Author:
Wade A. Tisthammer
|
[
Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
Previous Message
]
Date Posted: 04/28/04 12:14pm
In reply to:
Damoclese
's message, "Ganders" on 04/15/04 5:36pm
>>
>>I think you need to explain your model in more detail
>>here. What is it?
>
>Universe and a time dimension with the provision that
>the time division can inflate or collapse at any
>point. In other words, the universe does not depend on
>time for its existence, but rather the other way
>around.
That still isn't an alternative to whether the universe is of finite or infinite age.
>>Yes, the problem is that none of them affect the
>>veracity of the premises. Whether the universe is
>>infinitely old or not, whether we're talking about a
>>past that is linear or loopy, whether it has
>>intermittent blotches of temporal limbo etc. doesn't
>>matter. It doesn’t affect the veracity of any of my
>>premises. If the universe is of infinite age,
>>there have been an infinite number of years being
>>traversed before the present regardless of what flavor
>>of an infinite past you use.
>
>Could be.
It is. Again, if you wish to attack the soundness of the argument the only rational way to do so is to attack a premise.
>I'm not aware of any rule that says the past
>especially in the beginning, has to traverse anything
>to get to now.
There is logic. By virtue of what the word past means we had to traverse the past to get to the present, else it wouldn't be the past.
>>>Sure there are. Time itself could break down to name
>>>one.
>>
>>Again, I think you need to explain yourself. What is
>>"name one"? Where does time break down? If time
>>does break down at some point, would it not
>>still be finite? (Either the universe begins to exist
>>or it does not.)
>
>my my. But you are fond of either or fallacies.
This is not an either/or fallacy. This is the law of excluded middle. An either/or fallacy can only committed when there are more alternatives, but you haven't presented any here.
>>Only if there are more alternatives. There doesn't
>>appear to be any here. Either the universe begins to
>>exist or it does not (law of excluded middle). The
>>past being finite vs. infinite seems to logically
>>follow from this. I don’t see any alternatives, and
>>your “time breaking down” concept is a little too
>>unclear.
>
>The law of excluded middle also happens to be an
>either or fallacy
No, it is not a fallacy any more than the law of noncontradiction is a fallacy. Why abandon logic? Like Mr. Spock, I’m a big fan of logic, and I won’t abandon it if there’s no clear reason to do so.
>>So, the past would still be infinite regardless of
>>what flavor you choose.
>
>You surely have the universe in a tidy box.
I don't claim to understand everything about the universe, but I do think there are some things that we can know. I think the Tristram Shandy argument works, but if it doesn't there has to be a false premise somewhere, and that does not appear to be the case.
>>The universe does have to obey things like the law of
>>excluded middle, the law of noncontradiction etc.
>
>It does?
Yes.
>According to whom and on what authority?
Logic. Some things are necessary truths.
>Perhaps you'd care to explain the double slit
>experiments with light quanta using such a framework.
None of those observations violate any of the above laws of logic. Wave/particle duality is not logically impossible, but some things are.
>>What definitions? If you don't understand a term just
>>ask me and I'll be happy to explain it. (Note: I
>>did rationally support each premise.)
>
>You've defined them, but your definitions beg the
>question.
I think you need to explain yourself a bit more. Which definitions beg what question and how do they do so?
>>I'm sane and I don't think so. The logical way
>>to attack a deductively valid argument is to attack a
>>premise, but you have a habit of not doing that here.
>
>I noticed you didn't attack a premise above. Why was
>that exactly?
I never said I don't have any biases.
>>But that denial appears illogical. I am correct in
>>that the only way an argument can fail to be sound is
>>if one of the premises is false. (Remember, soundness
>>= validity + true premises). So if a deductively
>>valid argument is not sound, not having true premises
>>is the only logically possible way it is unsound. I
>>don't see how you can rationally deny this.
>
>Because rationality breaks down in extreme situations.
Hardcore logic does not breakdown under any situations. I see no reason to abandon logic here. You've given no reason to believe why the above logic (based on definitions, even Hume would agree that the only way a valid argument can be unsound is if it has one or more false premises) should not be accepted.
>The existence of time is pretty damned extreme. Godel,
>who I've mentioned before, and who you seem to avoid
>like the plague, pretty much destroyed axiomatic
>systems always being logically consistent.
No he did not. Godel's incompleteness theorem does not destroy a system being consistent, it only says that within any consistent logical system there are going to be some propositions that can't be proven true or false. And I’m not disputing that.
[
Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
Previous Message
]
|
Feedback: 