DeepSight:


In truth our reality could only be a simulation if one ponders the matter deeply. However that changes little and its best to approach this discussion without that supposition, at least at the earliest stages of engagement.

*Politeness*
You really believe it changes little? If this is a simulation then the question of what was there before the simulation was launched makes no sense from perspective of those in the simulation, because there is no before that.. From perspective of us in the simulation (which, from our perspective, was launched 13.8 billion years ago) we can only say that reality did not exist before our simulation was launched. It was less than nothing: there was no reality, no existence, no nothing!

DeepSight:


It is very true that we are terribly handicapped in this matter and that, by the way, is why it is good to be agnostic generally, as stated by the OP, Politeactivist. It is also wise and signals the right humility which we should have in light of our smallness in the vastness of the cosmos.

However the question of inferring that a self existent element must exist for anything to exist at all is a matter of pure deductive and inductive logic. It is not the sort of thing for which some sort of physical evidence can or should be produced.

LordReed:


I want to know why you think it must be the case. Show me how you eliminate every other possibility to land on this one.

How about the possibility that everything has always existed but our particular reality was launched 13.8 billion years ago

PoliteActivist:

*Politeness*
You really believe it changes little? If this is a simulation then the question of what was there before the simulation was launched makes no sense from perspective of those in the simulation, because there is no before that.. From perspective of us in the simulation (which, from our perspective, was launched 13.8 billion years ago) we can only say that reality did not exist before our simulation was launched. It was less than nothing: there was no reality, no existence, no nothing!

No, there would have been the simulator. Still a pre existent thing. And from our view, from the view of those within the simulation, the simulator would be transcendental and beyond time and space.

See?

HellVictorinho6:

how can u be sure the universe exists when u say it was preceded in the absence of time?

DeepSight:

To be honest, the only thing that a human being can really know absolutely is "cogito ergo sum."

😆 Cogito that has been proven wrong a long, long time ago

PoliteActivist:




How about the possibility that everything has always existed but our particular reality was launched 13.8 billion years ago

What do you mean by "everything" and how will that exclude "our particular reality?"

DeepSight:


No, there would have been the simulator. Still a pre existent thing. And from our view, from the view of those within the simulation, the simulator would be transcendental and beyond time and space.
See?

But it is outside reality, outside existence. Existence to us is our simulation, and from our perspective, before our simulation, well there is no before our simulation

DeepSight:


What do you mean by "everything" and how will that exclude "our particular reality?"

Everything, excluding nothing
Let's say we're in a computer program that was launched 13.8 billion years ago (from our perspective). Our entire notion of reality and existence is within that computer program. But of course outside the program there is a whole different kind of reality - there are people going to work, giving birth, etc.

PoliteActivist:




How about the possibility that everything has always existed but our particular reality was launched 13.8 billion years ago

Are you going to say anything more than say Matirx, quote Einstein and fanboy Musk?

LordReed:


The first one first we can deal with the other later.

Have you asked yourself how anything could possibly exist without something or the other being self existent considering that something cannot come from nothing?

Please dwell carefully and deeply on this.

LordReed:


Are you going to say anything more than say Matirx, quote Einstein and fanboy Musk?

*Politeness*
😅 We are are just having an intellectual discussion, after having established the fact that we know almost nothing. There's possibly a super being hypnotist somewhere laughing hysterically at how stupid our "intellectual" discussion is

DeepSight:


Because every other thing could be, and likely is, a mirage, illusion, or simulation.

Could /likely is not how 2 be sure

DeepSight:


Have you asked yourself how anything could possibly exist without something or the other being self existent considering that something cannot come from nothing?

Please dwell carefully and deeply on this.

Of course I have and my cogitations lead me to think there are probably many possibilities I have no conception of and I have very limited tools by which to figure out which of them is most likely. I don't think self existence is the only plausible mechanism for the existence of the "pre-universe thing" to put it simply.

PoliteActivist:

*Politeness*
😅 We are are just having an intellectual discussion, after having established the fact that we know almost nothing. There's possibly a super being hypnotist somewhere laughing hysterically at how stupid our "intellectual" discussion is

All I need is for you to show me you arrived at your laughing super being hypnotist. If it involves quoting Einstein or Musk or any other people you think give your view authority, you can stop quoting me cos I won't respond.

PoliteActivist:




😆 Congito that has been proven wrong a long, long time ago

U are using time again

Then u say no existence b4 our simulation,then gudnez gracious.

Yet the simulation points at whoever...in existence thatz independent of tha simulation.

Is it bcuz u have murny to waste?

HellVictorinho6:


U are using time again

Then u say no existence b4 our simulation,then gudnez gracious.

Yet the simulation points at whoever...in existence thatz independent of tha simulation.

Is it bcuz u have murny to waste?

*Politeness*
Cosmic language and also language near the speed of light are not same as everyday language. Newtonian physics and language works fine for our every day affairs.
From the perspective of a character in a video game reality and existence begins and ends in that reality. He doesn't know he's in a video game and asking what was there before the computer was switched on makes no sense.

PoliteActivist:


*Politeness*
Cosmic language and also language near the speed of light are not same as everyday language. Newtonian physics and language works fine for our every day affairs.
From the perspective of a character in a video game reality and existence begins and ends in that reality. He doesn't know he's in a video game and asking what was there before the computer was switched on makes no sense.

Now video game madness equals cosmic bala blu but never equals everyday bunkum which u take as a proof of same universe bulala yet equal to newtonian shit


Like even the concept of a video game arose from the everyday crap u claim is below whatever balderdash

HellVictorinho6:


Now video game madness equals cosmic bala blu but never equals everyday bunkum which u take as a proof of same universe bulala yet equal to newtonian shit


Like even the concept of a video game arose from the everyday crap u claim is below whatever balderdash

*Politeness*
Assuming we are in a simulation is akin to video game. Infact the most ardent proponents that we are in a simulation are video game designers like Elon Musk. They can easily see how those video game characters can be given "free will" and think that's reality!
Watch this:
https://youtube.com/shorts/-gIcpOeis0k?si=Sp9MzzF7yhC-fUST

PoliteActivist:

*Politeness*
Assuming we are in a simulation is akin to video game. Infact the most ardent proponents that we are in a simulation are video game designers like Elon Musk. They can easily see how those video game characters can be given "free will" and think that's reality!
Watch this:
https://youtube.com/shorts/-gIcpOeis0k?si=Sp9MzzF7yhC-fUST

Congrats

Addiction

PoliteActivist:

*Politeness*
Assuming we are in a simulation is akin to video game. Infact the most ardent proponents that we are in a simulation are video game designers like Elon Musk. They can easily see how those video game characters can be given "free will" and think that's reality!
Watch this:
https://youtube.com/shorts/-gIcpOeis0k?si=Sp9MzzF7yhC-fUST

Am tired of ur useless repetitions

HellVictorinho6:


Congrats

Addiction

*Politeness*
Meaning?

PoliteActivist:


*Politeness*
Meaning?

U dodged my request 4 money


U preferred to add to my ordeals with needless repetitions

HellVictorinho6:


U dodged my request 4 money


U preferred to add to my ordeals with needless repetitions

*Politeness*
When u ask a billionaire for money and you are serious, you have to mention an amount. Otherwise how can I take you serious??😎

PoliteActivist:


*Politeness*
When u ask a billionaire for money
and you are serious, you have to mention an amount. Otherwise how can I take you serious??😎

Can u help me with 100k?

Please

HellVictorinho6:


Can u help me with 100k?

Please

I don't deal with such low amounts. I'll forward to my subordinates, see what they can do 4 ya

PoliteActivist:


I don't deal with such low amounts. I'll forward to my subordinates, see what they can do 4 ya

Should i drop account details?

Perhaps, u can help me with 5M?

Or

LordReed:


Of course I have and my cogitations lead me to think there are probably many possibilities I have no conception of and I have very limited tools by which to figure out which of them is most likely. I don't think self existence is the only plausible mechanism for the existence of the "pre-universe thing" to put it simply.

It seems to me you are not factoring the premises in proper order -

1. Something cannot come out of nothing
2. The Universe is Something and it exists
3. The Universe had a beginning, it is not eternal in the past
4. The root elements of the universe - the constituent energy and matter of which it is formed, also have a beginning and are not eternal in the past
5. We agree that a pre existing element must have caused the universe to be
6. An infinite regress of causative pre existing elements is not possible as you cannot have an infinite regress in a causative chain
7. Consequently there must per force be a necessary (permanent and self existent element) at the root of the causative chain for anything whatsoever to exist.

This is the rationale - and it is sound and secure reasoning.

HellVictorinho6:


Can u help me with 100k?

Please

Bro, you have been doing this for several years now. Its quite unbecoming please.

DeepSight:


It seems to me you are not factoring the premises in proper order -

1. Something cannot come out of nothing
2. The Universe is Something and it exists
3. The Universe had a beginning, it is not eternal in the past
4. The root elements of the universe - the constituent energy and matter of which it is formed, also have a beginning and are not eternal in the past
5. We agree that a pre existing element must have caused the universe to be
6. An infinite regress of causative pre existing elements is not possible as you cannot have an infinite regress in a causative chain
7. Consequently there must per force be a necessary (permanent and self existent element) at the root of the causative chain for anything whatsoever to exist.

This is the rationale - and it is sound and secure reasoning.

I didn't agree to 6 & 7. Why can't there be an infinite chain of events? Also why does the chain need to be one direction? What if the chain was cyclical, infinitely cyclical? 6 doesn't get you out of explaining why the so many unknown possibilities are to be discarded in favour of a self existing element.

LordReed:


I didn't agree to 6 & 7. Why can't there be an infinite chain of events? Also why does the chain need to be one direction? What if the chain was cyclical, infinitely cyclical? 6 doesn't get you out of explaining why the so many unknown possibilities are to be discarded in favour of a self existing element.

Are you seriously saying you don't know of the impossibility of an infinite regress in a causative chain?

HellVictorinho6:



Should i drop account details?

Perhaps, u can help me with 5M?

Or

*Politeness*
Now you're talking. I'll have my lawyers draw up the papers.
What are you bringing to the table?

DeepSight:


Are you seriously saying you don't know of the impossibility of an infinite regress in a causative chain?

I don't agree that infinite regress is impossible. Plus infinite regress is not the only way this thing could be, an infinite cyclical chain is a possibility, not to talk of other unknown possibilities.

LordReed:


I don't agree that infinite regress is impossible.

A thing that is caused necessarily requires a trigger. In the scenario of an infinite regress, one cannot locate a trigger. A trigger is an event that has to occur at a definite point. An infinite regress provides no such point. Extending forever into the infinite past it goes backward in such a way as makes it impossible to locate an event.

To render this lucid, an analogy will suffice. Let us say that the event we are looking for a cause for is the movement of a ball into a goal post. As such, there is a need for the ball to be kicked into the goal post - that will be the definite cause.

But if we look to an infinite regress of causes - in order words, we need someone to give the order to the player to kick the ball, and we need another someone to give that person the instruction to give that order, and we need another person to give the permit to the person giving the instruction to give the order - and so on and so forth into an infinite regress - the ball will never get kicked - the event will never happen.

Now, this is a mere analogy, but variations of it have been used in philosophical thought to help us understand that where there is an infinite regress, there will be no resultant event ever. Therefore logic shows us that where there is a definite caused event, there cannot be an infinite regress of causes.

I sincerely hope this is lucid and crystal clear.

Plus infinite regress is not the only way this thing could be, an infinite cyclical chain is a possibility, not to talk of other unknown possibilities.

With an infinite cyclical chain we would be talking about a self existent thing, which has always existed and keeps cycling itself. Now not only have we agreed that the physical universe is not self existent, but I have given reasons why it cannot be - physical mutable things cannot be self existent.