Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Rivers

Eternal Regression and Intelligence

Recommended Posts

2 minutes ago, Calm said:

But how did the first cause become the first cause?

Such concepts beggar logic.  We can speculate on a first cause, on how the three omni's could work, how eternal progression could have an end, etc.

And there's nothing wrong with that. But the fact remains such ideas are either incomprehensible or impossible. 

I lean towards them being impossible.  Personally, I reject all of them.

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)

Infinitely existing being or infinite number of beings...it is still dealing with infinities which our mortal brains may see as more symbolic than reality.

How can a negative number of apples exist, for example? We can talk about them, but not see or touch them...they are an idea.   We make negatives work in concrete terms by shifting what we are talking about, it is no longer about how many items we count, but positions/direction and distances from a centerpoint.  Add more varieties of numbers by coming up with a different definition of number that fewer and fewer people can comprehend.

God is God because he understands highest math. ;)

Edited by Calm
  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
12 hours ago, Rivers said:

If everything is contingent on something else, there had to be some kind of first cause. 

I haven’t read or thought much about this contingency doctrine, but at first glance it seems illogical.

If everything (as in EVERYTHING) is contingent on something else, then there could not logically be a first cause because that “first cause” must be “contingent on something else”. 

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
2 minutes ago, pogi said:

I haven’t read or thought much about this contingency doctrine, but at first glance it seems illogical.

If everything (as in EVERYTHING) is contingent on something else, then there could not logically be a first cause because that “first cause” must be “contingent on something else”. 

Excactly.  There could never be a first minute because the minute before it had to exist.  There can never be a last fact to learn because the passage of time creates new information.  There can't be an egg without a chicken or a chicken without an egg.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
13 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

Excactly.  There could never be a first minute because the minute before it had to exist.  There can never be a last fact to learn because the passage of time creates new information.  There can't be an egg without a chicken or a chicken without an egg.

Course of the Lord is one eternal round huh? Eternity can be a hard thing to grasp lol I always did like the idea that God was progressing. That there are new vistas, worlds, facts, knowledge, personalities, and places He can experience. Of course that could be wildly heretical but on the other hand if there was literally nothing new ever for a God then I wouldn't want to be one. It would just get terribly boring because you would just be doing the same things for eternity. Eventually it would be like a factory, just spitting out spirit children, build a planet, cast out satan, wait 7000 years, call some prophets etc. then start over. 

Edited by SettingDogStar

Share this post


Link to post

Another idea to have is that we believe in some kind of eternal progression. If we believe that we will become as our Heavenly Father in nearly every sense, then won't we have children that will go through the same experiences that we are right now? If that's the case then are we the first cause for them or do our children continue to worship our Father? In this case, if you literally believe that we will become a perfect image of our Father in Heaven, then it isn't a stretch to assume He also has a Father.

Questions..Questions..

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
4 hours ago, Rivers said:

My question is whether my theory makes sense or not.  Since I can’t wrap my head around infinity backwards I am asking if it’s possible we can accept Intelligence as described in D&C as the the uncreated essence that started it all.  But it seems like many of you have no problem with a backward infinite timeline.  

There are philosophical criticisms of actual infinities, although if there is actual continuity that entails actual infinities. However many and perhaps most thinkers tend to see infinities only as potential infinities. Within mathematics there's a big divide over the issue. I'd add that while string theory is somewhat falling out of favor, any physical system like it tends to assume infinite "history" both forwards and backwards. While one could always argue that forward is potential clearly that's not possible for the past. Although admittedly the meaning of time gets pretty complicated in such systems. (IMO) In general though any physical theory with a multiverse has actual infinite universes. And physics either accept the multiverse or think we can't possible know. There's little middle ground.

 

 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
7 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

Well at least we could call them Ninja Turtles.

"Thou art G-d," and that's all I have to say about that.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
2 hours ago, USU78 said:

"Thou art G-d," and that's all I have to say about that.

I know. I look back at that post and wonder what I was thinking 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post

 

16 hours ago, Rivers said:

 D&C 93:29  which talks about Intelligence being not created or made.

Without completely mechanically understanding it--although it becomes more and more comfortable for me to comprehend in whole--I accept that I (we) have always lived and I (we) always will.  In this sense, I have no mother and no father.  Simply . . . I AM.  Ayah Asher Ayah.  I AM that I AM. (The Scriptures begin for me in that phrase; every thing else hangs on this and if it does not hang on it, it drops.  Life and knowing, for me, begins with that phrase.) Every Being partakes of this--and not humans only.  Rocks and rain partake of this.

The matter then becomes, not really who is the parent and the child, who is the god and who is not, but rather the understanding of the mystery that we are all--ALL--brothers and sisters, fathers and mothers, sons and daughters of one another through endless progressions; and that we come into one heart, one mind, perfect union in both time(s) and eternity(s).

We had glory before we arrived here, and this earth life adventure is not really a matter of losing that glory, but rather an exercise in adding to it.

Really, what happens here is so small.  So tiny.  In the matter of the thousands upon thousands of years of experience we had before coming here, so tiny of a time and effect.  Earth life is significant because it is the pearl of great price.  Everything matters.  You matter.  I matter.  Rocks and rain matter.  Crucifixion matters.  Resurrection matters.  But it is a passage that . . . will come to pass.  And then we will be in other scenes in eternity.  We may remember our time here.  We may forget.  Either will do.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
8 hours ago, Rivers said:

Nope.  There has to be a first turtle.  At least in my mind.

We cannot understand these things with our finite minds. Remember, God, through His Son, Jesus Christ, told Moses in a revelation, that He had all things before Him. This infers a concept of time, both past, future and present that is beyond what we can possibly understand  

Speculating on any origin scenarios is just that, speculation.  We simply don’t have all things before us, yet. 

Edited by mrmarklin

Share this post


Link to post
15 hours ago, pogi said:

I haven’t read or thought much about this contingency doctrine, but at first glance it seems illogical.

If everything (as in EVERYTHING) is contingent on something else, then there could not logically be a first cause because that “first cause” must be “contingent on something else”. 

The way the cosmological argument usually goes is as an argument that not everything can be contingent.

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/cosmological-argument/

One standard counter argument is that causality isn't foundational but is an emergent phenomena. At minimum quantum mechanics demonstrates that our intuitions of causality are mistaken even if it doesn't necessarily  fully eliminate it as foundational. There's also three main ways to interpret quantum effects with hidden variable theory maintaining a type of strong causality. In general those making cosmological arguments need the big bang to be absolute and ontological but few physicists see it that way.

Share this post


Link to post
20 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

The way the cosmological argument usually goes is as an argument that not everything can be contingent.

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/cosmological-argument/

One standard counter argument is that causality isn't foundational but is an emergent phenomena. At minimum quantum mechanics demonstrates that our intuitions of causality are mistaken even if it doesn't necessarily  fully eliminate it as foundational. There's also three main ways to interpret quantum effects with hidden variable theory maintaining a type of strong causality. In general those making cosmological arguments need the big bang to be absolute and ontological but few physicists see it that way.

Are there interpretations of EPR that still allow for a "hidden variable?"  

I was able to explain this to the satisfaction of others recently, but not to the satisfaction of myself, so I need to refresh my understanding.   But, I remember reading about "spooky action at a distance" and being convinced that if a "hidden variable" existed the ratios would be different.   Did you think I misunderstood and/or do you still hold hope for a hidden variable that makes sense of quantum entanglement?

Charity, TOm

Share this post


Link to post

This morning I had the old movie, The Incredible Shrinking Man, on my mind, and I discovered, while pondering why it should pop into my head, that it was this thread.  And it was also the voice-over by the hero as he continues shrinking while facing the uncertain future of being infinitesimal in an infinite universe:

Quote

So close — the infinitesimal and the infinite. But suddenly, I knew they were really the two ends of the same concept. The unbelievably small and the unbelievably vast eventually meet — like the closing of a gigantic circle. I looked up, as if somehow I would grasp the heavens. The universe, worlds beyond number, God's silver tapestry spread across the night. And in that moment, I knew the answer to the riddle of the infinite. I had thought in terms of man's own limited dimension. I had presumed upon nature. That existence begins and ends in man's conception, not nature's. And I felt my body dwindling, melting, becoming nothing. My fears melted away. And in their place came acceptance. All this vast majesty of creation, it had to mean something. And then I meant something, too. Yes, smaller than the smallest, I meant something, too. To God, there is no zero. I still exist!

The point of all of this is whether we exist and whether we matter, isn't it?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
18 minutes ago, TOmNossor said:

Are there interpretations of EPR that still allow for a "hidden variable?"  

I was able to explain this to the satisfaction of others recently, but not to the satisfaction of myself, so I need to refresh my understanding.   But, I remember reading about "spooky action at a distance" and being convinced that if a "hidden variable" existed the ratios would be different.   Did you think I misunderstood and/or do you still hold hope for a hidden variable that makes sense of quantum entanglement?

Yup there are still hidden variable interpretations. The most famous of which is called Bohmian mechanics. While hidden variable theories aren't as popular as the other interpretations they remain a possibility for classical quantum mechanics. The only problem of course is what counts is quantum gravity, not classic quantum mechanics. There the main contender is string theory although due to a lack of empirically testable predictions it's in a weird place at the moment.  While string theory has a kind of hidden variable it differs from Bohmian mechanics in that it also posits a kind on ontological non-locality. Taking non-locality as ontological tends to be the most popular interpretation of quantum theory. I suppose one could do a full hidden variable interpretation of string theory but I don't know that anyone has done so. But I'll also fully admit that I don't quite grasp the nuances of string theory.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, clarkgoble said:

The way the cosmological argument usually goes is as an argument that not everything can be contingent.

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/cosmological-argument/

One standard counter argument is that causality isn't foundational but is an emergent phenomena. At minimum quantum mechanics demonstrates that our intuitions of causality are mistaken even if it doesn't necessarily  fully eliminate it as foundational. There's also three main ways to interpret quantum effects with hidden variable theory maintaining a type of strong causality. In general those making cosmological arguments need the big bang to be absolute and ontological but few physicists see it that way.

So, either way you look at it this theist argument of contingency as described in the OP is nonsensical. 

Share this post


Link to post

“There is no such thing as immaterial matter (D&C 131:7-8).” D&C 88 teaches that light fills the immensity of space and that “there is no space in the which there is no kingdom; and there is no kingdom in which there is no space, either a greater or a lesser kingdom.” This indicates that a kingdom is a quantum (to borrow a term) of organized light, operating according to its law, light being both a physical and spiritual principle, and in both cases a material principle (however pure and fine it gets, depending on its kingdom of operation), “otherwise there is no existence (D&C 93:30). Light is organized by God, who seemingly delegates other intelligences to organize it as far as they can according to the laws of their respective spheres or kingdoms. Some kingdoms have light organized into time as part of their fabric, and some do not. For this reason, I think “first cause” is relative to one’s reckoning, meaning a highly ordered kingdom may appear to us as chaos and vice-versa. For example, the big bang (let’s say there was one) was a dissolution of perfect order, continually increasing in entropy despite ostensible interruptions with an increase in order such as the amalgamation of particles into galaxies and so forth (or the events described in our Creation doctrine), and reversed by a restoration of perfect order, physical and spiritual, through the Atonement of Christ. In contrast, we see mankind as a highly ordered evolution, but we’re all gonna eventually revert to sub-particulate (and doctrinally never regain the perfect order of the Father’s presence, which perceived perfection was only relative without our having physical bodies) without the atonement of Christ.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
2 hours ago, CV75 said:

“There is no such thing as immaterial matter (D&C 131:7-8).” D&C 88 teaches that light fills the immensity of space and that “there is no space in the which there is no kingdom; and there is no kingdom in which there is no space, either a greater or a lesser kingdom.” This indicates that a kingdom is a quantum (to borrow a term) of organized light, operating according to its law, light being both a physical and spiritual principle, and in both cases a material principle (however pure and fine it gets, depending on its kingdom of operation), “otherwise there is no existence (D&C 93:30). Light is organized by God, who seemingly delegates other intelligences to organize it as far as they can according to the laws of their respective spheres or kingdoms. Some kingdoms have light organized into time as part of their fabric, and some do not. For this reason, I think “first cause” is relative to one’s reckoning, meaning a highly ordered kingdom may appear to us as chaos and vice-versa. For example, the big bang (let’s say there was one) was a dissolution of perfect order, continually increasing in entropy despite ostensible interruptions with an increase in order such as the amalgamation of particles into galaxies and so forth (or the events described in our Creation doctrine), and reversed by a restoration of perfect order, physical and spiritual, through the Atonement of Christ. In contrast, we see mankind as a highly ordered evolution, but we’re all gonna eventually revert to sub-particulate (and doctrinally never regain the perfect order of the Father’s presence, which perceived perfection was only relative without our having physical bodies) without the atonement of Christ.

I like that idea. That the Big Bang (if there was one) was the dissolution of perfect order. Then each formation of the world or worlds was creation began anew. 

Share this post


Link to post

When one has this many mysteries of a cosmic nature one almost always is bewitched by language.

Beyond certain boundaries words become meaningless.

I think we crossed that boundary a while back.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
22 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

When one has this many mysteries of a cosmic nature one almost always is bewitched by language.

Beyond certain boundaries words become meaningless.

I think we crossed that boundary a while back.

I think that's why so many prophets are commanded not to tell us certain things. Not just because only the righteous are allowed to have it, but because we couldn't understand it written in any language anyways. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
4 hours ago, SettingDogStar said:

I like that idea. That the Big Bang (if there was one) was the dissolution of perfect order. Then each formation of the world or worlds was creation began anew. 

In a sense. But those natural worlds are still less ordered than perfectly, and in the natural worlds things continue to break down, even life devolves into death and decay, and whatever goes into a black hole eventually explodes into something even less organized.

Share this post


Link to post
15 minutes ago, CV75 said:

In a sense. But those natural worlds are still less ordered than perfectly, and in the natural worlds things continue to break down, even life devolves into death and decay, and whatever goes into a black hole eventually explodes into something even less organized.

So In other words the perfect universe is every speck of matter gathered back together again in a perfected order. Makes sense!

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
55 minutes ago, SettingDogStar said:

I think that's why so many prophets are commanded not to tell us certain things. Not just because only the righteous are allowed to have it, but because we couldn't understand it written in any language anyways. 

Even simple words like dog or cat are abstractions that don't tell the tale. Tabby or lion, or polecat, or cool jazz player? Wolf chihuahua or wandering husband? 

And then we try to parse words like existence, Infinity eternity etc?

Everyone will have their own view

 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
12 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

Even simple words like dog or cat are abstractions that don't tell the tale. Tabby or lion, or polecat, or cool jazz player? Wolf chihuahua or wandering husband? 

And then we try to parse words like existence, Infinity eternity etc?

Everyone will have their own view

 

As in the Dog Star is Kolob! 😀

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
15 hours ago, SettingDogStar said:

I think that's why so many prophets are commanded not to tell us certain things. Not just because only the righteous are allowed to have it, but because we couldn't understand it written in any language anyways. 

That's why we don't discuss personal revelation.

"Sounds like indigestion to me. That burning was the chili you ate"

 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...