Dec 14, 2011 -- 9:04AM, farragut wrote:

I gather that the population of Gs could be infinite.

One could indeed argue that Hatcher's logic allows for the existence of multiple self-caused Gs which together cause the rest of V (each G causing a portion of V). So far I haven't found a sound logical basis to deny that. It also allows for the existence of one self-caused G causing all of V, and for the existence of one self-caused G that is the only thing that exists despite our illusions of compositeness. In other words, polytheism, Abrahamic monotheism as well as Hindu monistic theism could all find support in Hatcher's proof. Not atheism.

Dec 14, 2011 -- 10:09AM, F1fan wrote:

Dec 14, 2011 -- 6:30AM, Lilwabbit wrote:

If something exists (evident truth), and if that something is a composite entity (the apparent universe), and if something cannot come out of nothing (i.e. cannot be uncaused), it must, in the absence of other causes, contain within itself a sufficient reason for its own existence (i.e. be self-caused). Since it is logically impossible that a composite entity be self-caused (principle of limitation), something non-composite within it must be self-caused while being the cause of all the non-self-caused components of that composite entity. In other words, if we can accept the above 'ifs', then there must be G that is the other-cause of all existence while remaining itself self-caused.

If we do not accept one or several of the above ifs, we must offer a logical alternative that is more plausible. So far I haven't heard of any.

There's no logical reason to accept these 'if's'. These 'if's' are more complicated than the notion that stuff always existed, which renders causation of its existence as irrelevant.

The notion that "stuff" always existed is not in conflict with Hatcher. The notion that "stuff" always existed logically assumes that this ever-existing "stuff" contains a sufficient reason for its own existence since "stuff" cannot be born from a state of nothing prevailing at a certain earlier point in time. Since ex nihilo nihil fit, hence "stuff" is not uncaused. Since "stuff" is deemed composite, Hatcher's logic still holds, bringing us to G as I described earlier. You are not disputing any of Hatcher's ifs but in fact inadvertently employing them in your own argument.

Hatcher does not reject the idea that everything has always existed. This matter has been covered myriads of times on this thread.

With kind regards,

LilWabbit

Dec 14, 2011 -- 6:30AM, Lilwabbit wrote:

If something exists (evident truth), and if that something is a composite entity (the apparent universe), and if something cannot come out of nothing (i.e. cannot be uncaused), it must, in the absence of other causes, contain within itself a sufficient reason for its own existence (i.e. be self-caused). ......

Which makes no sense. Why invent something that causes itself when being 'self caused' is a fantasy, not a reality. The rationalization (you call it a 'proof') is creating an "unnecessary entity."  Our Universe does not need a cause, most likely it has always existed in some form or another.

Dec 14, 2011 -- 11:37AM, Jiwe wrote:

 

The number two is not an abstraction. It's a number. Reference to it is semantically but not ontologically dependent on whatever particular example of twoness one may choose. Your steadfast confusion on this point is a reflection of your level of education. Not of the faults of mathematical realism.

I will happily plead guilty to that--if someone will explain to me in clear terms what mathematical Realism is, instead of what it is not.  I have not been much exposed to Realism nor in any way that makes it seem to be either sensible or necessary.  That could well  be a fault of my education.

We may certainly agree that there is an objective reality external to the self.  My opinion is that it is not directly knowable.  Your opinion appears to be that it is directly knowable and that it is mathematics.

If I do not understand you correctly I would appreciate a clear, non-condescending explanation of what it is you do believe.

Is it possible that the mathematics that we "know" is not the same as the mathematics of which you believe that objective reality consists?

Dec 14, 2011 -- 6:30AM, Lilwabbit wrote:

Dec 13, 2011 -- 11:42PM, TransJ wrote:

Greetings LilWabbit,

I have questions about G. G is self-caused and as such is self-sufficient,  that is G has sufficient reason for its own existence. Why should other-causation be a necessary quality of G? That is, is G a sufficient reason to cause V? Yes, I understand that V as a composite can not cause itself and needs a cause but how do we know that a self-causing entity can cause a composite entity? After all it is causing something that it is not.

Thank you

TransJ

Hi there TransJ,

If something exists (evident truth), and if that something is a composite entity (the apparent universe), and if something cannot come out of nothing (i.e. cannot be uncaused), it must, in the absence of other causes, contain within itself a sufficient reason for its own existence (i.e. be self-caused). Since it is logically impossible that a composite entity be self-caused (principle of limitation), something non-composite within it must be self-caused while being the cause of all the non-self-caused components of that composite entity. In other words, if we can accept the above 'ifs', then there must be G that is the other-cause of all existence while remaining itself self-caused.

If we do not accept one or several of the above ifs, we must offer a logical alternative that is more plausible. So far I haven't heard of any.

With kind regards,

LilWabbit

P.S. I just realized that in this highly summarized and unprecise form Hatcher's proof is almost attractive. I've normally not considered it attractive. Only surprisingly unbreakable.

Yes, the composite entity strickly implies a non-composite source. But why not both the uncaused with sufficient reason [self-caused existence] and the uncaused without sufficient reason [causeless existence]? The causeless (non-composite) with the self-caused (non-composite) create other causation (compositness).

kind regards,

TransJ

P.S. Yes indeed it is attractive! And I thank you for posting it in that form.

Dec 14, 2011 -- 9:41AM, amcolph wrote:

Dec 14, 2011 -- 1:02AM, Docholyday wrote:

 

Please explain your waffling on this subject, and thanks for your future consistency.

 Doc

Certainly.   It has to do with the nature of the two posts.

In the first, I state my opinion about the origin of logic and claims made about it by non-Realists.

"For the non-Realist, logic was invented in response to objective reality.  No one claims it has nothing to do with objective reality." 

The second post is a question, not a statement.  Notice the placement of a question mark at the end.  Such a mark is a dead giveaway that a question is being asked.

"The question is, what is the relevance of a logical argument to objective reality?"

I asked the question to elicit an opinion from Lilwabbit about the nature of logic with the particular intention of discovering whether he was a realist or not.

Altogether, and in original chronological order, the posts amount to something like this:

1. What is your opinion?

2. My opinion is X.

I'm not sure how that can be seen as "waffling" unless you read the question,

"... what is the relevance of a logical argument to objective reality?"

as a covert statement that there was no relationship, which would be an egregious mistake.

I hope that clears up your confusion.

Sounds like a guy getting ready to try and sell us all on logical positivism. 

You know, as hell-bent against anything resembling non-Realism as you seem to be, I've no doubt you'll still deposit a logical reason for being so.