Видео

But that's just like, your opinion, man

I was wandering why can’t you have multiple infinities and super past infinites preceding infinity pasts? Like what Dr. Koons said this is very logically consistent and exists in Mathematics in non standard mathematical analysis with real numbers. So it’s logically consistent to have multiple infinities ones preceding others. Therefore, the actual world and the possible worlds will have had the same super past infinity and when the possible worlds branch out from the actual world they will have their own infinity past and from there you can run the grim reaper paradoxical situation. As for you last point, Dr. Koons added I would say added an uncontroversial restriction that would be accepted by the majority of both atheists and theists. Most atheists accept the causal principle and causal powers. Another way we can say that we restrict the patchwork principle by the causal principle is by saying you cannot have physical impossibilities. Or patched worlds that deny the scientific laws of nature. By violating the causal principle you would be violating some axiom of physical modality, which would seem that this needs to be put as a restriction. So it’s not merely a broad logical impossibility we’re putting as a restriction but a physical impossibility. The patchwork principle shouldn’t allow us to explore physical impossibilities but logical and metaphysical ones. Also, the setup itself of the patched world having that violation of physical modality or the causal principle would be impossible. That’s why it wouldn’t make sense to not restrict it by these physical impossibilities. However, the set up of logical or metaphysical impossibilities like the grim reaper or the grandfather one or any other would be physically possible and because of that physical possibility of these logical or metaphysical impossibilities we can really see what our actual world will have as impossibilities other than physical ones that should be rejected like an actual infinite causal regression or time travel (even though it’s physically possible to time travel given the laws of physics it’s a logical contradiction because of the grandfather paradox) and thus time travel should be rejected as metaphysically impossible and that’s the beauty of the guide of metaphysical modal possibilities and impossibilities by the patchwork principle albeit it being restricted.

@@usafirst1270 Thanks for the thoughts! You say: “I was wandering why can’t you have multiple infinities and super past infinites preceding infinity pasts?” I think a few points are in order here. First, the onus isn’t on the branching actualist to show that there couldn’t be multiple infinite pasts preceding other infinite pasts; instead, the branching actualist need only point out that they can develop an epistemically live, respectable view on which there aren’t multiple infinite pasts, and that Koons’ argument, in order to succeed, would have to rule this sort of view out. Since his argument doesn’t rule this view out, his argument faces an undercutting defeater. Second, either it's metaphysically possible for there to be multiple infinite pasts preceding other infinite pasts, or it isn't. If it's metaphysically possible, then causal finitism and temporal finitism are false, which Koons wants to avoid. If it's not metaphysically possible, then your rejoinder here doesn’t work, since those mathematically consistent temporal structures aren’t, after all, metaphysically possible. You might say that, while they’re not metaphysically possible, they *would* be metaphysically possible if a single infinite past were metaphysically possible. But I don’t see any reason to believe that conditional. You say: “Like what Dr. Koons said this is very logically consistent and exists in Mathematics in non standard mathematical analysis with real numbers. So it’s logically consistent to have multiple infinities ones preceding others.” But, equally, a single infinite past, as well as various single infinite causal chains, are perfectly logically consistent. (Just imagine a single particle emitting EM radiation every 5 seconds for all past eternity. This is perfectly consistent.) If their consistency licenses us to infer that they’re possible, then Koons’ argument for the impossibility of infinite pasts and infinite causal chains fails. You say: “As for you last point, Dr. Koons added I would say added an uncontroversial restriction that would be accepted by the majority of both atheists and theists.” But, equally, it’s even *more* uncontroversial that contradictions are impossible than that Koons’ views of causal powers/principles are true, and so we should restrict patchwork principles to respect logical consistency. But once we do that, Koons' argument is undermined. You say: “Most atheists accept the causal principle and causal powers. Another way we can say that we restrict the patchwork principle by the causal principle is by saying you cannot have physical impossibilities.” Most theists accept the law of non-contradiction - that there cannot be true contradictions. And likewise, you can’t have *logical* impossibilities. So if physical impossibility justifies including a proviso in the patchwork principle, so too does *logical* impossibility. But once we include such a consistency-respecting proviso, Koons’ inference (for reductio) to the possibility of a Grim Reaper paradox doesn’t go through, and so his argument is undermined. You say: “So it’s not merely a broad logical impossibility we’re putting as a restriction but a physical impossibility. The patchwork principle shouldn’t allow us to explore physical impossibilities but logical and metaphysical ones. Also, the setup itself of the patched world having that violation of physical modality or the causal principle would be impossible. That’s why it wouldn’t make sense to not restrict it by these physical impossibilities. However, the set up of logical or metaphysical impossibilities like the grim reaper or the grandfather one or any other would be physically possible” This is untrue. Logical impossibilities are universally granted *not* to be physically possible. Physical possibilities are things are are possible given the actual laws of nature. But contradictions are definitely *not* possible given the actual laws of nature.

​​​@@usafirst1270The grandfather paradox is not much of a _"logical paradox"_ rather than a "slippery slope argument". Sure, if one could go back to any time into the past, then one could kill his or hers grandfather, such that one could never go back to any time into the past to kill his or hers grandfather. And if one could go back to any time into the past and such a person is one's own grandfather or grandmother, then that person is definitively going to time travel at some point, such that that person can become his or hers own grandfather or grandmother. So then time travel is not paradoxical or Impossible in such a "scenario"/slipper slope argument but it is then necessary. Just because being a bachelor and or being married is possible from that alone doesn't follow, that therefore also married bachelors are possible and therefore either being a bachelor is not possible and or being married is not possible. Duh. Same goes for regarding time travel, infinite regressions and the past being infinite. They are all (metaphysically) possible on their own regardless of any of yours or mine slippery slope arguments including those thing supposedly concluding some weird paradoxes.