God Must Exist: Infinite Regression is Impossible

[We_Are_VENOM]

[Bust Nak]

Since we do not know the fundamental nature of what we believe are 'physical dimensions', we cannot say that time actually exists as a fundamental physical part of reality.

Then make do with saying time exists as a part of physical reality.

Only symbolically re concepts of the mind.

Clocks are symbols of time - they represent a physical structure of a concept of the mind.

Just as numbers symbolically represent a physical structure of a concept of the mind

Same question as before, how would you know that, if you don't know what time is fundamentally?

We do not know.

Well, perhaps you should stop asking questions until you figure out what even you are trying to ask.

How is it acceptable to say they are NOT the same thing, if nobody knows?

It wouldn't be, if nobody knows. But we do know.

The question was not "are they the same thing" [as in how they are labeled]. The question was, "are they separate?" [as in their function].

But you can't even tell me what counts as separate and does not. You asked my why separate, they are different is a good reason to separate.

Rather, it is an appeal to truthfulness. We don't know...therefore we cannot say...

That didn't stop you from saying time is only a concept of the mind, didn't stop you from saying it does not exist in reality other than symbolically.

We do know one fundamental of QF as it pertains to matter. It is physical in nature.
We do not know what energy is, fundamentally. We only know that it interacts with matter and in doing so, creates shapeform.

We know that the interaction creates information and we know that information is meaningless without conscious intelligence also existing.
We do not know the fundamental nature of consciousness, but we do know that it is necessary in relation to interacting meaningfully with the interactions of Energy and QF. [matter].

You are still no closer in explaining how saying "energy is the same thing as the objects it forms" is equivalent to saying "energy was the cause of its own beginning."

So it appears. But recognizing the interaction between the one and the other in such a manner invokes a kind of magical thinking.

The current explanation is really a guess about the fundamental nature of energy whereby it somehow transforms itself into matter and from matter, back into energy.

What's so magical thinking about that when we can already make practical

We understand that the process can be eternal and thus never began and never ended.

Never end? Sounds like time will tick on forever to me.

We also understand that the process can happen without any consciousness existing to acknowledge said process - that it could function in that manner eternally, independent of consciousness.

Can happen without consciousness or acknowledge? Sounds like time is not just a concept to me.

What we do not know, is - since the process is NOT independent of consciousness - whether this means that consciousness has also always existed.

We do know that human consciousness has not always existed, but we also know that the interaction between energy and matter was happening before the fact of human consciousness.
We cannot say for certain that human consciousness is fundamentally an emergent property of human brains, because we do not know if consciousness is a fundamental property of energy and matter.

Occam's razor.

Energy effects matter which in turn creates shapeform. The shapeform the allows consciousness to conceptualize time. This means that time is not fundamental to the interaction between energy and matter...

Why would The shapeform the allows consciousness to conceptualize time mean time is not fundamental to the interaction between energy and matter?

For example, if the process of energy+matter+consciousness means that the process itself is therefore self aware, the entity being that process would have no logical need to know what time was in relation to itself, therefore, time would not be a fundamental aspect of that system.
Therefore time would not "tick on forever", nor would it have "ticked on" at all.

What are you trying to say? If the universe is self aware? Then what? Why is knowing what time was even a thing here?

Can you also agree with the above statement [italic]?

Nop, I cannot, sounds like non-sequitur to me.

[William]

[Replying to Bust Nak in post #681]

Since we do not know the fundamental nature of what we believe are 'physical dimensions', we cannot say that time actually exists as a fundamental physical part of reality.

Then make do with saying time exists as a part of physical reality.

Not only is it not a "part of reality" but your clock reads different from mine. Is this to say we do not share the same reality?

Of course not.

If a construct of the mind is not fundamental to reality, then we ought not pretend that it is.

Clocks are symbols of time - they represent a physical structure of a concept of the mind.

Just as numbers symbolically represent a physical structure of a concept of the mind

Same question as before, how would you know that, if you don't know what time is fundamentally?

Time is not a fundamental property of reality. It is a symbolic representation of a construct of the mind.

Are causes and their effect fundamentally separate?

We do not know.

Well, perhaps you should stop asking questions until you figure out what even you are trying to ask.

You asked the question. Perhaps you should take your own advice.

[Bust Nak]

Not only is it not a "part of reality" but your clock reads different from mine. Is this to say we do not share the same reality?

Of course not.

Why would your clock reading differently mean time is not part of reality?

If a construct of the mind is not fundamental to reality, then we ought not pretend that it is.

That's moot because we are not talking about constructs of the mind, but part of physical reality.

Time is not a fundamental property of reality. It is a symbolic representation of a construct of the mind.

How would you know that, if you don't know what time is fundamentally?

You asked the question. Perhaps you should take your own advice.

I do take my own advice, I only ask questions when I know what I was asking.

[William]

[The Tanager]

[The Tanager]

[William]

[Bust Nak]

[Bust Nak]

Quotes about the non-fundamental thing we call 'time'...

[Fundamental = forming a necessary base or core; of central importance.]

What necessary role would time have played, since it is a biproduct of the core ingredients Energy and Matter.

It is all very well taking something which is secondary and attempting to elevate it to a more prominent position re the original beginning of this universe - but to do so means one has to turn a blind eye...[or provide the evidence to support the theory.]

Not what I asked you. You are going on about "fundamental" when I asked you about being part of physical reality.

I know that time is not a fundamental aspect of Energy + Matter, as I know that time is fundamental to the human mind as a means of the mind getting its bearings - secondary in nature, not fundamentally to nature.

I do not know whether Energy and Matter are two separate things which interact and create shapeform, or whether they are aspects of the same thing, interacting with itself and creating shapeform.
I also do not know if Consciousness is fundamental to that process, but I do know that human consciousness is not.

I mention consciousness because I know that without consciousness, time would not even be recognized as a secondary [non-fundamental] aspect of this reality. Any reality has to be experienced before it can be known what is and what is not - fundamental - about it.

And that's why I kept pointing out that we should be talking about time itself, as just another dimension in spacetime, and not our perception or experience of time.

The confusion obviously has to do with thinking that the passing of time [which is believed to be fundamental to the position of the human mind experiencing this universe]therefore, has to be fundamental to the universe itself.

No, the confusion has to do with you equating a construct of the human mind with time itself, which has nothing to do our perception.

[William]

[Replying to Bust Nak in post #689]

Not what I asked you. You are going on about "fundamental" when I asked you about being part of physical reality.

My statements re time is that time is not a fundamental part of reality. If you are asking me questions which veer away from those statements, I have no particular interest in going down those paths and arguing with you about them.
If you want to believe that time will tick on forever, that is your prerogative. All I can do is point out that if time is not a fundamental aspect of reality, and reality will exist forever, then this does not mean that time will also exist forever.

I know that time is not a fundamental aspect of Energy + Matter, as I know that time is fundamental to the human mind as a means of the mind getting its bearings - secondary in nature, not fundamentally to nature.

I do not know whether Energy and Matter are two separate things which interact and create shapeform, or whether they are aspects of the same thing, interacting with itself and creating shapeform.
I also do not know if Consciousness is fundamental to that process, but I do know that human consciousness is not.

I mention consciousness because I know that without consciousness, time would not even be recognized as a secondary [non-fundamental] aspect of this reality. Any reality has to be experienced before it can be known what is and what is not - fundamental - about it.

And that's why I kept pointing out that we should be talking about time itself, as just another dimension in spacetime, and not our perception or experience of time.

You did introduce the 'clock' as part of your argument, remember?
The clock represents "our perception or experience of time"

The confusion obviously has to do with thinking that the passing of time [which is believed to be fundamental to the position of the human mind experiencing this universe] therefore, has to be fundamental to the universe itself.