Are there any people here who understand the ontology of being?
I'm wondering if any of you realize that infinite regress in the past is impossible – because of states in bodies, such as motion/rest. And that if we actualize the existence of any body in the universe or the universe as a whole, this will lead to a violation of the third law of logic (the Law of the Excluded third), i.e. an actual-infinitely existing entity should not lose its state or acquire a new one.If so, how did you arrive at it? Describe your worldview…
First, there is no need to absolutize logic. Moreover, the law of the excluded third, which is not mandatory – there are logics without it, including more strict ones than the classical one.
Secondly, there are different ways to be infinite. A circle is infinite in a different way than a straight line.
Third, we can look at Meillassoux's hyperchaos as an example of an ontology of eternal being, in which nothing is necessary and everything is possible. The visible universe, its laws, and even its time are just random fluctuations, unnecessarily having a degree of order sufficient for us to appear here, become aware of this order, and disappear back into the chaos.
You're right. But this applies to both the past and the future… And movement in space.
For those who do not understand the basics of dialectics, it can be explained clearly. If the universe is infinite in time and space, then from its spatial or temporal edge to any chosen point in time or space, there must be an infinite number of spatial or temporal moments. But the very definition of infinity implies that the number of such segments must be innumerable, never ending when counting. Thus, our chosen point in space-time in the infinite universe will never come. Therefore, either the actual universe is not infinite, or the chosen point of “actual being” does not exist. Or so. We can scroll to a certain page of the notebook if it has a limited number of sheets. But if there are an infinite number of pages in it, then we will never reach a certain sheet.
And you can approach it from the other side. If a thing is not different from another being, then it does not exist. In fact, there is no line on an empty piece of paper until it receives borders (color ones in this example) that distinguish it from the surrounding being. Thus, if the Universe as a whole does not have “lines” in space and time separating it from otherness, then it does not exist. If it exists and has limits, then it is not boundless or, what is the same thing, not infinite.
If a materialistic ontology is meant, then what is there to understand it? Everything is written in textbooks. But if we try to understand ontology from the point of view of a different worldview than the materialistic one, we will gradually come to understand that the phenomenal world is not only not the only one, but the lowest, grossest, innert. There are phenomena and processes that cannot be described solely by human logic. Basic research and conclusions based only on the concepts of the physical plane (visible and felt by the five senses of the world) will give exactly the same picture of reality as if we were to study nuclear interactions based solely on observations of nuclear weapons tests from a bunker 10 km from the epicenter.
There is no such thing as an infinite entity. This is nonsense. Entities – their appearance, manifestation, or emanation – are a consequence of the differentiation of Cause. Call it God, the absolute, whatever you want. Not the main label. A reason that has no reason for itself. Entities are not laws.
When getting acquainted with esoteric philosophy, a self-thinking person should at least try to get rid of the usual, learned, programmed worldview and just at least fantasize.
At least for the exercise of their desired logic in relation to other paradigms.
“Only two things are infinite – the universe and human stupidity,
Although I'm not sure about the universe” (Albert Einstein).
The quote is ironic, of course, but in the sense of an infinite universe, it is logical to agree with Einstein's uncertainty about its infinity.
The fact is that it is extremely difficult to find something that exists and is really infinite.
On the contrary, all things known for certain are finite. Stars, galaxies-they all exist orders of magnitude longer than humanity. Nevertheless, they are finite.
Obviously, this fact is a good reason, if not to “admit”, then at least to “admit” the finiteness of the universe.
In addition, to assert the “eternity” of the universe, one must be an eternal entity itself – which is not observed in humanity (and science does not know any other points of view): on the contrary, from the position of a NON – eternal subject, including humanity, the thesis about the eternity of the universe is completely devoid of foundation. “How can you know that the universe is eternal, if not from someone eternal? And if you know someone eternal, it's probably God.”
If we assume that the universe is NOT eternal, then the question may arise: where did it come from and what will happen then?
And here it is possible (and necessary) to remember that everything in nature is in continuous change and recall the “obscene” word “dialectic”. Just remember it not in the Hegelian way – as a movement of categories that determines the change in the nature of things, but in a materialistic way: as a change in material reality, which is reflected in the change of categories.
Then it will become obvious that there was something else before the universe, as we know it, that probably does not correspond to the meaning that we put in the word “universe”, but from which the universe arose as we know it. Similarly, what will happen after the universe does not fully correspond to the meaning of the word “universe”, but it will consist of what remains after the universe.
Accordingly, matter (and its equivalents, for example, energy: E = mc^2) is always preserved at the fundamental level, but the form and manifestation change over time (as a result of the redistribution and reorganization inherent in matter).
Thus, your ” infinitely existing entity “does not lose or acquire a new state, because the” universe “is simply not an infinitely existing entity: on the contrary, what we call the” universe ” is a transitional state with a finite duration.
In reality, matter (and its equivalents) is eternal.
Oh, yes, there are also integration and differentiation operations in mathematical analysis that illustrate how many infinitesimal steps are summed up to a NON-infinitesimal value: “In a simplified way, an integral can be represented as an analog of a sum for an infinite number of infinitesimal terms.”.
Of course, the integral is a mathematical abstraction, but it has a very definite practical meaning and basis.