23 Jun 13
Originally posted by apathistAs I said before, given this problem nearly everyone tries to cheat, and jump out of the dimension.
There is about half of our universe there. Please lets try to avoid semantics?
So please tell me whether anyone has ever been to 91 degrees latitude south.
You are right of course, but your "if" doesn't work for me. After all, if there were no time before our universe began, then there was not enough time for it to ever happen.
Exactly. Therefore, talk of it 'happening' is nonsensical.
Nice, and I do think I understand your gist. But is minus one meters not smaller than 0 meters?
Can you name an object that is minus 1 metres on one side?
Sure, in mathematics we can jump out of a dimension, just as we quite happily use complex numbers to jump out of the real numbers. It can be quite useful if you want to avoid problems with zero, you simply go around it in the complex plane.
23 Jun 13
8 edits
Originally posted by twhiteheadWith that last note, how about we ask him:
As I said before, given this problem nearly everyone tries to cheat, and jump out of the dimension.
So please tell me whether anyone has ever been to 91 degrees latitude south.
[b]You are right of course, but your "if" doesn't work for me. After all, if there were no time before our universe began, then there was not enough time for it to ever happen. eful if you want to avoid problems with zero, you simply go around it in the complex plane.
What number of whole solid apples physically existing is less than zero whole solid apples physically existing?
-you cannot have a minus one whole solid apples physically existing!
we could also ask him simply; what positive number is less than zero? but that may be just slightly too contrived.
23 Jun 13
Originally posted by lemon limeWhat is stopping most people in the concept of time is this: when we talk about time starting and so forth, we are talking about LOCAL time, local in this case meaning our entire universe.
I think all we can say for certain is that if there was no time before it happened, then there was not enough time to prepare for it.
It is clear if there other universes, where we are living in a universe in a sea of universes, each one has its own local time clock which starts at local time zero for that universe and ends when whatever it is that ends a universe happens.
That bumps up the definition of time to a whole other level where there may be an infinite number of different time rates in a sea of universes and starting and stopping times for those universes.
23 Jun 13
Originally posted by KazetNagorraMy statement makes no sense if you take it out of context. apathist was making a point to twhitehead about semantics, by demonstrating how playing around with semantics can result in absurd statements. It was a valid point as well as amusing, so I joined in on the fun.
What does that even mean?
23 Jun 13
Originally posted by humyI think all we can say for certain is that if there was no time before it happened, then there was not enough time to prepare for it.
surely you don't believe that statement?
do you believe you can have p and ~p? -I hope not.
1. I (for example) did not exist at or before the beginning of time, therefore I could not have been there to prepare for it.
2. There wouldn't have been time to do anything before time began, because time did not exist before the beginning of time.
3. If I could have been there to make preparations before time began, there was nothing there I could use for making preparations. And if there was no time before time began then the question of making preparations is moot because there would have been no time to prepare for it.
23 Jun 13
9 edits
Originally posted by lemon limeNo, No, I was not referring to that earlier statement but this later one you made below and which I directly responded to:
[b]I think all we can say for certain is that if there was no time before it happened, then there was not enough time to prepare for it.
1. I (for example) did not exist at or before the beginning of time, therefore I could not have been there to prepare for it.
2. There wouldn't have been time to do anything before time began, because ...[text shortened]... uestion of making preparations is moot because there would have been no time to prepare for it.[/b]
"Illogical perhaps, but neverthe less true."
a statement can never be both illogical and true because you cannot have both p and ~p being true (where p, in logic, means a proposition i.e. a statement that can only be either true or false and where "~p" means "not p" ) .
That's why I directly responded to the above statement with "....do you believe you can have p and ~p? -I hope not."
23 Jun 13
3 edits
Originally posted by humy"a statement can never be both illogical and true"
No, No, I was not referring to that statement but this one you made and which I directly responded to:
"[b]Illogical perhaps, but neverthe less true."
a statement can never be both illogical and true because you cannot have p and ~p. That's why I responded to the above statement with "....do you believe you can have p and ~p? -I hope not."[/b]
A statement can be both logical and untrue, so I don't know why something couldn't be true just because someone is applying faulty logic.
I didn't say my statement was logical, but assuming someone could have been there to prepare for something happening (which we both agree is impossible) there would have been no time to prepare for it because time didn't exist until after it happened.
It's logically absurd to imply someone being there before anyone could be there or to imply time enough before time existed, but it's nevertheless true there was no time to prepare because 1. there was no time and 2. nothing to prepare and 3. no one to prepare for it.
23 Jun 13
5 edits
Originally posted by lemon lime
"a statement can never be both illogical and true"
A statement can be both logical and untrue, so I don't know why something couldn't be true just because someone is applying faulty logic.
I didn't say my statement was logical, but assuming someone could have been there to prepare for something happening (which we both agree is impossible) there wou [/i] because 1. there was no time and 2. nothing to prepare and 3. no one to prepare it.
A statement can be both logical and untrue,
That does not logically contradict what I said which is:
"a statement can never be both illogical and true"
This is because If I said “X is true and therefore Y is true” then this implies “Y is true BECAUSE X is true” and therefore, EVEN if the conclusion Y IS true, IF X does NOT logically imply Y (so the statement is illogical) then the statement “X is true and therefore Y is true” is NOT true!
-to clarify, this is because, if X does NOT logically imply Y, the statement “X is true and therefore Y is true” implies “Y is true BECAUSE X is true” which is NOT true EVEN IF Y itself IS true!
Fore any statement to be true, any conclusion it makes must be true AND any reasoning it has to justify such a conclusion must be sound logic and not illogic.
so I don't know why something couldn't be true just because someone is applying faulty logic.
the reason why is just as I stated above.
The rest of your post is invalid because of this logical error you have made.
23 Jun 13
Originally posted by humyThis is because If I said “X is true and therefore Y is true” then this implies “Y is true BECAUSE X is true”A statement can be both logical and untrue,
That does not logically contradict what I said which is:
"a statement can never be both illogical and true"
This is because If I said “X is true and therefore Y is true” then this implies “Y is true BECAUSE X is true” and therefore, EVEN if the conclusion Y IS true, IF X does NOT logically ...[text shortened]... ated above.
The rest of your post is invalid because of this logical error you have made.
No, "X is true and therefore Y is true" implies X=Y.
If X=T and Y=T then X=Y.
And if my original statement on this topic was a point about semantics and not about logic, then ignoring my point about semantics causes all of your reasoning to fall into the nearest black hole (where the sun don't shine).
23 Jun 13
7 edits
Originally posted by lemon lime
[b]This is because If I said “X is true and therefore Y is true” then this implies “Y is true BECAUSE X is true”
No, "X is true and therefore Y is true" implies X=Y.
If X=T and Y=T then X=Y.
And if my original statement on this topic was a point about semantics and not about logic, then ignoring my point about semantics causes all of your reasoning to fall into the nearest black hole (where the sun don't shine).[/b]
No, "X is true and therefore Y is true" implies X=Y.
NONSENSE! Let X = “all cats can run” and Y = “my cat has teeth”
then
“all cats have teeth” is true and therefore “my cat has teeth” is true
BUT, that does NOT mean that “all cats have teeth” = “my cat has teeth” !!!
what if my cat has teeth but there is another cat that has no teeth? then we have
X = false
and
Y = true
but then you cannot have X = Y without contradiction!
So, OBVIOUSLY “my cat has teeth” does NOT equate with “all cats have teeth” !
If “all cats have teeth” = “my cat has teeth”
then you should be able to swap X and Y around in ““all cats have teeth” is true and therefore “my cat has teeth” is true” so to give:
“my cat has teeth” is true and therefore “all cats have teeth” is true
-but this above is NOT true because one does NOT logically follow from the other!
So you make yet another logical error, this time for my new assertion that you said was false but is true i.e. this still stands:
If I said “X is true and therefore Y is true” then this implies “Y is true BECAUSE X is true”
(note if Y is true and “Y is true BECAUSE X is true” then this still does not exclude the possibility that Y can also be true for other reasons other than merely because X being true)
Also, my earlier statement still stands which was:
a statement can never be both illogical and true