tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3891434218564545511.post5439389700346189409..comments2024-03-27T20:37:09.185-05:00Comments on Alexander Pruss's Blog: BeginningsAlexander R Prusshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05989277655934827117noreply@blogger.comBlogger17125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3891434218564545511.post-75244047923211712482015-05-26T13:01:16.545-05:002015-05-26T13:01:16.545-05:00Thank you for your comment sir, but I'm still ...Thank you for your comment sir, but I'm still a bit on the edge if what I said about the quantum field(the science) is accurate.AKGhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14269580033007038839noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3891434218564545511.post-9058101255152591182015-05-26T12:49:41.963-05:002015-05-26T12:49:41.963-05:00Yes, I think so.Yes, I think so.Alexander R Prusshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05989277655934827117noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3891434218564545511.post-51054104637184337222015-05-26T12:19:16.879-05:002015-05-26T12:19:16.879-05:00Yes sir that is right, but is the reasoning behind...Yes sir that is right, but is the reasoning behind it accurate?AKGhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14269580033007038839noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3891434218564545511.post-28597361732571313602015-05-26T11:11:23.249-05:002015-05-26T11:11:23.249-05:00There are two kinds of contingency in a being:
1....There are two kinds of contingency in a being:<br /> 1. The being could have failed to exist.<br /> 2. The being could have had other intrinsic properties from the one it does.<br /><br />In classical theism, God does not have either sort of contingency. If I understand your argument, you're saying that even if a quantum field does not have type 1 contingency, it has type 2 contingency. Is that right?Alexander R Prusshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05989277655934827117noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3891434218564545511.post-70590418680122088402015-05-26T10:51:24.195-05:002015-05-26T10:51:24.195-05:00Hello Dr. Pruss
I've been pondering about the ...Hello Dr. Pruss<br />I've been pondering about the Leibnizian cosmological argument for a while, and I recently came up with an argument of why a quantum field(which atheist use against the argument) cannot be a necessary being and would be contingent.<br />The laws of quantum fields describe which arrangements of the fields are physically possible and which ones are not possible. If this is the case than that means than for a particular arrangement of a quantum field such as the one that gave rise to our universe (I'm not saying it is true, I'm just assuming it to show why if this were case it would not be necessary)there is a logical and mathematical possibility that it could have developed into a different arrangement of fields. If this is the case then that means that the current arrangement of the field that may have given rise to our universe could have been different and did not have to be the way they are. Since this is true, then it would fall under Leibniz's definition of a contingent being as it could have been different then the way that it is and did not have to be a specific way, even if it was eternal, and thus it would require ultimately a necessary explanation.<br />I'm not sure if this is valid as I don't know too much about quantum fields and I was wondering if you could help me see where I'm wrong in this thinking and how I could make it better,<br />Thank you in advance.AKGhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14269580033007038839noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3891434218564545511.post-81141197907463163602015-05-26T08:53:05.916-05:002015-05-26T08:53:05.916-05:00Alex Pruss: I should say: by "has a beginning...<b>Alex Pruss: </b><i>I should say: by "has a beginning" I am trying to capture the intuitive content of "came into existence".</i><br /><br />It seems to me that the intuitive content of "came into existence" is far more aligned with (1) than with (2). When you use the phrase "came into existence," the average person is likely to think of a period wherein that thing does not exist followed by a period wherein it does exist.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3891434218564545511.post-14506383147376325912015-05-25T21:49:04.727-05:002015-05-25T21:49:04.727-05:00Suppose x exists at all times after noon today, bu...<i>Suppose x exists at all times after noon today, but doesn't exist at noon. Then x has a beginning but no first moment.</i><br /><br />I'm not sure I can make sense of this suggestion. I think you could generate a Paradox of the Not-So-Grim Birther to show why.<br /><br />Suppose that God is going to create the universe immediately after noon. He is going to let one of an infinite number of angels push the button that starts it up. The first angel's button starts it one second after noon. The second angel's button starts it a half second after noon. The third angel's button a quarter second. Etc. Which angel pushes the button?Heath Whitehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13535886546816778688noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3891434218564545511.post-67592230590000631772015-05-25T19:46:20.732-05:002015-05-25T19:46:20.732-05:00John West: Agreed. I meant "particular things...John West: Agreed. I meant "particular things coming into existence <i>in existing time</i>."<br /> <br />Dr Pruss: <i>That something came into existence doesn't seem to entail anything about what happened before it came into existence</i>. It seems at least to imply that there <i>was</i> a before. This is my problem with time "coming into existence". Maybe I'm being fooled by language.IanShttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00111583711680190175noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3891434218564545511.post-42121658280473830462015-05-25T11:48:46.654-05:002015-05-25T11:48:46.654-05:00This seems to support you last paragraph: "th...<i>This seems to support you last paragraph: "things" coming into existence makes sense, but time coming into existence is hard to grasp. </i><br /><br />If it's true that time is a measurement of change (and not the other way around), then you could collapse time coming into existence into things coming into existence.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04470664030455998305noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3891434218564545511.post-84983640989770471542015-05-25T09:45:00.795-05:002015-05-25T09:45:00.795-05:00Dr. Pruss have you ever tried collecting a tardigr...Dr. Pruss have you ever tried collecting a tardigrade?Mark Rogershttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12691324025964108341noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3891434218564545511.post-41765270657989898552015-05-25T09:33:26.671-05:002015-05-25T09:33:26.671-05:00But that something came into existence doesn't...But that something came into existence doesn't seem to entail anything about what happened before it came into existence.Alexander R Prusshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05989277655934827117noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3891434218564545511.post-47609690509736410882015-05-25T00:44:18.634-05:002015-05-25T00:44:18.634-05:00True, but is this a bug or a feature? Such a unive...True, but is this a bug or a feature? Such a universe literally does "have no beginning". To say it "came into existence" you seem to need some external timeline that goes back further. This seems to support you last paragraph: "things" coming into existence makes sense, but time coming into existence is hard to grasp.IanShttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00111583711680190175noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3891434218564545511.post-79716130682613410762015-05-24T21:55:42.661-05:002015-05-24T21:55:42.661-05:00Then universe whose timeline is an open interval a...Then universe whose timeline is an open interval at the lower end has no beginning.Alexander R Prusshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05989277655934827117noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3891434218564545511.post-54715234908729353942015-05-24T21:52:59.887-05:002015-05-24T21:52:59.887-05:00How about : x had a beginning if there was a time ...How about : x had a beginning if there was a time before which x never existed.<br />"Never" is meant to deal with things with a "gappy" existence. Note that this uses only the ordinal properties of time.IanShttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00111583711680190175noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3891434218564545511.post-58267451422640641702015-05-24T21:09:29.728-05:002015-05-24T21:09:29.728-05:00I should say: by "has a beginning" I am ...I should say: by "has a beginning" I am trying to capture the intuitive content of "came into existence".Alexander R Prusshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05989277655934827117noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3891434218564545511.post-60013708324262269392015-05-24T21:08:57.820-05:002015-05-24T21:08:57.820-05:00Suppose x exists at all times after noon today, bu...Suppose x exists at all times after noon today, but doesn't exist at noon. Then x has a beginning but no first moment.Alexander R Prusshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05989277655934827117noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3891434218564545511.post-1657758616072728202015-05-24T20:06:24.250-05:002015-05-24T20:06:24.250-05:00How about: x has a beginning iff x has a first mo...How about: x has a beginning iff x has a first moment of its existence.Heath Whitehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13535886546816778688noreply@blogger.com