Being, Nothing and Becoming. Incomprehensibility of the Beginning

[heusdens]

A Being

§ 132

Being, pure being, without any further determination. In its indeterminate immediacy it is equal only to itself. It is also not unequal relatively to an other; it has no diversity within itself nor any with a reference outwards. It would not be held fast in its purity if it contained any determination or content which could be distinguished in it or by which it could be distinguished from an other. It is pure indeterminateness and emptiness. There is nothing to be intuited in it, if one can speak here of intuiting; or, it is only this pure intuiting itself. Just as little is anything to be thought in it, or it is equally only this empty thinking. Being, the indeterminate immediate, is in fact nothing, and neither more nor less than nothing.

B Nothing

§ 133

Nothing, pure nothing: it is simply equality with itself, complete emptiness, absence of all determination and content — undifferentiatedness in itself. In so far as intuiting or thinking can be mentioned here, it counts as a distinction whether something or nothing is intuited or thought. To intuit or think nothing has, therefore, a meaning; both are distinguished and thus nothing is (exists) in our intuiting or thinking; or rather it is empty intuition and thought itself, and the same empty intuition or thought as pure being. Nothing is, therefore, the same determination, or rather absence of determination, and thus altogether the same as, pure being.® (http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1914/cons-logic/ch01.htm#LCW38_105a)

C Becoming

1. Unity of Being and Nothing

§ 134

Pure Being and pure nothing are, therefore, the same. What is the truth is neither being nor nothing, but that being — does not pass over but has passed over — into nothing, and nothing into being. But it is equally true that they are not undistinguished from each other, that, on the contrary, they are not the same, that they are absolutely distinct, and yet that they are unseparated and inseparable and that each each immediately vanishes in its opposite. Their truth is therefore, this movement of the immediate vanishing of the one into the other: becoming, a movement in which both are distinguished, but by a difference which has equally immediately resolved itself. ® (http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1914/cons-logic/ch01.htm#LCW38_105a)

[...]

Remark 4. Incomprehensibility of the Beginning

§ 170

What has been said indicates the nature of the dialectic against the beginning of the world and also its end, by which the eternity of matter was supposed to be proved, that is, the dialectic against becoming, coming-to-be or ceasing-to-be, in general. The Kantian antinomy relative to the finitude or infinity of the world in space and time will be considered more closely under the Notion of quantitative infinity. This simple, ordinary dialectic rests on holding fast to the opposition of being and nothing. It is proved in the following manner that a beginning of the world, or of anything, is impossible:

§ 171

It is impossible for anything to begin, either in so far as it is, or in so far as it is not; for in so far as it is, it is not just beginning, and in so far as it is not, then also it does not begin. If the world, or anything, is supposed to have begun, then it must have begun in nothing, but in nothing — or nothing — is no beginning; for a beginning includes within itself a being, but nothing does not contain any being. Nothing is only nothing. In a ground, a cause, and so on, if nothing is so determined, there is contained an affirmation, a being. For the same reason, too, something cannot cease to be; for then being would have to contain nothing, but being is only being, not the contrary of itself.

§ 172

It is obvious that in this proof nothing is brought forward against becoming, or beginning and ceasing, against this unity of being and nothing, except an assertoric denial of them and an ascription of truth to being and nothing, each in separation from the other. Nevertheless this dialectic is at least more consistent than ordinary reflective thought which accepts as perfect truth that being and nothing only are in separation from each other, yet on the other hand acknowledges beginning and ceasing to be equally genuine determinations; but in these it does in fact assume the unseparatedness of being and nothing.

§ 173

With the absolute separateness of being from nothing presupposed, then of course — as we so often hear — beginning or becoming is something incomprehensible; for a presupposition is made which annuls the beginning or the becoming which yet is again admitted, and this contradiction thus posed and at the same time made impossible of solution, is called incomprehensible.

§ 174

The foregoing dialectic is the same, too, as that which understanding employs the notion of infinitesimal magnitudes, given by higher analysis. A more detailed treatment of this notion will be given later. These magnitudes have been defined as such that they are in their vanishing, not before their vanishing, for then they are finite magnitudes, or after their vanishing, for then they are nothing. Against this pre notion it is objected and reiterated that such magnitudes are either something or nothing; that there is no intermediate state between being and non-being ('state' is here an unsuitable, barbarous expression). Here too, the absolute separation of being and nothing is assumed. But against this it has been shown that being and nothing are, in fact, the same, or to use the same language as that just quoted, that there is nothing which is not an intermediate state between being and nothing. It is to the adoption of the said determination, which understanding opposes, that mathematics owes its most brilliant successes.

§ 175

This style of reasoning which makes and clings to the false presupposition of the absolute separateness of being and non-being is to be named not dialectic but sophistry. For sophistry is an argument proceeding from a baseless presupposition which is uncritically and unthinkingly adopted; but we call dialectic the higher movement of reason in which such seemingly utterly separate terms pass over into each other spontaneously, through that which they are, a movement in which the presupposition sublates itself. It is the dialectical immanent nature of being and nothing themselves to manifest their unity, that is, becoming, as their truth.

========================================

Textfragments from:

HEGEL. Science of Logic
Volume One: The Objective Logic
Book One: The Doctrine of Being
Section One: Determinateness (Quality) (http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/hegel/works/hl/hlbeing.htm)

[John Page]

Originally posted by heusdens
It is impossible for anything to begin, either in so far as it is, or in so far as it is not; for in so far as it is, it is not just beginning, and in so far as it is not, then also it does not begin.
Originally posted by heusdens
For sophistry is an argument proceeding from a baseless presupposition which is uncritically and unthinkingly adopted;..
I'm not sure what issue your post is aimed at. IMHO the former passage you quote is ungrounded sohpistry as defined in the latter.

[heusdens]

Perhaps explain me where the baseless presupposition, which is uncritically and unthinkingly adopted lies in the first fragment.

[John Page]

Originally posted by heusdens
Perhaps explain me where the baseless presupposition, which is uncritically and unthinkingly adopted lies in the first fragment.
Here:
It is impossible for anything to begin,

This is baseless, as in "This discussion has just begun."
Here:
for in so far as it is, it is not just beginning,

Critically "This discussion is just beginning"
and here:
in so far as it is not, then also it does not begin.

Unthinking as "If this discussion be over, it will surely have begun in order to end."

I like Hegel, but I think he got lost in the details.

Cheers, John

[sweep]

It would not be held fast in its purity if it contained any determination or content which could be distinguished in it or by which it could be distinguished from an other. It is pure indeterminateness and emptiness
why is being pure even when indeterminate and beyond discrimination? And what when we distinguish, does it mean to be nothing but intuit?

[heusdens]

Originally posted by John Page
Here:


This is baseless, as in "This discussion has just begun."
Here:


Critically "This discussion is just beginning"
and here:


Unthinking as "If this discussion be over, it will surely have begun in order to end."

I like Hegel, but I think he got lost in the details.

Cheers, John
John,

Read p. 172, where he speaks about coming-to-be and ceasing-to-be.

So, this discussion is now coming-to-be.

[John Page]

Originally posted by heusdens
Read p. 172, where he speaks about coming-to-be and ceasing-to-be.

So, this discussion is now coming-to-be.
In that sense, it has become and begone, what your mind thinks is "it" (and this applies to all "its") is what appears at the time. Since we perceive a posteriori what our mind has synthesized a priori, whatever is, has been and gone.

Fortunately, sense data is persistent and provides some constancy over time. By taking objective records (voice recordings, video pictures etc.) that retain impressions over time we can examine suppositions about the existence of mental and physical objects.

#170, IMHO, is the crux of the matter. Why should one adopt a worldview that time steps forward infinitely into the future? And infinitely into the past? That senses of time and space are an integral part of human perception does not make them universally valid. The "proof" offered in #171 is a claim of correctness to a particular world view without questioning how it is that we know what we do.

What do we really mean by "nothingness"? I'm not looking for a definition of the word but seeking to provoke you consider whether it is a concept that imaginary and nonsensical in the actuality. If "nothingness" is more than a mere concept then it does not match the concept of nothingness. This definition confines it solely to the mental realm. :)

What Hegel did, I fear, is to say "Being and nothingness are mutually exclusive and therefore separate things" Unfortunately nothingness is not any kind of actual thing. The supposed contradiction in #173 just doesn't exist and the supposed "absolute separation of being and nothing" in #174 is consequently a red herring.

Finally in #175, he concludes "It is the dialectical immanent nature of being and nothing themselves to manifest their unity, that is, becoming, as their truth." "Being", as something that is actually more than just concept, has a different dialectically immanent (logically subjective) nature than nothingness.

Cheers, John

[heusdens]

Like explained in the passages of the Doctrine of Being, Being and Nothing are not absolutely seperate, but must be considered in their (dialectical) unity of Becoming.
In that way a mere "nothingness" does not and can not exist.

The real meaning of all this, must be considerd on a materialist basis, in which matter itself is indesctructable and uncreatable. We can only explore transitions/changes within matter.
In this line of thinking, time and space as well as matter, extend in all directions into infinity.

Current scientific theory development and research, have however put this under discussion, there is still no concencus amongst scientists about this. (#1)
It is most probably the case that we can never realy know for sure wether time and space are in fact infinite, or not.
My intuition just would tell me that any model in which time and/or space would be hold finite, would be incomplete, and would need some act of 'creation', which makes for me the alternative of an uncreated infinite universe more convincing.

For all practical purposes, this would not matter much to us, and would therefore remain an issue of philosophical (or religious)outlook on reality.

note
#1 The concensus amongst scientists about the extend of space and time is, as proposed by Stephen Hawking, that time and space have no boundaries (there is 'nothing' beyond the extend of space and time); this does not necessary mean that space and time need to be infinite, certain spacetime geometries could live with a finite extend of spacetime which has no boundaries.

And as a comment on this: I would realy doubt the existence of an "overall" geometry of the universe at large, spacetime geometries would only exist locally. The universe at large has no "shape".

[eh]

Originally posted by heusdens
And as a comment on this: I would realy doubt the existence of an "overall" geometry of the universe at large, spacetime geometries would only exist locally. The universe at large has no "shape".
Why such certainty that the universe has no shape?

[heusdens]

Originally posted by eh
Why such certainty that the universe has no shape?

I went with my rocket through all universe, and concluded that it did not have an overall shape, ehhh

Well ok, without fooling. I just said I would have strong doubt about an overall geometry of the universe.

[eh]

Well that would true for a finite universe, and an infinite plane seems more natural than some complicated topology. However, that is just an arbitrary decision, and there is really no way to rule out finite universes.

[heusdens]

Originally posted by eh
Well that would true for a finite universe, and an infinite plane seems more natural than some complicated topology. However, that is just an arbitrary decision, and there is really no way to rule out finite universes.

The kind of universes we have to rule out is universes that do not contain within themselves self-sufficient causes for their existence.
I realy would doubt that a finite universe would qualify for that.
or do you hold the vision that a universe can pop out at any given "moment" at any given "place" just like that for no appearant reason? (even when time and space do not even exist untill the universe exists).

Note:
A "universe" that does not contain its own cause, has a cause that lies outside that "universe", which means we have ill-defined that "universe" since it is causally connected to a broader universe.

[eh]

A finite universe is no more or less self sufficient than an infinite one. The idea of a universe of finite age may sound counterintuitive, but it's logically consistent and so another arbitrary thing to disbelieve. And at any rate, a universe infinite in volume still must deal with a beginning of time the same as a finite universe.

[heusdens]

Originally posted by eh
A finite universe is no more or less self sufficient than an infinite one. The idea of a universe of finite age may sound counterintuitive, but it's logically consistent and so another arbitrary thing to disbelieve. And at any rate, a universe infinite in volume still must deal with a beginning of time the same as a finite universe.

A "universe" popping out of nothing for no appearant reason, even if such does not "violate" logic, still does not make it for my liking.
In fact I doubt what the rules of logic have to do with this, and as far as logic is concerned, what is the objection against a universe that has no begin in time?

What logical or physical objection is there against a universe that has no begin in time, or did you buy into this 'Kalam Cosmological Argument' kind of thing (that argument is simply invalid)?

[heusdens]

Side remark:

And btw. what tells you that your intuition of what "logic" is would have to be obligatory for the material world?
Logic intuition would tell physicists that a subatomic entity is either a particle, showing only particle behaviour, or a wave, showing only wavelike behaviour, and not both.
Our intuition of logic was wrong there.
Same for most quantum mechanical events, they all seem to violate logic rules. So what good is logic in that respect?

And another thing, why would it be a possible option for the universe to have a definite begin in time, or at least to have a finite history?

There is no theory that would strictly predict or foretell that would have to be the case, although some interpretations of the BB-theory allow such counterintuitive cases, but there is no conclusive evidence that such models have to be preferred over models that allow for a universe with an infinite history.

[eh]

Originally posted by heusdens
A "universe" popping out of nothing for no appearant reason, even if such does not "violate" logic, still does not make it for my liking.
No one is suggesting the universe popped out of some prior state of "nothing". It just means there would be no prior events to the initial singularity.
What logical or physical objection is there against a universe that has no begin in time, or did you buy into this 'Kalam Cosmological Argument' kind of thing (that argument is simply invalid)?
The support for a universe finite in time comes from the findings of science, not logic, since both a finite aged and infinitely old universe are at least logically possible. Modern cosmology makes it very difficult to explain how the universe could be infinitely old, at least pending new evidence or theories.

[eh]

Originally posted by heusdens
And btw. what tells you that your intuition of what "logic" is would have to be obligatory for the material world?
Logic is tautological, and true by definition. I don't why circle squares should start appearing in the physical world just because of this, however.
Same for most quantum mechanical events, they all seem to violate logic rules.
So you can you provide an example of a quantum event that violates the law of non-contradiction? That sounds like quite the challenge. Let's find a so called illogical event and break it down and see what happens.

[John Page]

Originally posted by heusdens
Like explained in the passages of the Doctrine of Being, Being and Nothing are not absolutely seperate, but must be considered in their (dialectical) unity of Becoming.
In that way a mere "nothingness" does not and can not exist.
Depends. If you adopt as an axiom, "Something cannot come from nothing" (reasonable if you take a causal view of reality) then there is not unity of Nothing and Something that is Becoming. What in fact is happening is Something A is being transformed to Something B. The entity "Nothing" remains, as I suggested before, a mental concept only with no extension in physical reality.
Originally posted by heusdens
The real meaning of all this, must be considerd on a materialist basis, in which matter itself is indesctructable and uncreatable. We can only explore transitions/changes within matter.
In this line of thinking, time and space as well as matter, extend in all directions into infinity.
1. Why must the meaning be considered on a materialist basis?
2. Matter can be destroyed. Certain theories hold that it is annihilated, others that it is transformed to energy. Why do you hold differently?
3. I'm still not seeing how you jump to the conclusion that time, space and matter are infinite. Please explain.

Cheers, John

[heusdens]

Originally posted by eh
No one is suggesting the universe popped out of some prior state of "nothing". It just means there would be no prior events to the initial singularity.

It is in no way certain that this initial singularity happened, and secondly even if all history of the universe before the big bang epoch is destroyed, it does not mean that there was no history.


The support for a universe finite in time comes from the findings of science, not logic, since both a finite aged and infinitely old universe are at least logically possible. Modern cosmology makes it very difficult to explain how the universe could be infinitely old, at least pending new evidence or theories.

Modern comology can at most tell that the current physical form of the universe could not have been everlasting.
But it could have been predated by a different physical form, as suggested by inflation cosmology.

[heusdens]

Originally posted by eh
Logic is tautological, and true by definition. I don't why circle squares should start appearing in the physical world just because of this, however.

Let us define some abstract things.
We have physical objects, with amongst others have two kinds of physical properties. They behave either like a particle or like a wave. These properties are mutually exclusive.
But it turns out that some physical objects have both properties, as shown up in different physical experiments.


So you can you provide an example of a quantum event that violates the law of non-contradiction? That sounds like quite the challenge. Let's find a so called illogical event and break it down and see what happens.

Let us start with the most important law, the law of Identity (A=A).
A proton is identical to a proton, right?
But in all atoms, (except Hydrogen) a proton constantly changes into a neutron, and vice versa.
If the law of Identity would be applied, a protonwould alsways remain a proton.
More generally: the law of Identity has no place in a world that is in a constant change everywhere and every time.
If everything would remain Identical to itself, there would be no channge in the world, whatsoever. And hence, the world would not exist.

[heusdens]

Originally posted by John Page
Depends. If you adopt as an axiom, "Something cannot come from nothing" (reasonable if you take a causal view of reality) then there is not unity of Nothing and Something that is Becoming. What in fact is happening is Something A is being transformed to Something B. The entity "Nothing" remains, as I suggested before, a mental concept only with no extension in physical reality.


Please consider that there is only "Something" because there is also "Nothing". If there would not be "Nothing" there would be "Something" everywhere, but that would not be detactable, so in fact there would be not "Something" anywhere.

Consider for example the electric potential of the universe. It has different values in different places, but on average this potential is 0 V. But this could as well be +100 V or -20 V, since that would be indistinguishable.

In the real physical world, we will find "something" at any place, and also "nothing" at any place. In fact every physical form is a combination of "something" and "nothing", and always in the process of becoming.


1. Why must the meaning be considered on a materialist basis?
2. Matter can be destroyed. Certain theories hold that it is annihilated, others that it is transformed to energy. Why do you hold differently?
3. I'm still not seeing how you jump to the conclusion that time, space and matter are infinite. Please explain.

Cheers, John

1. Because the univers IS a material entity, undeniable. We don't deal with abstract undetermined forms of Being, but concrete physical manifestations.

2. True. But you are referring to the physical term matter. And that is equal to energy by the equation E=mc2. The philosophical term matter refers to both sides of the equation.
And noteworthy: this philosphical viewpoint of materialism was put foreward before Einstein discovered the physical relation between energy and physical matter.
In philosophical materialism, all material entities and all material existence forms, are all manifestations of matter.
Matter as such is not created or destroyed, there only occurs transitions, changes and transformations within matter. One existence form of matter gets destructed, and at the same time, another existence form of matter gets created.

3. Matter is infinite because
a. There are infinitely many existence forms of matter. There is never a limitation to create new material existence forms.
b. All material existence forms are constantly changing, moving and transforming, endlessly.
c. Infinity of space time: all the spatiotemporal relations as existence forms of infinitely many material processes.

All three aspects relate to each other, and show the inseperetable unity of matter, its way of existence and its existence forms.

Note:
Space and time, as seen in philosophical materialism, just indicate the modes of existence of matter. It is not a necessity that the infinity of matter means that space itself is an infinite euclidean geometry, since there are more possible spatial geometries.

[eh]

Originally posted by heusdens
It is in no way certain that this initial singularity happened, and secondly even if all history of the universe before the big bang epoch is destroyed, it does not mean that there was no history.
It's quite simple, really. Wind the clock back on an expanding universe, and what do you get? A beginning is the simplest explanation, since cyclic models have always been frought with difficulties.
Modern comology can at most tell that the current physical form of the universe could not have been everlasting.
But it could have been predated by a different physical form, as suggested by inflation cosmology.
Inflation takes place in a pre-existing universe and does not deal with it's origin. This pre-existing universe is also expanding, so you're left with the same situation if you wind the clock back. Sooner or later, the density of the universe becomes infinite. Now anyone can say the singularity does really exist because space may really be discrete and there is actually a limit of how dense the universe can get, but this also seems to lead to a beginning of time as the simplest explanation.

[eh]

Originally posted by heusdens
Let us define some abstract things.
We have physical objects, with amongst others have two kinds of physical properties. They behave either like a particle or like a wave. These properties are mutually exclusive.
But it turns out that some physical objects have both properties, as shown up in different physical experiments.
No, they are not mutually exclusive, because they are not both classic properties. One is a classic particle like property, while the other is a wave function to describe the probability of finding that point like particle in spacetime. The classic properties of being a particle negate also being a classic wave, but there is nothing contradictory about having particle like properties with a probability wave.
Let us start with the most important law, the law of Identity (A=A).
And....
If the law of Identity would be applied, a protonwould alsways remain a proton.
That doesn't follow, and would be like saying since apples can be eaten, an apple isn't always an apple. If a particle interaction causes a proton to change into something else, then we are no longer talking about a proton at all. A proton is a proton by definition. Decaying into some other particles does not mean it is then a proton and not a proton at the same time, it means a new object(s) has been created.
More generally: the law of Identity has no place in a world that is in a constant change everywhere and every time.
If everything would remain Identical to itself, there would be no channge in the world, whatsoever. And hence, the world would not exist.
Sure it has a place, because the identity of any given object includes it's location in spacetime. You can't speak of an object without listing it's location as one of it's properties first. In the case of a particle, that would be it's wave function, which also evolves in time. An object at X location in spacetime is not equivalent to an object with similar properties but a different location. So in order to precisely define an object, you can't just use general classifications.

[John Page]

Originally posted by heusdens
Please consider that there is only "Something" because there is also "Nothing". If there would not be "Nothing" there would be "Something" everywhere, but that would not be detactable, so in fact there would be not "Something" anywhere.

Consider for example the electric potential of the universe. It has different values in different places, but on average this potential is 0 V. But this could as well be +100 V or -20 V, since that would be indistinguishable.

In the real physical world, we will find "something" at any place, and also "nothing" at any place. In fact every physical form is a combination of "something" and "nothing", and always in the process of becoming.

You're mixing up the cognitive process and the physcial world external to mind. Of course, there has to be a difference between two things in order for them to be told apart but, as I stated before, "nothingness" exists in concept - a mental entity - only.

"Nothing" is an absence of "something", arising from the mental comparison of sense data say A[x,y,z] and B[x,y]. "Nothing" is equivalent to no sense data e.g. C[null] but that does not mean that the mental (diallectically immanent) entity "nothing" exists as a physical counterpart.
Originally posted by heusdens
1. Because the univers IS a material entity, undeniable. We don't deal with abstract undetermined forms of Being, but concrete physical manifestations.
Materiality is a physcial effect, but what do you mean by "material"? Solid? Particles? Magnetic forces, for example are physical but arguably not material.
Originally posted by heusdens
2. True. But you are referring to the physical term matter. And that is equal to energy by the equation E=mc2. The philosophical term matter refers to both sides of the equation.
OK, but I prefer physicalism rather than material/materialism, the latter frequently being assumed to exclude the abstract.
Originally posted by heusdens
3. Matter is infinite because
a. There are infinitely many existence forms of matter. There is never a limitation to create new material existence forms.
b. All material existence forms are constantly changing, moving and transforming, endlessly.
c. Infinity of space time: all the spatiotemporal relations as existence forms of infinitely many material processes.

All three aspects relate to each other, and show the inseperetable unity of matter, its way of existence and its existence forms.
There is no proof here. Infinity of time is a presupposition IMO.

Cheers, John

[heusdens]

Originally posted by eh
No, they are not mutually exclusive, because they are not both classic properties. One is a classic particle like property, while the other is a wave function to describe the probability of finding that point like particle in spacetime. The classic properties of being a particle negate also being a classic wave, but there is nothing contradictory about having particle like properties with a probability wave.

I was referring to the wave-particle duality, which was an issue in physical theory long time ago. Light was for instance first thought of a wave, then of a partcile, and then a wave again. In fact it is neither or both.
Now clasiccally speaking, a physical thing can not be both a wave and a particle.



That doesn't follow, and would be like saying since apples can be eaten, an apple isn't always an apple. If a particle interaction causes a proton to change into something else, then we are no longer talking about a proton at all. A proton is a proton by definition. Decaying into some other particles does not mean it is then a proton and not a proton at the same time, it means a new object(s) has been created.

Sure it has a place, because the identity of any given object includes it's location in spacetime. You can't speak of an object without listing it's location as one of it's properties first. In the case of a particle, that would be it's wave function, which also evolves in time. An object at X location in spacetime is not equivalent to an object with similar properties but a different location. So in order to precisely define an object, you can't just use general classifications.

In other words, the law of Identity only has application in the real world if everything is frozen in time....
But.. outside of time, the world does not exist.

Anything in nature will constanly change it's position in space, and interact with all surrounding matter, so nothing realiy is ever identical to itself at any moment, since everything changes.

At most one could say that the universe in total is the only thing that is always equal to itself, and because it must always be equal to itself, everything in the universe is constantly changing to remain the same.

[heusdens]

Originally posted by eh
No, they are not mutually exclusive, because they are not both classic properties. One is a classic particle like property, while the other is a wave function to describe the probability of finding that point like particle in spacetime. The classic properties of being a particle negate also being a classic wave, but there is nothing contradictory about having particle like properties with a probability wave.

I was referring to the wave-particle duality, which was an issue in physical theory long time ago. Light was for instance first thought of a wave, then of a partcile, and then a wave again. In fact it is neither or both.
Now clasiccally speaking, a physical thing can not be both a wave and a particle.



That doesn't follow, and would be like saying since apples can be eaten, an apple isn't always an apple. If a particle interaction causes a proton to change into something else, then we are no longer talking about a proton at all. A proton is a proton by definition. Decaying into some other particles does not mean it is then a proton and not a proton at the same time, it means a new object(s) has been created.

Sure it has a place, because the identity of any given object includes it's location in spacetime. You can't speak of an object without listing it's location as one of it's properties first. In the case of a particle, that would be it's wave function, which also evolves in time. An object at X location in spacetime is not equivalent to an object with similar properties but a different location. So in order to precisely define an object, you can't just use general classifications.

In other words, the law of Identity only has application in the real world if everything is frozen in time....
But.. outside of time, the world does not exist.

Anything in nature will constanly change it's position in space, and interact with all surrounding matter, so nothing realiy is ever identical to itself at any moment, since everything changes.

At most one could say that the universe in total is the only thing that is always equal to itself, and because it must always be equal to itself, everything in the universe is constantly changing to remain the same.

[heusdens]

Originally posted by John Page
You're mixing up the cognitive process and the physcial world external to mind. Of course, there has to be a difference between two things in order for them to be told apart but, as I stated before, "nothingness" exists in concept - a mental entity - only.

"Nothing" is an absence of "something", arising from the mental comparison of sense data say A[x,y,z] and B[x,y]. "Nothing" is equivalent to no sense data e.g. C[null] but that does not mean that the mental (diallectically immanent) entity "nothing" exists as a physical counterpart.


Well, what about information, which is stored as "1"s and "0"s.
Do you consider the "0"s as plain nothing? No value?
The information content you store, depends on both the "1"s and the "0"s.
Although these bits are stored in a physical format, and can be implemented in different ways (for instance > 0.8 V = "1"; < 0.2 V = "0") this is perhaps not a good example of physical reality.

But there are problems of telling physical "something" and physical "nothing" apart. It is for instance impossible to tell if at a certain location (within a defined microsize range) at a certain time (also within a defined microsize range) there is "something" or not.

Another example: what would be the amount of energy that is stored in total in the universe (including everything, all mass-having partciles, all energy stored in radiation, waves, gravity field, etc). Would that be something or nothing? And what is the difference?

[
Materiality is a physical effect, but what do you mean by "material"? Solid? Particles? Magnetic forces, for example are physical but arguably not material.


All existence forms of matter, which include:
- Mass-having particles
- Energy, radiation, fields, waves, etc.

Or more generally spoken: everything that is in "motion" (changes, moves, transforms) in space/time.

Motion (all forms of change) and matter are in fact equal. All material existence forms are always in motion, and all motion leads back to material existence forms.


OK, but I prefer physicalism rather than material/materialism, the latter frequently being assumed to exclude the abstract.

[b][quote]
There is no proof here. Infinity of time is a presupposition IMO.

Cheers, John

If with "proof" you mean that no direct measurement has or can indicate that fact, then you are right.

The infinity of time is an assumption (as also the finity of time would be an assumption), but it is a reasonable assumption, for the following reasons:
Outside of time, there can not and does not exist anything. But we know there is a material reality now, which is in constant change in time. Matter (all existence forms of matter) itself is indestructable and uncreatable. Matter only gets transformed or changed from one existence form(s) into (an)other(s). Like for instance mass into energy, and vice versa.
Further we know that the development of the material world is based on causal interaction. A cause precedes it's effects. An event is however at the same time a cause and an effect, but in different causal relations. Effects don't exist without a cause.
This would already lead to the assumption that the chain of cause-and-effect is an eternal chain. Which therefore leads to the idea that time does not begin and neither ends.

The idea now, or assumption, that time would have had a begin, has some serious problems. Time can only be measured by change, and change is therefore something different as time.
The assumption or the idea of a "begin of time" would just ndicate that at some time, a first change occured.
That moment would then have been preceded by an eternity of empty duration; a time in which nothing changed whatsoever.
Where would that first change or motion, come from then?
How could the world, which would have been in a changeless state for an eternity, suddenly become in motion?
The first change that would supposedly have occured, would be a first effect, but without a cause. Which would mean: it could have never happened.

Now, in between these two assumptions, that of the eternity and begininglesness of time and the begin of time, there is a possible third option, which is that the history of the world in total is a finite history, while on the other hand, time did not start with a first change. This kind of alternative would then suggest that the interval of duration would approach zero as we would approach the boundary, without ever reching it. It would result in a finite history, but with an infinite amount of time intervals.

I could not think of any other alternative.
The infinite time without a begin, is in my opinion the best (most internally consistent) assumption.
The finite history without a begin lacks a reasonable explenation why the interval would shrink near the boundary.
The finite history with a begin lacks any reasonable explenation, violates causality, and all other physical principles.

Note:
And please don't buy into these Kalam Cosmological Argument sort of things, that would "proof" that time had a beginning, since those arguments are simply invalid.
In short: the KCA says that an actual infinity can not exist, and therefore the elapsed past time could not be infinite.
This argument is also known as the contradiction of the counted infinite series.

The solution to this "puzzle" is realy very simple. Take a line, extending in both sides to infinity. Place two points at arbitrary positions on the time line, and measure the distance. Independend of the placement, the result will always be a finite measure!
Does that mean that the timeline therefore is not infinite, but finite?
No, and we can easily proof that. If the timeline would be finite, we could have a finite measurement that would be the upper bound to the measurement of the time difference between any two arbitrary points on the timeline.
Assume there would be such a finite measure, that would be an upper bound. Now, all we have to do is place two points on the time line, that corresponds to that measure. Then we take the leftmost point and shift that an arbitrary lenght to the left.
This will yield in a higher measurement as the value we had supposed was the upper bound. And whatever that upper bound would be, we can always show that this upper bound, is not an upper bound at all. It proofs therefore that the timeline is infinite.

[John Page]

Originally posted by heusdens
Well, what about information, which is stored as "1"s and "0"s.
Do you consider the "0"s as plain nothing? No value?
The information content you store, depends on both the "1"s and the "0"s.
Although these bits are stored in a physical format, and can be implemented in different ways (for instance > 0.8 V = "1"; < 0.2 V = "0") this is perhaps not a good example of physical reality.
1. The numeral 0 exists.
2. The meaning of the numeral zero is that it represents the result of a quantification operation. For example, we test the concept of sheep against incoming sense data (i.e. from external reality) and detect no matches. We say there are zero sheep, an absence of sheep. We do not say there is nothing. That is the value of 0.
3. Numbers of themselves have no meaning w.r.t. external reality because they are mental concepts. They are used to construct/interpret/communicate about external reality.
4. Numbers, as information, are communicated using intersubjectively agreed symbols (e.g. arab numerals, roman numerals) and syntax (e.g. decimal, binary). Physical representations (on-screen, voltages etc.) are ways of manipulating numbers as information.
Originally posted by heusdens
Another example: what would be the amount of energy that is stored in total in the universe (including everything, all mass-having partciles, all energy stored in radiation, waves, gravity field, etc). Would that be something or nothing? And what is the difference?
:confused: We don't know. There are various ways to quantify into appropriate units estimates of the total amount of energy in the universe. If the "energy stored in the universe" was a fictitious entity, the quantification function should return a zero value, same way as the sheep example.
Originally posted by heusdens
All existence forms of matter, which include:
- Mass-having particles
- Energy, radiation, fields, waves, etc.
I believe the standard definition of matter is that it hass mass, so that would exclude fields, waves etc.
Originally posted by heusdens
Motion (all forms of change) and matter are in fact equal. All material existence forms are always in motion, and all motion leads back to material existence forms.
I don't agree and I don't understand your point.
Originally posted by heusdens
The infinity of time is an assumption (as also the finity of time would be an assumption)
The former is unproven. Finitude can be measured.
Originally posted by heusdens
Outside of time, there can not and does not exist anything.
I don't see how this supports your claim that time is infinite.
Originally posted by heusdens
Matter (all existence forms of matter) itself is indestructable and uncreatable. Matter only gets transformed or changed from one existence form(s) into (an)other(s). Like for instance mass into energy, and vice versa.
The provability of the law of conservation implies a closed finite universe.
Originally posted by heusdens
Further we know that the development of the material world is based on causal interaction. A cause precedes it's effects. An event is however at the same time a cause and an effect, but in different causal relations. Effects don't exist without a cause.
This would already lead to the assumption that the chain of cause-and-effect is an eternal chain. Which therefore leads to the idea that time does not begin and neither ends.
I don't agree that causality requires one to believe that time is infinite. This would also seem to imply that the universe is a perpetual motion machine which, according to some, is an impossibility.
Originally posted by heusdens
The idea now, or assumption, that time would have had a begin, has some serious problems.
Why do you think finite implies that a beginning is necessary - imputing a beginning is a product of assuming time is linear, which apparently it is not?
Originally posted by heusdens
Where would that first change or motion, come from then?
How could the world, which would have been in a changeless state for an eternity, suddenly become in motion?
Again, you're thinking linear.
Originally posted by heusdens
The solution to this "puzzle" is realy very simple. Take a line, extending in both sides to infinity. Place two points at arbitrary positions on the time line, and measure the distance. Independend of the placement, the result will always be a finite measure!
Where am I supposed to find an infinite line?
Originally posted by heusdens
Assume there would be such a finite measure, that would be an upper bound. Now, all we have to do is place two points on the time line, that corresponds to that measure. Then we take the leftmost point and shift that an arbitrary lenght to the left.
This will yield in a higher measurement as the value we had supposed was the upper bound. And whatever that upper bound would be, we can always show that this upper bound, is not an upper bound at all. It proofs therefore that the timeline is infinite.
No it doesn't. By your way of thinking we could say that the circumference of a circle has infinite length. IMHO, and as in my initial response, we need to understand more about infinity as a mental concept and how this relates to our understanding of the universe before making rash assumptions as to its actual existence.

Cheers, John

[eh]

Originally posted by heusdens
I was referring to the wave-particle duality, which was an issue in physical theory long time ago. Light was for instance first thought of a wave, then of a partcile, and then a wave again. In fact it is neither or both.
Now clasiccally speaking, a physical thing can not be both a wave and a particle.
And no one is claiming it is. The wave particle duality is an aspect of quantum mechanics, and that includes light.
In other words, the law of Identity only has application in the real world if everything is frozen in time....
But.. outside of time, the world does not exist.
Err, no. As I said, the indentity of an object includes its relation to spacetime. You can slice spacetime into as many parts as you'd like and say, "here are objects".
Anything in nature will constanly change it's position in space, and interact with all surrounding matter, so nothing realiy is ever identical to itself at any moment, since everything changes.
That makes no sense.
At most one could say that the universe in total is the only thing that is always equal to itself, and because it must always be equal to itself, everything in the universe is constantly changing to remain the same.
I have no idea what that even means either.

[eh]

The provability of the law of conservation implies a closed finite universe.
What's wrong with an infinite universe with an infinite amount of energy?

[heusdens]

Originally posted by eh
And no one is claiming it is. The wave particle duality is an aspect of quantum mechanics, and that includes light.

Err, no. As I said, the indentity of an object includes its relation to spacetime. You can slice spacetime into as many parts as you'd like and say, "here are objects".

That makes no sense.

I have no idea what that even means either.


Please provide us ONE EXAMPLE of the application of the Law of Identity in the real world.

[John Page]

Originally posted by eh
What's wrong with an infinite universe with an infinite amount of energy?

Nothing, that's why I posted "The provability of the law of conservation implies a closed finite universe." Assuming we cannot travel infinite distances for infinitely long periods of time, the law of conservation of energy cannot be scientifically proven to apply to an infinite universe with an infinite amount of energy.

Cheers, John

[John Page]

Originally posted by heusdens
Please provide us ONE EXAMPLE of the application of the Law of Identity in the real world.
Excuse me butting in, but if the principle of the LOI were not accepted then legal systems of proof and evidence would break down. e.g. No, that must have been done by the other heusdens.

Cheers, John

[heusdens]

Originally posted by John Page
Excuse me butting in, but if the principle of the LOI were not accepted then legal systems of proof and evidence would break down. e.g. No, that must have been done by the other heusdens.

Cheers, John

Who cares about the legal system?

Sir, is that your car? Yes, that is my car that was stolen yesterday
while it was parked before my house.
Well it can't be your car sir, your car was parked before your house, this car is at another location.

[John Page]

Originally posted by heusdens
Who cares about the legal system?

Assuming the legal system is part of the real world, apparently you do, for this is what you posted Originally posted by heusdens
Please provide us ONE EXAMPLE of the application of the Law of Identity in the real world.

[heusdens]

Originally posted by John Page
Nothing, that's why I posted "The provability of the law of conservation implies a closed finite universe." Assuming we cannot travel infinite distances for infinitely long periods of time, the law of conservation of energy cannot be scientifically proven to apply to an infinite universe with an infinite amount of energy.

Cheers, John

Where is that proof?

[heusdens]

Originally posted by John Page
Assuming the legal system is part of the real world, apparently you do, for this is what you posted

But what the legislatory system sees as identical, is not so on a more physical level.
Even I myself am not the same person as a month ago.
Everything changes.

[paul30]

Check out the current Scientific American.

There's an article theorizing that both space and time are not continuous but made up of discrete particles.

If this is so, there can definitely be beginnings.

[John Page]

Originally posted by heusdens
Where is that proof?
Here's my claim:
"Assuming we cannot travel infinite distances for infinitely long periods of time, the law of conservation of energy cannot be scientifically proven to apply to an infinite universe with an infinite amount of energy."

Here's my argument:
1. Read the assumptions.
2. Scientific proof requires verification.
3. Therefore, the universe cannot be proven (verified) to be infinite, there is no way to traverse infinite spacetime and collect the data required.

Consequently, the existence of an infinite universe exists as a hypothesis only. Unless, of course, you can prove otherwise.

Cheers, John

[eh]

Originally posted by heusdens
Please provide us ONE EXAMPLE of the application of the Law of Identity in the real world.
You're kidding, right? Well, I'll play along. Planet earth at X location in spacetime=Planet earth at X location in spacetime. Wow, deep stuff.

[eh]

Originally posted by John Page
Nothing, that's why I posted "The provability of the law of conservation implies a closed finite universe." Assuming we cannot travel infinite distances for infinitely long periods of time, the law of conservation of energy cannot be scientifically proven to apply to an infinite universe with an infinite amount of energy.

Strictly in principle, do you suppose the law of energy conservation would be violated if the universe is infinite?

[heusdens]

John:

Just read your own webpage about reconciliationism.
You seem to argue on that page against a begin o time.

But here in the discussion you seem to argue against an infinite past time.

Why? Just looking for better arguments to defend the position to plea for on your webpage?

I have not seen one good and elaborated argument pro a begin of time, nor a scientific theory that claims it can deal with that sort of thing (not even Hawking, cause he divdes time up in a real and imaginary part, one with and one without a begin).

The only ones arguing PRO a definite begin of time are ... defenders or actors from the supernatural.
Quite logical, because without a begin of time, they would have no argument for introducing their actors of the supernatural and creators of the universe.

It is my point of view that, when dealing with this begin of time issue, a begin of time as such is undefendable. Positing a "supernatural force" for explaining the origin, and declaring that "supernatural" force as eternal and infinite, and therefore self-caused, is a first step in trying to resolve it, but leaves us with an ill-defined concept of "universe". Resolving that means to incorporate the "supernatural" into nature itself, so that nature contains its own "supernature", is eternal and infinite and contains its own cause.

I can not think of any other solution on that issue.
It negates both the idea of a begin of time and the idea of a supernatural creator, but contemplates the idea of infinite and eternal nature without a begin, that contains within itself its own cause.

[heusdens]

Originally posted by eh
You're kidding, right? Well, I'll play along. Planet earth at X location in spacetime=Planet earth at X location in spacetime. Wow, deep stuff.

But what IS that? A slice of spacetime at a speciic location, that contains at an infinitesimal moment the earth?

It is NOT something that exists, since earth circles the sun, it has weather and geological processes going on, etc. All that is missing from your example.

You just present some artificial data, and then say, hee, that is equal to itself. it is just the equality of data, and not of earth itself.
It is like saying 1=1. But 1 does not exist in the real world.

Earth is not always on spacetime location X, it changes its location everytime, and also it changes its shape and content.

For that real world situations, the law of identity can never be applied.

[eh]

Originally posted by heusdens
But what IS that? A slice of spacetime at a speciic location, that contains at an infinitesimal moment the earth?
Yes, a point.
It is NOT something that exists, since earth circles the sun, it has weather and geological processes going on, etc. All that is missing from your example.
How is that even remotely relevant? You can view the earth in relation to the solar system as a series of events. But you can still divide the events as arbitrarily as you'd like. An earth defined as a specific event does exist in spacetime.
You just present some artificial data, and then say, hee, that is equal to itself. it is just the equality of data, and not of earth itself.It is like saying 1=1. But 1 does not exist in the real world.
This is too incoherent, sorry.
Earth is not always on spacetime location X, it changes its location everytime, and also it changes its shape and content.
Yes, and?
For that real world situations, the law of identity can never be applied.
That's great, so when are you going to give an example of a physical process that violates the law of non contradiction?

[heusdens]

Originally posted by eh
Yes, a point.

How is that even remotely relevant? You can view the earth in relation to the solar system as a series of events. But you can still divide the events as arbitrarily as you'd like. An earth defined as a specific event does exist in spacetime.


"events" have as characteristic that they exist "in time" and not outside of time.


his is too incoherent, sorry.
/quote]

Yes, and?

[quote]
That's great, so when are you going to give an example of a physical process that violates the law of non contradiction?

Yes, that's easy. Anything physical or material is violating that law, cause everything that existrs is in constant motion and change. therefore everything that exists, must at everytime be unequal to itself, cause else it would not be in motion or change.
Something that does not change or is in motion, does not exist in the material world.

[John Page]

Originally posted by eh
Strictly in principle, do you suppose the law of energy conservation would be violated if the universe is infinite?
If anything, I think the universe would be violated if 2LT is good.

[John Page]

Originally posted by heusdens
Just read your own webpage about reconciliationism.
Yes.....
Originally posted by heusdens
You seem to argue on that page against a begin o time.
No. In summary, I put forward the position that time is a measure of relative change, not the other way round. Time does not exist as a physical entity. Here, from my web site:
I believe that there is no such thing as time in physical reality and it is merely an abstract phenomena brought about by different rates of change.
Originally posted by heusdens
But here in the discussion you seem to argue against an infinite past time.

Why? Just looking for better arguments to defend the position to plea for on your webpage?
:confused: No, lets stick to the substance of the topic shall we.
Originally posted by heusdens
I have not seen one good and elaborated argument pro a begin of time, nor a scientific theory that claims it can deal with that sort of thing (not even Hawking, cause he divdes time up in a real and imaginary part, one with and one without a begin).
Perhaps, but neither does that validate your view of infinity.
Originally posted by heusdens
Quite logical, because without a begin of time, they would have no argument for introducing their actors of the supernatural and creators of the universe.
I'm afraid I can't see the relevance of this remark, let alone the logic.
Originally posted by heusdens
It is my point of view that, when dealing with this begin of time issue, a begin of time as such is undefendable. Positing a "supernatural force" for explaining the origin, and declaring that "supernatural" force as eternal and infinite, and therefore self-caused, is a first step in trying to resolve it, but leaves us with an ill-defined concept of "universe". Resolving that means to incorporate the "supernatural" into nature itself, so that nature contains its own "supernature", is eternal and infinite and contains its own cause.

I can not think of any other solution on that issue.
It negates both the idea of a begin of time and the idea of a supernatural creator, but contemplates the idea of infinite and eternal nature without a begin, that contains within itself its own cause.
So what? Do you think Hegel was writing a supernaturalistic view of the world? Your argument seems to be "There is continual change therefore infinite time, thus, given infinite time there is no begin." Please correct me if I'm wrong.

Cheers, John

[heusdens]

Originally posted by John Page
Yes.....

No. In summary, I put forward the position that time is a measure of relative change, not the other way round. Time does not exist as a physical entity. Here, from my web site:


Comprendo.

It means also: we should not talk about the "beginning of time" but instead talk about the first change. But it can argued then that this first change could not occur, since this change was not only the fist cause, but also the first effect. But an effect without a cause does not exist, changes require that there is causality.
There can not be a cause for causlity itself, so if causality exists, is must mean an infinite chain of causal effects, and hence no first change could have occured.


:confused: No, lets stick to the substance of the topic shall we.

Perhaps, but neither does that validate your view of infinity.

I'm afraid I can't see the relevance of this remark, let alone the logic.

So what? Do you think Hegel was writing a supernaturalistic view of the world? Your argument seems to be "There is continual change therefore infinite time, thus, given infinite time there is no begin." Please correct me if I'm wrong.

Cheers, John


I am sorry you can not see the validity of the idea of a universe without a begin in time.
But what would invalidate this idea? And what arguments could plead for a universe that starts out a finite time ago?

How could there ever be change, if it would have started from changelesness?

[John Page]

Originally posted by heusdens
But an effect without a cause does not exist, changes require that there is causality.
Back to quantum mechanics.
Originally posted by heusdens
There can not be a cause for causlity itself, so if causality exists, is must mean an infinite chain of causal effects, and hence no first change could have occured.
Why not? If causality is an effect...it must have a cause (according to your argument).
Originally posted by heusdens
I am sorry you can not see the validity of the idea of a universe without a begin in time.
What a complete load of nonsense!! Where did I say this? Look at the post you responded to, your comment is a complete non-seq.

What I have done is to comment on (what I see as) the issues arising from claims that you have made and deficiencies in your supporting arguments.
Originally posted by heusdens
How could there ever be change, if it would have started from changelesness?
It appears that you have completely forgotten my comments to your quotes of Hegel.

On the latter point, I believe there are theories about how (actual, not cognitive) existence of something emerges from the quantum soup. I'm not competent to comment on such physics - you might try posting in the Science forum.

[heusdens]

John:

I don't know exactly if Hegel had a "supernaturalistic" viewpoint.

Hegel is however generally classified as an Idealist philosopher.
He has spent much time in examining the Bible.

I don't know if he realy believed in God.

[eh]

Originally posted by heusdens
"events" have as characteristic that they exist "in time" and not outside of time.
And?
Yes, that's easy. Anything physical or material is violating that law, cause everything that existrs is in constant motion and change.
So what?
therefore everything that exists, must at everytime be unequal to itself, cause else it would not be in motion or change.
One more time. The identity of an object includes its location in spacetime. The object is equal to itself for as long as it exists. You can't simply say, "ahh, it's changed, therefore it's no longer equal to itself". That is wrong we're no longer talking about the indentity of the same object, but a new one.

[heusdens]

You don't get it, don't you?


The primary feauture of the real world, is that is in change at every time, and therefore can't be equal to itself, else it could not change.


That is different from the abstract world, in which such changes do not take place.
1 = 1 at any time.

But an electron is never equal to an electron, at any given time or place.

Only the abstract qualities of an electron (it's place, position, energy/momentum, charge) can be equal to itself, not the electron itself.

[John Page]

Originally posted by heusdens
That is different from the abstract world, in which such changes do not take place.
1 = 1 at any time.
I do not believe this to be correct. Just because one's mind has a repeatable, reliable process for manipulating quantities does not mean that 1=1 at any time.

First, an instance of the abstract entity "1" occurs at a particular spacetime location.

That instance is identified as being a "1" because it matches the mind's concept of what "1" is (I'm talking here about the quantity 1, not the symbol used to represent it).

Because we can intersubjectively share and compare our impressions and concepts of the world around us, your mind and my mind both contain the concept of "1" and certain mathematical rules, if our common understanding agrees, we will both obtain the same result for the same math problem.

I hope this shows how an abstract entity can seem to have an other-worldly or eternal presence. If there were no minds there would be no numerical concepts and 1=1 would not be a reality.

As eh has mentioned "The object is equal to itself for as long as it exists." I would add that one should be careful not to confuse identity with equality.

Cheers, John

[heusdens]

Originally posted by John Page
First, an instance of the abstract entity "1" occurs at a particular spacetime location.


Abstract entities do not occur at spacetime locations.
They happen just in the abstract world of the mind.

We can apply the law of Identity because in the abstract world there is no real change.

The law of Idenity therefore applies to this abstract world only, not to the real world of change.

However, the abstract is also present in the world, and in human society. So this does not exclude the possibility of applications of abstract qualifications in the real world (like the law example).

[John Page]

Originally posted by heusdens
Abstract entities do not occur at spacetime locations.
They happen just in the abstract world of the mind.
What is the basis for this claim? Do you consider the mind supervenient upon the brain or no?

Given your statements on causality, what causes the phenomenon of mind?
Originally posted by heusdens
We can apply the law of Identity because in the abstract world there is no real change.
What would constitute a real change?
Originally posted by heusdens
The law of Idenity therefore applies to this abstract world only, not to the real world of change.
Why?
Originally posted by heusdens
However, the abstract is also present in the world, and in human society. So this does not exclude the possibility of applications of abstract qualifications in the real world (like the law example).
I can't make any sense of this. An abstract entity is a summarized informational form, a representation of something else. Abstract entities are part of the world. Perhaps you could enlighten me as to abstracts that you consider not present in the real world.

[Jade]

Originally posted by heusdens
Abstract entities do not occur at spacetime locations.
They happen just in the abstract world of the mind.

When do they happen in the 'abstract world of the mind'? Am I always thinking of the concept "zero"? Never? Sometimes?

Clearly the mind must exist (at very least) in time, no? After all, my mind (and I hope yours) is not changeless...

Also, why do you say the world of the mind is 'abstract'? That doesn't make much sense to me....

If the mind does not exist in space, then how does it interact with bodies, which do exist in space and time? How can a non-spatial entity interact with a spatial entity? Magic?

Is the mind everywhere? Nowhere? Does it interact with the body through the pineal gland? If so, how? If my mind is everywhere/nowhere/outside of spacetime, why do I only recieve input from the senses of one particular spatio-temporal body? Why can't I recieve input from other bodies?

[snip]
However, the abstract is also present in the world, and in human society.
How? How do abstract things interact with non-abstract things? Can abstract things interact with each other? Do they interact in regular ways with matter? If so, why? And if they do interact in regular ways, could we not write a 'physics of abstract entities'?

[heusdens]

The mind itself is not an abstract entity, it is the physical process of the brain.
But the ideas going on in the mind, are or can be abstract, like mathematical ideas.
Mathematical concepts are not grounded in spacetime.

[eh]

Originally posted by heusdens
You don't get it, don't you?
Obviously not, because I have to see a coherent or intelligent argument here.
The primary feauture of the real world, is that is in change at every time, and therefore can't be equal to itself, else it could not change.
That is complete nonsense. As I've already explained, an object exists at a location in spacetime, but when it changes into something else we're not longer talking about the same object. However it is the same object for the point in time it exists. This isn't complicated or deep philosophy here, it's basic logic and I have no idea why you're having trouble with it.
But an electron is never equal to an electron, at any given time or place.
By definition it is. An electron at location X is identical to an electron at location X. I realize location is a classic property, but we can replace it with the wave function of the electron which does have a real value at each point in spacetime. Keep in mind by location I'm not just talking about a location in space. I'm talking about a location in spacetime, which means a place and a time. An object with indentical properties including it's location in space and time is indentical, again by definition. Your argument to the contrary has absolutely no merit whatsoever.
Only the abstract qualities of an electron (it's place, position, energy/momentum, charge) can be equal to itself, not the electron itself.
The electron is the sum of it's properties.

[heusdens]

An object at a precise point in space and time is no longer an existing object, more or less the same as a picture of a man is not a man.

[eh]

If you want to claim only the present exists, that's another matter. The law of identity still remains true for the time that an object exists.

[heusdens]

No, my argument is that an electron exists in time and space, and has only existence, because it relates through interactions with the other matter in the universe.
If you take an electron out of that context, it is no longer an electron, but only some abstract data.

[eh]

Relations and interactions are properties. IOW, take away the properties of an electron, and the electron no longer exists at all.

[heusdens]

Also relations, interactions and properties of an electron only exist in spacetime.

[eh]

And? What is your point?

[heusdens]

The point is that we can not even speak about an electron and all its properties at exactly one point in spacetime.
Simply because the Heizenberg equations indicate that not all propterties of an electron can be known at one specific point in spacetime.
So what are you talking about then?
That some not exactly known properties are equal to some not exactly known properties of an electron at some specific point in spacetime?
Anyway, it shows that it is an impossibility to have an application of the law of identity in the real world.

[eh]

Are you even reading my posts? Several times I've mentioned how a particle does in fact have a value at each point in spacetime through it's wave function. If you're not even going to read replies, there's no sense in posting volumes of text and expect to have a meaningful discussion.

[heusdens]

I think your understanding of quantum mechanics is incorrect.
We can not know precisely the position of an electron at a given timne and its momentum.
There is only the probability that an electron is at some location.

[John Page]

Originally posted by heusdens
I think your understanding of quantum mechanics is incorrect.
We can not know precisely the position of an electron at a given timne and its momentum.
There is only the probability that an electron is at some location.
Like eh said, I don't think you're reading his posts.

He never claimed that we have precise knowledge of the position of an electron.

[heusdens]

He implies that, since he talks about some electron being at location X in spacetime.

[John Page]

Originally posted by heusdens
He implies that, since he talks about some electron being at location X in spacetime.
So what, IMO that's insufficient grounds for you to say "I think your understanding of quantum mechanics is incorrect." It may be that this is what you think, but I think you owe the courtesy of a few more questions and answers before becoming accusatory. For example, I could say a lot of things I think about you from the posts you've made, but I don't think my comments would be considered constructive debate.

[eh]

Originally posted by heusdens
He implies that, since he talks about some electron being at location X in spacetime.
Now I'm certain you haven't been reading my posts. Several times I've clarified that electrons are not classic objects and you must include the wave function as one of the properties it has. The wave function has a value at every point in spacetime. But I've already said this numerous times, and the fact you bring up the HUP shows you're not reading the posts and that shows you're not very interested in pursuing an actual discussion.

If you want to go on believing basic logic is flawed or other nonsense like that, you're welcome to it. Just don't pretend to be interested in defending such beliefs.

[heusdens]

The disucssion is about the applicability of the law of Identity to the real world (at least that is a subtopic in this thread), and I just show that this is somewhat difficult.
Of course one can take some or more properties from the real world, and can then apply the law of Identity, but that is not what this is about.