Originally posted by humyYes, but how many teeth does he/she have? If your cat has only two tooths it would fit with the definition of your cat having teeth, even though he/she is only two teeth short of being toothless.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 te ...[text shortened]... possibility that Y can also be true for other reasons other than merely because X being true)
Re: there wasn't enough time to prepare for it
Originally posted by KazetNagorra
What does that even mean?
"My 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."
Originally posted by lemon lime
Yes, but how many teeth does he/she have? If your cat has only two tooths it would fit with the definition of your cat having teeth, even though he/she is only two teeth short of being toothless.
Re: there wasn't enough time to prepare for it
Originally posted by KazetNagorra
[b]What does that even mean?
"My statement makes n ...[text shortened]... lt in absurd statements. It was a valid point as well as amusing, so I joined in on the fun."[/b]
Yes, but how many teeth does he/she have? If your cat has only two tooths it would fit with the definition of your cat having teeth, even though he/she is only two teeth short of being toothless.
relevance?
I have now have clearly pointed out two logical errors you have made.
Originally posted by twhitehead
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. ...[text shortened]... eful if you want to avoid problems with zero, you simply go around it in the complex plane.
So please tell me whether anyone has ever been to 91 degrees latitude south.
I get the point. I don't see how it affects my point (about the uber-reality).
Disclaimer: I don't get a lot of time lately to research or go online or to pay close attention, so apologies if you need to repeat anything. But I think my op point is worth looking at. It doesn't make sense that all existence popped into being from nothing.
Btw, an aside, I know about virtual particles, so you might think that would give me a clue how everything could, conceivably, come from nothing. But it doesn't work for me since after all, it takes an entire existing reality in order to produce any virtual particles. (I believe virtual particles are mysterious only when the thinker is addicted to reductionism. Spice the thinking with some holism and the mystery sort of disappears.)
Originally posted by lemon lime
You are equating logic with truth. Even if it starts with a true premise a true conclusion in logic isn't necessarily a truth reflected in reality.
Even if it starts with a true premise a true conclusion in logic isn't necessarily a truth reflected in reality.
what?
Explain why
a statement can never be both illogical and true
is false...
Originally posted by humyWell then how many teeth does your cat have? What proof do you have to show your cat is not toothless?Yes, but how many teeth does he/she have? If your cat has only two tooths it would fit with the definition of your cat having teeth, even though he/she is only two teeth short of being toothless.
relevance?
I have now have clearly pointed out two logical errors you have made.
Originally posted by humyIf a statement begins with a faulty premise then flawless logic cannot guarantee a false conclusion or a true conclusion. The same goes with a true premise. Logic is a closed system that can generally lead to the truth of a matter, but logic is not the ultimate arbiter of truth.Even if it starts with a true premise a true conclusion in logic isn't necessarily a truth reflected in reality.
what?
Explain why
[b]a statement can never be both illogical and true
is false...[/b]
This is beginning to drift over into a philosophical argument about what truth is or isn't. I don't think we need to go there when talking strictly about logic, and what logic is able (or not able) to do.
Originally posted by apathistIf time and space started at the big bang, then it is illogical to say the big bang started somewhere. Just as illogical as saying Southness starts at 91 degrees South, or length starts at minus 1.
I get the point. I don't see how it affects my point (about the uber-reality).
It doesn't make sense that all existence popped into being from nothing.
An I fully agree. My point was that if the 'nothing' in question is as much nothing as the nothing South of the South Pole, then one shouldn't even suggest that all existence popped into being from nothing.
If however the big bang was not the beginning of time, then it did not pop into existence from nothing and there presumably was a somewhere that it happened.
Btw, an aside, I know about virtual particles, so you might think that would give me a clue how everything could, conceivably, come from nothing. But it doesn't work for me since after all, it takes an entire existing reality in order to produce any virtual particles.
Yes, the virtual particles explanation is only valid if there was preexisting spacetime - which may have been the case, but is not correctly described as 'nothing' and your OP would be correct.
I must remind you though that your second post said you support the spacetime started with the Big Bang hypothesis:
Everything, including time and space, began with that singular event.
Which contradicts your OP.
Originally posted by sonhouseIt's difficult enough trying to make intergalactic calls to aliens who never return our calls, but must we now consider the possibility of making intermultiuniversal calls to various dimensional time zones?
What 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.
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 fo ...[text shortened]... different time rates in a sea of universes and starting and stopping times for those universes.
Originally posted by humyIn predicate logic, a statement such as "all cats have teeth" would be written differently (I can't write the syntax here, but look it up if you're interested).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 te ...[text shortened]... r statement still stands which was:
[b]a statement can never be both illogical and true[/b]
A statement can be both illogical and true, for example:
All cows are mammals,
therefore,
grass is green.
Both the premise and the conclusion are true, but one does not follow logically from the other.
To the big bang (BB) deniers:
Not everyone who accepts the fact of the BB thinks it was necessarily the start of space and time because there are many scientific variations of theory on this and science has not yet told us conclusively once and for all exactly which theory is correct.
But, IF the BB was the start of space and time then that does NOT mean “everything came from nothing”'
That is because if that is correct then “everything” didn't 'come' from 'nothing' NOR 'something' because “everything” didn't “come” but rather the start of everything is just a causeless brute fact.
To argue that if the BB was the beginning of space and time then it couldn't happen because it couldn't have a start because “something cannot 'come' from nothing” is like saying that the Earth cannot exist because it cannot exist from its north pole all the way to its south pole because no part of it is further than its north pole which means you cannot define its 'start' there (or anywhere) because it cannot 'start' at its north pole because “something cannot 'come' from nothing” and there is 'nothing' existing as the solid Earth further north than its north pole -in both cases the flaw in the reasoning is that it didn't 'come' i.e. it didn't 'come' from 'nothing' NOR 'something'!
The irony is that even if space and time cannot have a definable start because it never had a start, even if, hypothetically, you could somehow prove that by argument, that would do absolutely nothing to disprove the BB theory! All that would mean is that the correct version of the BB theory would be one were it wasn't the beginning of space and time.
So all this flawed argument by the BB deniers against the BB theory because they say it cannot be the start of space and time is inevitably completely futile. In fact, even if, hypothetically, the BB deniers were ever to miraculously come up with an argument that PROVES that the BB couldn't be the start of space and time, then, not only would they have still completely failed miserably to disprove the BB, they would have done the science of cosmology and BB theory a huge benefit and advance by narrowing down which version of the theories of the BB is the correct one! And then this would strengthen and NOT weaken the case for the BB!
Originally posted by KazetNagorraI may be wrong but I just assumed that for a statement to be 'true', both its premise and its conclusion AND what it says/implies how you should rationally obtain its conclusion from its premise must be true?
In predicate logic, a statement such as "all cats have teeth" would be written differently (I can't write the syntax here, but look it up if you're interested).
A statement can be both illogical and true, for example:
All cows are mammals,
therefore,
grass is green.
Both the premise and the conclusion are true, but one does not follow logically from the other.
so I would have said:
All cows are mammals,
therefore,
grass is green.
is false?
If not, I humbly stand corrected and I was not using predicate logic but some other kind of logic (of my own?).
I tried googling this to check this but got nowhere.