Phew! That was quite a lot. Of course, there are lots of details and considerations I left out. I love talking about philosophy with my friends, who often have quite insightful comments to add. I would like to know what you think about all this: whether it is plausible, incorrect, fascinating, outrageous, &c. This is a perennially enriching subject. Alright, that’s all for now. I hope it’s not too cold where you’re at. Parts of the Midwest are starting to get their first serious freezing. Take care now, and have a pleasant evening.
If we decide that an actual infinity does not exist, then the causal chain, which ends in the universe’s creation, cannot extend back forever. It must end somewhere. What should the stopping point be? Recall my earlier argument: the cause of the universe must be personal; many people call it “G-d”. Now, should we stop there, and say G-d never came into being? For if He did come into being, then He must have a cause; and if G-d’s cause came into being, then it too must have a cause. Since there are no actual infinities, it must be that our chain stops somewhere. Well then, why not just stop it at G-d? We can’t stop it at the universe, since we know the universe came into being. We could postulate entities in the causal chain beyond G-d, but why should we do so? As a general “epistemological” point, it is often a good idea to eliminate unnecessary explanatory entities. For instance, when you explain why the paper is in the trash, you usually explain it by referencing a single person or thing that threw it away. Of course, it is possible that there were twenty people who took turns throwing the paper away, taking it out, and throwing it in the trash again. It seems, though, that this extra explanatory machinery does not add much; it seems the more justified, warranted, reasonable belief is the simpler one, at least in this case. You may have heard of this principle referred to as “Occam’s Razor”, which states that among theories of equal explanatory power, the simpler one should be chosen. (The theist will hold that atheism, though potentially simpler, does not have the same explanatory power as theism; and so atheism cannot be justified by appealing to Occam’s Razor alone.) Finally, it seems we could apply Occam’s Razor to argue that the causal chain stops at G-d. It is simpler to believe in just one supernatural being in the causal chain. There may be multiple beings “behind” G-d in the chain, but postulating them does not seem to add any extra explanatory power – hence, postulating them seems unwarranted, unjustified, unreasonable as a theory of reality.
Here is another example. Suppose you have two planets revolving around a sun. Planet A revolves twice as fast as Planet B. When Plant B revolves once, Planet A has revolved twice. When Planet B revolves twice, Planet A has revolved four times. When Planet B revolves four times, Planet A has revolved eight times. So on and so forth. It seems that Planet A will always do more revolutions than Planet B.
Now, if we assume an actually infinite number of things is possible, then it is possible to have time extend infinitely backwards. Let us suppose Planets A and B have been revolving around their sun from infinity backwards to the present. If we measure, in the present, each planet’s number of revolutions, then each has revolved an infinite number of times. In other words, each planet has revolved the same number of times. This is true, even though Planet A revolves twice as fast as Planet B, and on that account should have done more revolutions than Planet B! Again, though this might not be a strict logical inconsistency, it nevertheless amounts to some sort of metaphysical absurdity, something a normal person may doubt, or even reject on the basis of real-life experience.
In sum, if there is an actually infinite number of things, then it seems such an existence would lead to metaphysical absurdities of the kinds described. And it seems such metaphysical absurdities cannot occur. Of course, there are plenty of considerate and thoughtful people who believe that there is an actually infinite number of things. I leave it to you to judge the persuasive force of these points.
Now, what to say here? I think there are cogent reasons to reject the reality of an actually infinite number of things. These reasons paint the reality of infinity, so as to entail metaphysical absurdities. Let me explain. Suppose you have an infinite number of coins, labeled “one”, “two”, “three”, and so on ad infinitum. If you take away all the coins labeled “four” and higher, you have taken away an infinite amount of coins. And you have three coins remaining – namely, those labeled “one”, “two”, and “three”. So, you have an infinite number of coins, take away an infinite number of coins, and are left with three coins.
Let’s restart: suppose you have an infinite number of our labeled coins. If you take away all the odd-numbered coins, you have taken away an infinite amount of coins. And you have an infinite number of coins remaining – namely, all the even-numbered coins. (There are an infinite number of odd and even numbers.) So, you have an infinite number of coins, take away an infinite number of coins, and are left with an infinite number of coins.
It seems, though, that we have a metaphysical absurdity here. In each of the two cases, you started with the same number of coins (an infinite number), and took away the same number of coins (an infinite number); yet you were left with a different amount of coins in each case (three in the first case, an infinite number in the second). Though there may not be any logical contradictions here, there surely seems something metaphysically absurd – absurd enough to discredit, or at least make you agnostic about, the existence of an actually infinite number of things.
OK, the argument for G-d’s having always existed runs something like this: we’re agreeing that the universe came into being a finite time ago. If everything that comes into being has a cause of its existence, it follows that the universe has a cause of its existence. Now, on the standard Big Bang account, the beginning of the universe was the beginning of space, time, and all material being. This means, then, that the cause of the universe is spaceless, timeless, and without physical matter. The only two categories that fit this description are immaterial personal beings (“Mind”, “Soul”) and abstract objects, such as numbers or properties. It is also evident that the cause of the universe is extremely powerful; however, abstract objects, such as numbers or properties, seem powerless. How can the number 2, for instance, cause anything? How can the property of “being cold” make physical matter and time? In other words, abstract objects like these appear to be simply inert, without causal efficacy. Therefore, the cause of the universe must be a personal being, who is immensely powerful, if not omnipotent, timeless, spaceless, and immaterial. Most people call this being, “G-d”. I think you would agree with this, more or less; forgive me if I assume wrong.
The next question is whether G-d Himself is uncaused. Has G-d existed for eternity past, never having come into being, always having been? Or did He come into existence, and so has a cause of His being? If G-d does have a cause, then we can reapply our Causal Question to G-d’s cause: did that cause exist forever, or did it too come into existence, and so have a cause? And if we suppose G-d’s cause itself has a cause, we can still reapply the Causal Question. In fact, it seems we can reapply the Causal Question ad infinitum. You rightly note this: “I don’t believe, for a moment, that this particular Higher Power always was. Something had to create Him (or Her, whatever your preference might be), so who was it? And what created that Power? And so on and so forth…” So, if we can always reapply the Causal Question, then there exists an actual infinity – namely, an actually infinite causal chain that ends with the creation of the universe.
As always, it was a pleasure to read your response. I think your comments on the intellectual powers of inmates are spot-on. I talked to a professor who was running the Civic Knowledge Project (CKP) at the University of Chicago. Recently, CKP teamed up with another organization for the Prison + Neighborhood Arts Project (PNAP). The aim of PNAP is to team up visiting artists and scholars with inmates at Stateville Prison in Illinois. The end of PNAP is to have both visitors and inmates learn from each other, as they collaborate to publish inmates’ poetry, essays, and other arts. It’s pretty high-gear stuff – stimulating and insightful. I hope the program has enough success to spark similar endeavors in prisons nation-wide.
Speaking of intellectual power, I think your philosophical interpretation of the Big Bang is nuanced. I was mulling over your thoughts on G-d’s being. You were saying that G-d Himself came into existence. There are considerate thinkers who hold this position; I personally think a compelling case can be made that G-d never came into being, since He always existed. I would like to talk about it for the rest of this letter, since it is some pretty interesting and heavy stuff. I learned it from other philosophers, so no kudos to me.
what address is that? the feds? write the info more clear,i will send something in 2 weeks, my first check gotta cover 5 months of free rent.. dawg, i feel bad af about all this!!! We gotta find a way to get u out.. Debbie say she gon let the lawyer know he can repay his favor to me... I GOT YOU!! ON MY MOTHER!! Might be a lil slow but once i take care of my cousin i got you
RSS
Alright, that’s all for now. I hope it’s not too cold where you’re at. Parts of the Midwest are starting to get their first serious freezing. Take care now, and have a pleasant evening.
Peace,
Calhoun25
Now, if we assume an actually infinite number of things is possible, then it is possible to have time extend infinitely backwards. Let us suppose Planets A and B have been revolving around their sun from infinity backwards to the present. If we measure, in the present, each planet’s number of revolutions, then each has revolved an infinite number of times. In other words, each planet has revolved the same number of times. This is true, even though Planet A revolves twice as fast as Planet B, and on that account should have done more revolutions than Planet B! Again, though this might not be a strict logical inconsistency, it nevertheless amounts to some sort of metaphysical absurdity, something a normal person may doubt, or even reject on the basis of real-life experience.
In sum, if there is an actually infinite number of things, then it seems such an existence would lead to metaphysical absurdities of the kinds described. And it seems such metaphysical absurdities cannot occur. Of course, there are plenty of considerate and thoughtful people who believe that there is an actually infinite number of things. I leave it to you to judge the persuasive force of these points.
Let’s restart: suppose you have an infinite number of our labeled coins. If you take away all the odd-numbered coins, you have taken away an infinite amount of coins. And you have an infinite number of coins remaining – namely, all the even-numbered coins. (There are an infinite number of odd and even numbers.) So, you have an infinite number of coins, take away an infinite number of coins, and are left with an infinite number of coins.
It seems, though, that we have a metaphysical absurdity here. In each of the two cases, you started with the same number of coins (an infinite number), and took away the same number of coins (an infinite number); yet you were left with a different amount of coins in each case (three in the first case, an infinite number in the second). Though there may not be any logical contradictions here, there surely seems something metaphysically absurd – absurd enough to discredit, or at least make you agnostic about, the existence of an actually infinite number of things.
The next question is whether G-d Himself is uncaused. Has G-d existed for eternity past, never having come into being, always having been? Or did He come into existence, and so has a cause of His being? If G-d does have a cause, then we can reapply our Causal Question to G-d’s cause: did that cause exist forever, or did it too come into existence, and so have a cause? And if we suppose G-d’s cause itself has a cause, we can still reapply the Causal Question. In fact, it seems we can reapply the Causal Question ad infinitum. You rightly note this: “I don’t believe, for a moment, that this particular Higher Power always was. Something had to create Him (or Her, whatever your preference might be), so who was it? And what created that Power? And so on and so forth…” So, if we can always reapply the Causal Question, then there exists an actual infinity – namely, an actually infinite causal chain that ends with the creation of the universe.
As always, it was a pleasure to read your response. I think your comments on the intellectual powers of inmates are spot-on. I talked to a professor who was running the Civic Knowledge Project (CKP) at the University of Chicago. Recently, CKP teamed up with another organization for the Prison + Neighborhood Arts Project (PNAP). The aim of PNAP is to team up visiting artists and scholars with inmates at Stateville Prison in Illinois. The end of PNAP is to have both visitors and inmates learn from each other, as they collaborate to publish inmates’ poetry, essays, and other arts. It’s pretty high-gear stuff – stimulating and insightful. I hope the program has enough success to spark similar endeavors in prisons nation-wide.
Speaking of intellectual power, I think your philosophical interpretation of the Big Bang is nuanced. I was mulling over your thoughts on G-d’s being. You were saying that G-d Himself came into existence. There are considerate thinkers who hold this position; I personally think a compelling case can be made that G-d never came into being, since He always existed. I would like to talk about it for the rest of this letter, since it is some pretty interesting and heavy stuff. I learned it from other philosophers, so no kudos to me.