Author:
Wade A. Tisthammer
|
[
Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
Previous Message
]
Date Posted: 04/29/04 12:47pm
In reply to:
Damoclese
's message, "Hiatus over" on 04/28/04 6:53pm
>>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
Except our universe clearly does not exist outside of time. We are here right now. So again, you haven't come up with any real alternatives.
>>>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.
It does in one sense of its definition. The "past" is all that time before the present.
>>>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.
Again, why abandon logic?
>>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 more than "feel" that 2 + 2 = 4, I more than "feel" that hairless men can't have hair. I perceive it logically.
>>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).
Assuming by "work" you mean be "sound," then yes it is the only way the argument can fail to be sound.
>It could be that the
>argument is simply fed imperfect information.
In which the only possible result of its failure to be sound would be a false premise.
>or that logic simply has limitations
In regards to how a valid argument can fail to be sound, that is logically impossible.
>>>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.
Some necessary truths are easy to spot, e.g. the only way a valid argument can fail to be sound is if it has at least one false premise.
>>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.
Perhaps it makes little sense to you, nonetheless it violates no logical laws.
>>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.
Infinite means being greater than any preassigned value however large. Now how does this beg what question?
>I find the application of
>"infinite past" to be even more slippery.
An infinite past means the universe is of infinite age. Again, how does this beg what question?
>>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?
Logicians have already dealt with statements like those. The above is not a valid proposition. For instance, "You there!" is neither true nor false, but is vacuous in terms of truth-values. The same with your sentence. And again, no laws of logic are violated.
>>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 didn't say there were not any limits to what could be proven logically. Nonetheless, the only way the Tristram Shandy argument can fail to be sound is if there is a false premise. That can be proven.
[
Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
Previous Message
]
|
Feedback: 