On 10/28/2018 7:54 PM, Tomas Pales wrote:
On Monday, October 29, 2018 at 3:17:58 AM UTC+1, Brent wrote:
On 10/28/2018 5:18 PM, Tomas Pales wrote:
On Monday, October 29, 2018 at 12:33:23 AM UTC+1, Brent wrote:
There is no logical inconsistency in a flying pink elephant
existing right now in my den beside me. But don't see one.
First, it is not clear whether the existence of a flying pink
elephant in your den is consistent with the rest of this
universe. Many things may seem consistent while they are actually
inconsistent. Before the 20th century it seemed consistent with
the laws of our universe that there was no speed limit or that
the energy of a particle could vary continuously. Now we know
that these phenomena are inconsistent in our universe and that's
why they don't exist here.
You don't seem to know the difference between /logically
consistent/="not entailing a contradiction by the rules of
inference" and /nomologically consistent/ = "not contrary to the
laws of nature". It is still /logically/ consistent for a
particle to be faster than light.
Not in a universe where faster than light speed is prohibited.
What does it mean to say FTL is logically prohibited?
The problem with trying to use nomological consistency to imply
existence is that we don't know the possible laws of nature and
that observation trumps theory as to what is nomologically
possible. So no matter what you think are the laws of nature, if
you see something contrary to them it just means they are wrong.
It doesn't matter whether we know what the laws of the universe are.
Whatever the laws are, if they prohibit something then it cannot
happen, otherwise there would be a logical inconsistency.
But that's why your "theory" is completely vacuous. Whatever is observed
is, by definition, logically consistent. Remember when it was
"logically inconsistent" for a particle to be two places at the same
time...then, OOPS!...quantum mechanics came along.
Imagine a universe that is the set of all triangles. That means that a
law of this universe determines that only triangles can be members of
this universe. Surely it would be a logical inconsistency if a circle
was a member of this universe.
No. It would mean you were mistaken that this universe had only triangles.
Brent
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to [email protected].
To post to this group, send email to [email protected].
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
