Knowledge and choice

I read the columns, and it has nothing to do with my words. I did not ask that the Rabbi's answer refutes the concept of omnipotence, which is clear from the Rabbi's answer. I asked that according to the Rabbi, there is a change in the Creator, and this is a simple mistake.
I also asked about what is written in the book on page 78 [in the note] that the note does not begin

You talked about it being above time, and I explained there that that was not an answer.

Not an answer to a question about the Rabbi's answer, the Rabbi replied that he really doesn't know, the Rabbi excused all the problems here, except that according to the Rabbi he doesn't know and then his knowledge is renewed, but I wrote to the Rabbi that he doesn't change

And I also asked what the Rabbi asked in his book, page 78, on Maimonides in the Laws of Repentance, end of chapter 6, according to my interpretation? But that is not that important. Much more important is that it does not change.

The fact that he knows does sharpen something in him. What's the problem with that?
I didn't see/understand any question.

If the ’ changes, the ’ enters the boundaries of time, which requires the ’ need for the Creator [as I wrote, the teacher is perplexed, every part of a thousand deals with the ’ does not change [see chapter 55] and as Isaiah says ” I am the ’ have not changed”

A common and baseless argument in my opinion. The change in it is not problematic. And putting it under time is another slogan that I never understood. First, Se himself is not problematic in my opinion. Second, time can be the way we think about it and not necessarily about it itself.

“First, this itself is not problematic” Why? So God is obligated in creation just like the world, after all, everything that belongs to time had a beginning, after all, by the definition of the thing that lives through time, it cannot be that there was no beginning “Secondly” I did not understand the Rabbi's intention, what did the Rabbi explain?
And what if the verse in Isaiah

The words of Samuel I in brief are yours, Mr. Samuel.

If he is subject to time, then he must have a beginning, and this contradicts logic because what was before the beginning? Such an infinite regression!
And therefore Samuel I concludes that he is above time and therefore it is also necessary to say that he does not change because change depends on time. And new knowledge is a change.
What is wrong with this?

How do you know that everything that belongs to time had a beginning? What is something that 'belongs to time' anyway? According to Kant, for example, time and space are categories that exist only with us and not in the world. So our view of the world is done in categories of time, and this includes our view of God. He made the plague of blood before the plague of a frog. Does that mean that He is under time?
In short, as I wrote here, this is empty talk as is customary in Jewish thought.

I simply want to summarize the matter, first of all, to the Rabbi's claims [i.e. in the previous comment/comment], the Rabbi wrote:
How do you know that everything that belongs to time had a beginning? Everything has a beginning, how could something not begin?!
But according to this, a serious problem arises because what caused the beginning of what caused all beginnings?
And by virtue of these questions, all scholars, believers and non-believers, unanimously concluded,
” There was something that does not belong to time that is the one that caused everything ”
We just disagreed about what it is or who it is, but we have gone out of context and will return:
This thing in the Jewish religion is God. Therefore, it is guaranteed that it will not belong to time. The Rabbi continued:
What is something that 'belongs to time' anyway? According to Kant, for example, time and space are categories that exist only with us and not in the world. So our view of the world is done in categories of time, and this includes our view of God. He made the plague of blood before the plague of frogs. Does that mean He is under time?
In short, as I wrote here, these are empty chatter as is customary in Jewish thought. That's all the Rabbi's words.
And here is something that belongs to time, meaning that the thing performed a temporary action, to think, to do, to speak, and so on.
And what the Rabbi brought from Kant is irrelevant [from this I only understood that the Rabbi did not understand me]
And because it is not in the world, then a temporary thing would not need a beginning? Therefore, there is no argument here at all. But finally the Rabbi wrote the obvious question “He made the plague of blood before the plague of frogs. Does that mean He is under time?”
And he copied my words that I had already written immediately, due to the obvious difficulty “And do not at all liken them to the actions of God, since these do not cause a change in practice, but an addition of knowledge does We heard. ” [The last lines of the question]
And he brought an example for further explanation here is “the force of gravity” [Truly there is imagination for those who understand]
Since the second the world was created and the force began to act and attract things, no one would say that the force changed
He simply performed an action unrelated to him!!! Since he’ does not know and his [himself] knowledge is renewed, then this is a change in him; that on the first day he did not know and on the second day he did know, then he entered time and everything that enters time needs a creator, etc.
[And those who want to say that he did not belong and entered, have not benefited anything because from the beginning he knew that it would be so and they took his thought apart from him to something that changes from ”m], therefore we cannot say that he and his mind are one [as he wrote Maimonides
In the Halacha we have brought] and his precepts, he knew that everything does not change, as all the sages of the world wrote, and it is not for nothing that Maimonides wrote these thirteen main points according to his virtue.
If I cannot convince the Rabbi, at least I will convince the public to adhere to Maimonides, whose teaching is pure and clean.

End of topic.

Shmuel, this is an impressive collection of meaningless slogans, errors, and especially one big logical loop. In light of all this, I have to say that your determination is even more amusing.
1. You assume that everything has a beginning. If you assume that, then of course the debate is over. But that's where the debate itself ends. The fact that you have enlisted all the scholars, believers and non-believers, in your favor, and also included them in a Greek chorus that answers you with one voice, does not impress me very much. Beyond the fact that this is shameful ad hominem, it mainly indicates the breadth of your knowledge. If these are all the scholars you know, your world is probably unimaginably narrow. But as mentioned, I don't really care what all your "experts" agreed on. .
2. If you assume that everything has a beginning, then God also has one. But what? You will surely say that only something that belongs to time has a beginning, but what does not belong to time has no beginning. Then I ask what is the definition of something that belongs to time? And you answer: Something that does not need to have a beginning. Proverbs. Amusing.
3. You propose a definition that something that belongs to time is something that performed a temporary action (thinking, doing, speaking). Isn't the creation of the world an action? Isn't "And God said" speaking? (And this does not have to be done with the mouth).
Here you will surely slip into the mysteries of negative adjectives, another nonsense from the school of thought of Israel.
4. What I quoted from Kant is very relevant, and this is just evidence that you did not understand me. Kant said that space and time are our categories and do not exist in reality itself. That is, there can be beings who do not see the world in terms of space or time. Therefore, every claim we make about God is a claim formulated within the framework of our world of concepts, which includes time. Therefore, there is no problem with our statements about God that include time. When I say that He did something or thought or knows, these are my descriptions of Him, and in general, when I think in terms of time, they are formulated in a language that includes time. To the same extent, I can also think of Him as something ancient (especially in light of the accepted interpretations of the Big Bang, which of course do not belong to all the “experts” from your Greek choir).
At most, the question can be raised here whether infinity (concrete and not potential) is a well-defined being. But this is a different discussion, because if it is not defined or contradictory, then it cannot be applied to God either.
5. In a contradictory way, you anthropomorphize God by translating the statement that He knows to mean that something was added to His essence. But if you use negative adjectives, you are falling into the pit from which you are trying to rescue me (without need, of course).

If someone manages to be convinced by this collection of strange sentences to stick to Rambam, his (and Rambam's) situation is quite bleak.
By the way, on the subject of knowledge and choice, I claim a different interpretation of Rambam and do not want to disagree with him. But do not let the facts confuse you. After all, all scholars, believers and non-believers, unanimously said that I disagree with Rambam.

A. If time had no beginning, we would not have arrived here, it is like walking on a treadmill, not progressing anywhere, for example, if I tell someone that I will meet with him in an infinite amount of time, then we will never meet because at each point in time the one after it will arrive until infinity, and therefore time must have a beginning and an end!
And if the Creator of the world began the creation of the world at a certain point in time, this means that time itself was created then, if time was before and had no beginning, we are in an infinite regression.

As change is something related to time, and those who are not under the limitations of time do not have change, for those who have the limit of time, things are expressed as change, those who are above time are in the future and present of those who have the limit of time without any contradiction to this.

A. Tam, this stale argument is appropriate for the Middle Ages. Today we are already far behind the mathematics of infinity and today it is clear that this description is flawed and contradictory and therefore leads to paradoxes. But there is a consistent description in which paradoxes do not exist. Go and learn.
For example, the X-axis in a Cartesian coordinate system goes to minus infinity and to infinity on the other side. There is no problem defining this in a consistent way. The paradox you described is a characteristic of a perspective in which you yourself are at a point minus infinity and begin to go to the right. But in a consistent description there is no such point. It is a limit and not a point. As stated, go and learn.
B. If time itself was created, as the accepted interpretation of the explosion also holds, then this entire discussion loses its meaning. God also has a beginning in time, and it is exactly when the time axis begins. So this is evidence of a contradiction.
C. Change is in no way related to time (again, an intermediate argument). According to Kant, time is our measure for observing changes and not for being in them. But even without Kant, even if we assume that time really exists, this could still be true.
D. I too am in the past, present, and future of those with time limitations. I was yesterday and I will (hopefully) be there tomorrow. These are just a few of the many myths, and that is exactly what I was talking about.

I would be happy to expand a little more on A. Thank you.

From 1 to 5 I have already answered, and from A to D [And what I wrote, I intended for those who believe in the study (anyone who says that the universe has no beginning is a fool, and it has nothing to do with us who believe in creation,) and by the way, even those who believe in the Big Bang say that there was something that caused it and it must be something that does not need a beginning – does not belong in time….]

P.S. The topic seems to me to be finished, I do not think I will write more on the subject

Okay,
I explained in the body of my words. I'll try to demonstrate.
Step A: Think about the set of natural numbers (the integers from 1 onward). How many of them are there? Infinity. Now start going from infinity and go down by one each time. Will you reach some number at some point in time? No. If so, the natural numbers cannot be defined in this way. On the other hand, now start going from 1 and go up by 1 each time. For any number you give me, I tell you in what time I will reach it. In other words, this can indeed be a definition of numbers. It follows that these two descriptions are not equivalent in any sense.
Step B: Going from infinity and down assumes that there is such a concrete number “infinity”, and it is like any other number, and therefore it is possible to stand on it and go back (or down). But there is no such number, and therefore it is not possible to define numbers in a way that goes down from infinity. This is a contradictory and essentially empty definition.
Now step C: Does this mean that there are no infinite numbers, that is, that the number of natural numbers is finite? Absolutely not.. Therefore, in mathematics it is customary to say that infinity is a limit and not a specific number. To say that there are infinite numbers means that the number of numbers is not finite (negative degrees). This is a negative, potential statement, and not a positive, concrete one.
For another demonstration, see the entry ‘Hilbert's hotel’ on Wikipedia.

Thank you.
I only have one comment, that the difference between whether I start walking from one is because I have the ability to start by a time line that I decide to start from. But if I want to check, for example, the number of years of the universe, I do not have the ability to put a line because there was always something before, and then it turns out that there is no beginning and we are back to the treadmill example, right?
What did I miss? (It seems that your explanation did not address the creation that does require something that is not included in time).
Thanks in advance.

The definition that He has no beginning is exactly the correct definition. Therefore, there is no philosophical impediment to saying that God changes over time and yet He has existed all along (i.e. He has no beginning). I do not see the slightest connection between the two.

Please be precise in the language of Maimonides:
All man is given permission. If he wills to follow his own inclinations.

But Maimonides does not write that man has free choice to will. But if he wills.
And that is the whole point. That man will not will for no reason. But out of the necessity of circumstances.

And further: Do not let this thing enter your mind, as the foolish people of the world and many of the scoundrels of the children of Israel say, that the Holy One, blessed be He, decrees upon man from the beginning of His creation to be righteous or wicked.

Indeed, there is no decree upon man to be righteous or wicked, but this will happen by the necessity of circumstances, some of which are arbitrary.

And all those who think that man has free choice think so because the instinct of pride delights in this thought and they do not have a free choice not to delight in this thought.

Tam,

As far as I understand the paradoxes you raised, they are not really anachronistic (“a stale argument suitable for the Middle Ages”).
Even if the solution that Mikhi presented is successful - and I believe it is the case - it is a modern mathematical solution (based on a redefinition of the concept of limit within the framework, it seems to me, of the invention of the infinitesimal calculus). In fact, this is nothing more than an attempt to return to the continuity problem with Zeno's failed strategy…
In any case, a philosophical solution is required here, not a “mathematical” and therefore it seems to me that the paradox remains a paradox…
And see a nice explanation supporting this in Ze'ev Bechler in ”Three Copernican Revolutions”, pp. 82 ff.

It is interesting to note that Mikhi is familiar with Bechler's concept and agrees with its main points. It is therefore a bit strange that he does not mention that according to a certain approach - which he apparently actually agrees with - modern mathematics does not solve anything.

I also recommend reading Michi's brilliant article (articles?) on Zeno's paradoxes and their connection to the act of repentance. A neat and clean article but suffers, to the best of my poor judgment, from a similar problem.

Doron, can you please take a photo or copy the section from Bachler (I hope it's short enough)? I actually remember that Bachler's entire book is a finger-licking masterpiece, except for sections where he attacks mathematics, where in my opinion the poor man is a brain-splitter.

Ben Nun

First of all, I was unable to film these long segments. Sorry.

In the distant past, I had long discussions with Mikhi about the closeness between him and Bichler. To my surprise, he made unencouraging noises in that direction.

Regarding Bichler: I myself have criticisms of him and am even partly influenced by Mikhi. But I understand one thing about him (I hope..): He is consistent and tries to place the entirety of knowledge on the paradigms he formulates (potentialism and actualism).

In any case, Bichler, to my impression, understands perfectly well what Mikhi also understands well (but often forgets it here and there) and these are two things: First, a philosophical method is not a “scientific” method, or “mathematical” or any body of knowledge, ”technical” Another, and secondly, that the philosophical method in principle precedes the latest methods.
Therefore, even if Böhler failed in his explanations of the mathematical part (I am not at all sure of this), his very attempt to locate the metaphysical plane beneath mathematics is a successful attempt. On the contrary, even a fool like me was able to understand from his words how metaphysical principles are at the basis of the infinitesimal calculus

And as for what you find strange, it was not mentioned that ”according to a certain approach that he apparently actually agrees with– modern mathematics solves nothing”, if I have gone to the end of your mind with ’agreement with the principles of the concept’ you mean an attack on Russell's theory of types and the accusation that it only violently forbids talking about the problems, hides them under the carpet, and does not really solve any problem. And from this you also deduce an attack on rigorous mathematical definitions (such as the definition of the sum of a column, below I will turn to a deadly and precise criticism by Gadi Alexandrovich’) that do not hit the human intuitive concept and therefore mathematics has essentially opened a stadium in another neighborhood and is playing catch-up there with itself.
But there is a big difference. When we prohibit talking, for example, about self-instructions, this is a completely understandable and reasonable human term, and we see that it gives rise to paradoxes and solutions are sought for them, not ignored, and this is a criticism of the theory of types (in my personal opinion, by the way, this is not a successful criticism, and I even composed a few rhymes here on the site about it). But the mathematical terms do not prohibit, but rather truly and sincerely reveal in full the most consistent definition that is most pleasing to the heart, and is probably the correct understanding, and therefore the Achilles and the tortoise paradox truly dissipates like a morning cloud and the evening dew. Moreover, and as the owner of the site also emphasized in a certain column in which there was a discussion of convexities and concaves and equivalence between human mental conceptualization and the mathematical definition, mathematics does not guarantee anything other than the connection between the premises and the conclusion, and it truly plays in its own stadium, but anyone who wants is welcome to join it.

Link to an ancient and precise column by Alexandrovich’ (One of several probably):
https://gadial.net/2008/06/17/infinite_series/

Now that your words have come in such a form, it seems that all my assumptions about your opinion have gone up in smoke into the sky, and now slight murmurs are rising and falling in it.

Bo Nun

I need to read your first response carefully, think about it, and then see if I understand. And only then maybe answer. It hasn't been read yet.

Your second response is too poetic for my poor soul. I don't understand anything.

Of course it didn't happen.. In the ’

[I wrote there that I was quick to speculate on your thoughts, and at the same time that you wrote an explanation, I wrote speculations about the previous message. Therefore, the speculations have been refuted and fade away and are no longer relevant, like they went up in smoke.]

And I would also be happy if you could explain your basic argument to me in more primitive language. It seems to me that you think I am making a too crude logical leap, but I don't understand what it is.
In any case, to address your metaphor: even if mathematics plays in its own stadium (as I also think), the analysis of its “game moves”, that is, the clarification of its “intuitive”meanings, is still done in the home stadium of philosophy. More precisely, it is done in the home stadium of the philosophy of mathematics.
In any case, this analysis is not subject to mathematical laws.

I have no objection to this leap. I just thought you were making a different leap (from a critique of type theory to a critique of rigorous mathematics itself, both of which hide something behind them and do not capture it exactly).

And as a general rule, I agree with your philosophical imperialism.

Philosophical imperialism? I don't understand.

Not a good term. I meant to agree with the general idea that the place of philosophy has not been displaced as a result of any internal knowledge in a specific field. Both here regarding mathematics and in earlier threads where you argued for a philosophical critique (which corresponds with what I said about Böchler) of logic.