall even Zeno did not believe. Calculus proved why it is wrong.

Philosophically, an uncaused creator makes no sense. Scientifically we have no need for that assumption.

Ok that’s it, thanks. So calculus actually didn’t prove it was wrong. It merely stipulated a solution that only makes sense in calculus. Just by definition, an infinite number of increasingly smaller fractions converges to the limit of 1. But that’s just a rote stipulation. No one ever took a computer and added up an infinite number of fractions.

As for an uncaused creator, most non-believers would substitute universe for creator and argue that the universe is uncaused, which according to you makes no sense. And yet that’s what scientists believe. Yes we know about the big bang, but when asked, who pulled the trigger to make the big bang, of course the reply is, it’s uncaused. Which according to you makes no sense. So I guess you argue For a creator. I never took you for a believer. wink

Profile
 
 
Posted: 03 September 2016 04:04 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 3 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  6640
Joined  2007-10-05

The universe is under no obligation to make sense.  cool smile

Edit: And scientists don’t say the Big Bang was uncaused, they say we don’t know. Big difference, and the correct answer. Attributing our existence to an uncaused creator is neither logical, necessary, nor backed by evidence.

[ Edited: 03 September 2016 08:10 AM by DarronS ]
 Signature 

You cannot have a rational discussion with someone who holds irrational beliefs.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 03 September 2016 10:41 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 4 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2135
Joined  2013-06-01
DarronS - 02 September 2016 01:11 PM

That is Zeno’s Paradox, which as I recall even Zeno did not believe. Calculus proved why it is wrong.

Philosophically, an uncaused creator makes no sense. Scientifically we have no need for that assumption.

Great job on answering CJ’s question.
 
Just a sidebar on the religious side of this. Zeno proves with mathematics there is no god creator. Agreed. Most stories are based upon older stories. And my understanding is that the oldest term of “god” meant “knowledge” and the people of knowledge domesticated (created) man. The red ochre burials have religion at over 80K years. Yet, there has been no proof gods as deities in a human form have been around for over 6K years. The DNA says that modern white skinned man has only been around for 12K years. Point being, that the stories passed down by the gods who say they domesticated man, may very well be true. And at least it passes the tests of science so far.
 
Who created the “gods”? Well they evolved, and then we were domesticated by that branch of hominins. The reason they said they domesticated us was that they were farming and their backs were not designed to do the heavy lifting of building the water canals for farming. It was in the Age of Domestication when many of the domesticated animals, fruit and grains were created. So, why not create a branch of the Homo sapiens to do the heavy lifting? Anyway, time will tell if the pre-history stories passed down are true.
 
This is my understanding at this time. It is not set in stone and will most likely change as more data is uncovered and becomes available.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 03 September 2016 07:43 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 5 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  6640
Joined  2007-10-05
MikeYohe - 03 September 2016 10:41 AM

Who created the “gods”? Well they evolved, and then we were domesticated by that branch of hominins. The reason they said they domesticated us was that they were farming and their backs were not designed to do the heavy lifting of building the water canals for farming. It was in the Age of Domestication when many of the domesticated animals, fruit and grains were created. So, why not create a branch of the Homo sapiens to do the heavy lifting.

You must have taken the brown acid back in 1969.

 Signature 

You cannot have a rational discussion with someone who holds irrational beliefs.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 04 September 2016 11:13 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 6 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  5248
Joined  2007-08-31
CuthbertJ - 02 September 2016 10:21 AM

I was telling my son about the paradox, whose name escapes me, of getting from point A to point B. If you know its name reply back. It’s this: in order to get from a to b you have to move half way first. Then to get from half way to B you need to move half THAT distance first. And so on. So it seems like you’d never actually arrive at point B because you always have to go half way first. But of course in reality we do get from a to b.

Sorry for being late. As Darron already said, this is one of the Zeno paradoxes, to be specific, the dichotomy paradox. Literally, it is not a paradox, because we do not have two contradicting conclusions. We have a logical argument and our experience of reality that conflict with each other. So one one of them must be wrong. Zeno proposed that our experience is wrong. He brought his ‘paradoxes’ to show that ‘Being’ is ‘One’ and therefore unchanging.

CuthbertJ - 02 September 2016 10:21 AM

The Creation question seems similar in some way I can’t explain. We ask, how’d we get here. They answer, God created us. We reply but who created God, God’s creator. Who created that creator. So there’s this infinite regression of “half ways” about something getting created. So logically it seems we shouldn’t be here, and yet we are.

Both arguments use the impossibility of infinite steps, but in the creation case there are definitely no ‘halves’. We are asking for a cause, and then its cause, and then, .... etc. Each cause, one could argue, is even bigger. God must be greater than its creation, but then, something that created God must be even greater, etc. So I rather see a ‘blow-up’ then a limit.

Many modern physicists are inclined to think that the universe is a quantum fluctuation. Because the total energy content of the universe is about zero, the universe is ‘allowed’ to exist infinitely, according to the Heisenberg uncertainty principle. Therefore there needs to be no cause. Quantum fluctuations are spontaneous, per definition. Of course, one can ask where this property of the quantum vacuum comes from, but this is asking where the laws of nature come from. But there we can only answer: laws of nature are abstract descriptions of how nature behaves. They are not laws in the strict sense, as prescribing how objects, or in this case a quantum vacuum, must behave. And asking where the quantum vacuum comes from is similar to asking where ‘nothing’ comes from.

 Signature 

GdB

The light is on, but there is nobody at home.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 05 September 2016 11:43 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 7 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  6640
Joined  2007-10-05

Zeno’s Paradox is also a classic example of the folly of trying to figure out things by pure reason. Observation makes it obvious people and things get from Point A to Point B. The problem lies in Zeno’s thinking. Yes, you can divide distances in half infinitely, but that is a mathematical anomaly. Material objects do not move like that, they just keep going until acted upon by an outside force, such as a spear meeting the flesh of a game animal.

 Signature 

You cannot have a rational discussion with someone who holds irrational beliefs.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 05 September 2016 09:51 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 8 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  7757
Joined  2009-02-26
DarronS - 05 September 2016 11:43 AM

Zeno’s Paradox is also a classic example of the folly of trying to figure out things by pure reason. Observation makes it obvious people and things get from Point A to Point B. The problem lies in Zeno’s thinking. Yes, you can divide distances in half infinitely, but that is a mathematical anomaly. Material objects do not move like that, they just keep going until acted upon by an outside force, such as a spear meeting the flesh of a game animal.

Even counting individual points in space, you’ll get to the end.  Or going *half way each time requires reducing your step distance or measurement for each step until the last step is a only a single point, which brings you to B.

[ Edited: 05 September 2016 09:57 PM by Write4U ]
 Signature 

Art is the creation of that which evokes an emotional response, leading to thoughts of the noblest kind.
W4U

Profile
 
 
Posted: 05 September 2016 09:59 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 9 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  7757
Joined  2009-02-26

Something just struck me. If the universe actually had an infinity of something it would be solid. Zero State?

 Signature 

Art is the creation of that which evokes an emotional response, leading to thoughts of the noblest kind.
W4U

Profile
 
 
Posted: 06 September 2016 12:23 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 10 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  5248
Joined  2007-08-31
DarronS - 05 September 2016 11:43 AM

Zeno’s Paradox is also a classic example of the folly of trying to figure out things by pure reason.

Well, yes and no. If one wants to get knowledge about what we observe, then you are completely right. In Zeno’s case: we observe movement, and if we want to understand movement, we need our observations. However, if we accept that there are illusions, then reason is at least an essential tool. But you are right, it is still not pure reason. But this paradox is obviously false: not necessary because we empirically know that movement exists (it might be an illusion!), but because the reasoning is wrong. By artificially taking time chunks that get smaller and smaller so that the limit is 1 but never reach 1, it seems that an object can never get from A to B. Another reasoning would be that the object reaches half of the distance in a certain time, and so if we wait exactly the same time again, the object will have reached B. So now I have 2 reasonable arguments, which means one of them must be wrong. It is obvious which one.

There is an argument about free fall I like very much, and I am wondering how it is possible that Aristotle could have been an authority on physics for such a long time. Aristotle thought that heavier objects fall faster: e.g. an object of 2 kg falls twice as fast as an object of 1 kg. Now connect these 2 objects with a strong thread. How fast will these objects fall together? Thrice as fast a the 1 kg object? Or is the 2 kg pulling the 1 kg object, and the other way round, the 1 kg slowing down the 2 kg object? And what if we glue the 2 objects together? We just get conflicting arguments. The only way to avoid the contradiction (except denying that movement exists wink ) is assuming that all objects fall the same way. The argument is very close to pure reason.

Same with special relativity. It is in fact based on one simple assumption: that the laws of nature are the same for all observers that do not accelerate. Now of course I could imagine that some laws of nature are velocity dependent. But it is an empirical fact that we have no way to distinguish between uniform motion and rest. This requirement which all laws of nature must conform to, is empirically so minimalist that there were critiques that Einstein introduced philosophy into physics. So again, very close to pure reason.

 Signature 

GdB

The light is on, but there is nobody at home.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 06 September 2016 12:24 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 11 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  5248
Joined  2007-08-31
Write4U - 05 September 2016 09:59 PM

Something just struck me. If the universe actually had an infinity of something it would be solid. Zero State?

Write4U’s paradox? But I don’t see the reasoning. I don’t even understand what you are saying.

 Signature 

GdB

The light is on, but there is nobody at home.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 16 September 2016 03:17 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 12 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  7757
Joined  2009-02-26
GdB - 06 September 2016 12:24 AM
Write4U - 05 September 2016 09:59 PM

Something just struck me. If the universe actually had an infinity of something it would be solid. Zero State?

Write4U’s paradox? But I don’t see the reasoning. I don’t even understand what you are saying.

Note that we know the universe is NOT infinite.  Now fill a finite space with an infinite number of “something”, which can be compressed tighter and tighter trying to fit an infinite number of something into a finite space, which will keep expanding outward and compressing inward..

Perhaps this might explain:
A deflated balloon is floppy, an inflated balloon is solid, fill the balloon with too much air and what happens when the limits if the stretching ability of the balloon is reached. The singularity of the balloon bursts and forms a body of expanding air.

 Signature 

Art is the creation of that which evokes an emotional response, leading to thoughts of the noblest kind.
W4U

Profile
 
 
Posted: 16 September 2016 11:50 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 13 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  5248
Joined  2007-08-31
Write4U - 16 September 2016 03:17 PM

Note that we know the universe is NOT infinite. 

You know more than I do:

Observations, including the Cosmic Background Explorer (COBE), Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe (WMAP), and Planck maps of the CMB, suggest that the Universe is infinite in extent with a finite age

Wikipedia

 Signature 

GdB

The light is on, but there is nobody at home.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 17 September 2016 03:04 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 14 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  7757
Joined  2009-02-26
GdB - 16 September 2016 11:50 PM
Write4U - 16 September 2016 03:17 PM

Note that we know the universe is NOT infinite. 

You know more than I do:

Observations, including the Cosmic Background Explorer (COBE), Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe (WMAP), and Planck maps of the CMB, suggest that the Universe is infinite in extent with a finite age

Wikipedia

In this scenario, what is the definition of *the Universe*.  Is that observation in regards to the expanding Universe as we know it or does it address an infinite *permittive condition* (vacuum) into which the Universe IS expanding?

If the Universe has a finite age and is still expanding, it cannot be infinite, IMO. What is it expanding into, infinity? OK, but is it already infinite in size?  As I see it Infinity itself has no shape, it is just a permittive condition with no physical properties.

 Signature 

Art is the creation of that which evokes an emotional response, leading to thoughts of the noblest kind.
W4U

Profile
 
 
Posted: 17 September 2016 11:54 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 15 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  5248
Joined  2007-08-31
Write4U - 17 September 2016 03:04 AM

In this scenario, what is the definition of *the Universe*.  Is that observation in regards to the expanding Universe as we know it or does it address an infinite *permittive condition* (vacuum) into which the Universe IS expanding?

Cosmologists all agree that the universe is not expanding into something else. Vacuum is space with nothing in it. So if space itself is expanding, in what is it expanding? Without basic understanding of general relativity, this will stay incomprehensible for you.

 Signature 

GdB

The light is on, but there is nobody at home.

Profile
 
 
   
1 of 2
1
 
‹‹ On repeating history      Media bias ››