RA020 - Alex Malpass on the Kalam Cosmological Argument
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 21 ส.ค. 2024
- This is a follow-up episode on the Kalam Cosmological Argument where we interview philosopher Alex Malpass about his upcoming paper, co-authored with Wes Morriston, on the Kalam. Among other things, we discuss potential vs. actual/completed infinities, beginningless pasts, endless futures, and symmetry breakers.
Alex posted the paper he co-authored with Morriston, titled "Endless and Infinite," on his blog: useofreason.wo...
Landon Hedrick's "Heartbreak at Hilbert's Hotel": digitalcommons... - ภาพยนตร์และแอนิเมชัน
I love Alex Malpiss
51:00 Craig says that once God is in time he can't go back to being timeless. He's not saying it's impossible for time to stop.In other words, if there were a last moment of time, that moment wouldn't be timeless. The contradiction is in saying that the last moment of time is timeless.
Can you post a reference to his argument? Thanks!
th-cam.com/video/VbirUdSnZLU/w-d-xo.html
Darwin's Greatest Hits If god exists in time, and time ceases, god would become timeless by definition. This is all the more odd as Craig can’t establish a god exists in the first instance.
so how is that argument consolidated ... if it's not impossible for time to stop, then it must be possible for God to stop.
when we talk about "the last person over the finish line" ... this is something that's already going to have happened ... is the statement "Last moment in time" not a past tense perspective statement?
What does asserting God actually do. Is that just a place holder word until the actual answer comes_
Guys, there seems to be a disconnect between the episodes released on this channel and the podcast. I just got RA20 on my feed on 08/13/2018 even though it has been on this venue since July. Just want to give you guys heads-up.
Thank you!!! :)
You're very welcome!
Real Atheology,
I'm not sure if I agree with the initial explanations. Here's why:
A AND B:
- The (A) theory states that god is temporal (or tensed); this means that time has a real past, present, and future; the past is no longer real, the present is real, and the future is an undetermined potentiality.
- The (B) theory states that god would be timeless (or tenseless), where god is outside of time. This means that god himself has no past, present, or future-but that he can experience time all at once; from here he can still recognize that events are ordered in a temporal sequence, but he experiences them all simultaneously.
WHAT'S CONTINUALLY BEING MISSED:
Many Red Herrings (Hilbert's Hotel, for example) are being introduced! So, via the Principle of Charity, we need to understand what Dr. Craig actually believes and is assuming. This is a non-contingent, eternal, timeless, changeless, spaceless (and therefore B-Theory of Time) creator of our universe via his version of the Kalam. If you don't stay anchored to this point, it's a bait and switch. I.e., reference all factors with this.
BUT THEN CRAIG COMBINES THE TWO
His biblical Yahweh enterers the A-Theory of time;
WHILE WE EXIST HERE
C. Yahweh's creations inhabit a universe with the A-Theory of Time.
WHAT ARE THE IMPLICATIONS?
From the Stanford Paper on Time, which explains the differences between the A-Theory and B-Theory, it's seen that these two types of time are simply incompatible.
So the only thing that needs to be contemplated is what Craig's tenseless argued-for god's highest and widest perspective would be. Something like this:
GOD'S VIEW:
First Example: Imagine an infinitely large wall in front of you containing an infinite number of television sets; each television is showing a specific moment in time-the fourth dimension; you’re now outside of time viewing all time at once.
Second Example: (This second example might be closer to what Craig's god-type would experience looking at time.) Imagine three glass semi-translucent television sets: the first is you 2-seconds ago; the second screen is you now; and the third is you 2-seconds in the future. Now imagine laying them directly inline with you, seeing your past, present, and future happening all at once. Now imagine an infinite amount of screens each showing the whole universe from start to finish at the same time; you’re now seeing how the Craig's actual hypothesized god might experience the universe.
CRAIG'S INCOHERENT SET THEORY:
1. Craig's God:
{Timeless State (God) Timeless State}
2. The Kalam:
{Timeless State (God) + (Universe & Time) Timeless State}
3. God Enters the Universe in a Temporal Setting:
{Timeless State (God) + (God / Universe & Time) Timeless State}
The above, Real Atheology, is what Dr. Craig is actually/ultimately arguing-for. From reading Moriston's papers dating back to 1999, Moriston understands this as well.
FINAL CONCLUSION:
1. Dr. Craig's believed-in god-type exists in a condition where all contained time has already concluded.
2. Dr. Craig's as-defined god-type argument is incompatible with his other arguments and are ultimately invalid.
3. Any similar claimed god-type that is timeless (and therefore changeless; ref. quantized time), which can see or sense the universe, also cannot have created the universe-or anything.
yYM
Craig argues God is changless prior to time and temporal afterwards.
@@mileslegend7140 Yes, and this is a classic paradoxical contradiction rendering God’s ability to create impossible. [Ref. Stanford Theory on Time]
@@yinYangMountain God is not timeless but beyond time. meaning he is not required to actively change but freely is able to.
@@mileslegend7140 Sorry, the Classic God of Theism is, in fact, described as Timeless / Changeless. In this (specific) case, it's impossible for said god to do anything-full stop. [Ref. Stanford Theory on Time] Note: Until the idea of 'beyond time' is demonstrated to be a thing, it's all a moot point anyway.
@@yinYangMountain you need to distinguish between passive and active change.
God's being itself is immutable. That has nothing to do with him actively making decisions.
Does the fact(?) that you can't investigate an actual infinite matter? I mean, if you found a hotel purporting to be a hilbert's hotel and the hotelier (Hilbert?) tried to demonstrate the weird infinity tricks you wouldn't actually know that they'd been achieved or not because you couldn't examine an infinite number of rooms or guests to make sure they were in fact infinite and that all the guests were in rooms... maybe just outside your view there is a big pile of guests without rooms.
@@cl6693 I think that's a different question. You can't count 'to' infinity because infinity isn't a destination or fixed point. 'Counting to infinity' is a shorthand for counting upwards and never stopping. But that doesn't mean you can't have an infinite hotel.
@@cl6693 i dont know if its possible, i just dont think its been shown to be impossible.
Infinite rooms could be a line of rooms stretching off into the distance and never stopping. Infinite guests could be to have a guest in each of those rooms.
I dont see any reason to think this is impossible
@@cl6693 Yes, I agree that if you wanted to create an infinite hotel by adding one room at a time then you couldn't do it. But what if one has always existed. Is there an argument that shows that its impossible for an infinite hotel to have always existed?
@@cl6693 I'm not sure that really counts as an argument. You're just stating that its impossible to have an infinite hotel but do you have an actual argument for that?
The mere fact that it would have weird properties like you describe doesn't seem to prove it's impossible either.
@@cl6693 I think 'infinite number' is just a shorthand for 'it has no end' So one version of an infinite hotel is a hotel with a line of rooms that keeps on going forever and never stops ie. it has no end. If I were going to try and count the rooms then you're right that I would never reach the 'number' infinity but if the hotel was really infinite then i would also never finish counting.
I already said above that I'm not saying I think its possible, only that I don't see any argument for why its impossible. I also don't have an argument to say its possible.
But let me ask a related question; if I make a claim that its possible have a hotel with a google plex rooms in it. What evidence would you be looking for from me to prove that its possible?
If God knows only what's real then would David Lewis's theory of model realism apply
Couple of thoughts, if God has non-propositional knowledge how can he ever communicate with us humans? To do this he would still need to know an infinite number of propositions.
Second, ideas of past and future must, in my opinion, account for general relativity, that is, there is no preferred reference frame. It's not clear how both sides account for this when talking about past/future infinities. For example there are regions of spacetime that will never be in our "past".
dat Malpass tho
You can have an infinity in reality though. A circle is an infinite closed loop with an infinite number of points.
No it isn't. You can have only limited number of points in a circle if you draw it.
In math there is word 'infinity', but no finite being can really grasp infinity.
emil brusic This finite being has grasped infinity. I’ve been to Mass. I’m still there. Lost since I was 5. It’s worse than an insurance sales convention. Or Dinosaur Adventure Land.
@@emilbrusic6032
Actually there is an infinite number of points on a circle
This is demonstrably the case
Let's say you lay a point every inch on a circle
Cut each in half and plot a point there
Then cut that in half and plot a point there
Although it would be physically limited to our capabilities it is not limited mathematically.
@@davec-1378
So that's what I said.
In our real physical world there is no infinity.
If something is in our mind, i.e. infinity in math , that doesn't mean it is in physical world. Infinity belongs only to God.
@@emilbrusic6032
Wait a second
You don't think there is a half mile point that exists physically within a mile measurement?
I'm curious what limitation there is that doesn't allow for a half distance point to actually exist within a whole?
You may be confusing that we are limited on a process to physically locate or plot these points with the fact they never the less still exist.
Do you agree the points on a ruler actually exist?
If yes, what restricts me from adding another point half way between 0-1/32 point? Then, another halfway between 0-1/64 point? And so on at infinitum?
If no, you're going to have to explain a ruler not actually existing to me.
I think an answer to the question can be the idea of lazy evaluation.
Specifically, in python, one can define a "generator". A generator is a function that "generates" a sequence of outputs. For instance:
def y():
n = 0
while True:
yield n
n += 1
This function returns [0, 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,...] to infinity. So it has a definite beginning (0) and no end (modulo running out of memory). So Alex's idea that "the infinity has to exist", in some sense makes no sense, because it doesn't exist. It is constantly lazily evaluated (i.e., the state of the function is only ever n, which is the current number to return, and the next number is derived using a successor function (i.e., n+=1 ), and thus no infinity "exists" ever).
I feel like this is a demonstration that there is no issue with time being exactly the same way. Lazily evaluated, and thus the "infinite" never exists, and the past is a finite distance away. I don't see the problem.
So what happens if you use a negative integer beginning at infinity?