| Subject: Ganders |
Author:
Damoclese
|
[
Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
Previous Message
]
Date Posted: 04/15/04 5:36pm
In reply to:
Wade A. Tisthammer
's message, "What other alternatives are there?" on 04/15/04 11:37am
>
>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.
>
>In any case, even if the universe does exist outside
>of time (and all observations would appear to indicate
>that time does exist in our universe) it
>doesn't affect the veracity of the premises or
>conclusion, since the universe would still not be
>infinitely old.
It might as well be.
>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. I'm not aware of any rule that says the past especially in the beginning, has to traverse anything to get to now. It's just an inference based on how we experience time.
>>
>>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. I don't know where it breaks down, but it remains possible that it COULD and that's enough.
>
>
>
>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 particularly when there are gradations and other possibilities.
>
>So, the past would still be infinite regardless of
>what flavor you choose.
You surely have the universe in a tidy box.
>
>The universe does have to obey things like the law of
>excluded middle, the law of noncontradiction etc.
It does? According to whom and on what authority? Perhaps you'd care to explain the double slit experiments with light quanta using such a framework.
Light as you'll recollect, effectively controls time.
gain, what basis do you have for
>>>your accusations?
>>
>>Here's a syllogism for you. Humans have biases. You
>>are a human. Therefore you have biases.
>
>You seem to be saying that every human (including me)
>has biases. That's nice. But that doesn't at all
>prove that I'm being “intellectually dishonest,” that
>I'm “egocentrically self-righteous” or anything of the
>sort.
I didn't say it did. I said it proved that you're biased. Which premise are you disagreeing with? Remember, the only way to reject the argument is by rejecting one of the premises.
>>Well of course I am because you haven't done much in
>>the line of proving your defintions.
>
>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'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?
>
>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. 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. The trick is to know when to apply logic, and when logic isn't going to work.
So I'm guessing you are going to admit that you're biased via my proof above. Right? I did construct a logical proof after all. If you're going to reject it, you're going to have to tackle a particular premise a la your own rules.
[
Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
Previous Message
]
| |
Feedback: 