| Subject: Hiatus over |
Author:
Damoclese
|
[
Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
Previous Message
]
Date Posted: 04/28/04 6:53pm
In reply to:
Wade A. Tisthammer
's message, "Why abandon logic?" on 04/28/04 12:14pm
>>
>
>That still isn't an alternative to whether the
>universe is of finite or infinite age.
If the universe exists out of time (one choice) then it can't be said to be infinite (another choice) or finite (another choice yet) strictly speaking. Each of these three outcomes is distinctly different, allbeit subtlely.
>
>
>>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.
I don't think the word "past" has any immediate connection to the present on its own. If I speak of the past, I'm talking about something that has already occured. I'm not making any sort of statement about the present by virtue of talking of the past any more than I'd be making a statement about the past by mentioning the present. The words stand perfectally well on their own, without any reference to what I must or must not do to get to now. THAT is a metaphysical argument, and not one of pure semantics.
>
>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.
I'm counting three distinct possibilities for the state of the universe. Two temporally related and one not. How about you?
>
>>
>>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.
More often than not, I suspect they both are. Having imperfect information makes it pretty easy to understand why.
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.
Then you aren't operating off logic, but feelings about logic at least initially. There really isn't a whole lot to argue about when it comes down to feelings.
>
>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.
That's another application of an either/or fallacy. If it doesn't work, it isn't necessarily because of a false premise (one option). It could be that the argument is simply fed imperfect information. (a second option) or that logic simply has limitations and that the origins of the time side of the universe happen to be one of those limitations (a third option).
>
>>According to whom and on what authority?
>
>Logic. Some things are necessary truths.
You are awfully quick to turn things into necessary truths for someone who seems to espouse logic so eagerly. You should already know that logic is only as good as its weakest assumption or "necessary truth". As a result, you shouldn't be quite so wreckless with asserting such things, unless you want to cheapen that which you seem to hold dear in the first place.
>None of those observations violate any of the above
>laws of logic. Wave/particle duality is not logically
>impossible, but some things are.
Wave particle duality makes little sense. Pure logic would necessitate something either being particle or wave, not both. I suspect the only reason you say it isn't logically impossible is because you're working backwards from observation in this particular instance and justifying that which appears to be logically absurd.
>
>I think you need to explain yourself a bit more.
>Which definitions beg what question and how do they do
>so?
We've been over this, but one thing I find questionable is the slippery defintion of the word "infinite" in this argument. I find the application of "infinite past" to be even more slippery. A limitless amount of years as a definition for such a thing begs the question of what it would mean precisely for a past to be infinite in the first place.
>
>I never said I don't have any biases.
I guess I'm glad we agree then.
>
>>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.
Hardcore logic DOES break down. Here's an example. This sentence is false. Now what?
>
>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.
Which in turn, undermines a system being logically consistent because there is a limit to which it can be proven logically. I suggest you confer Russell's endeavor to show that mathematics was purely logically consistent if you need a tangible example of what I'm talking about.
[
Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
Previous Message
]
| |
Feedback: 