On Monday, October 29, 2018 at 5:54:10 AM UTC+1, Brent wrote: > > > > 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? >
If our universe is defined in such a way that objects contained in it cannot exceed a certain speed limit, then it would be logically inconsistent with this definition of the universe if it contained objects that can exceed such a speed limit. > > > > >> 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. > The theory explains why there is something instead of nothing. If it's vacuous, so much the better; it means it's necessarily true. > Whatever is observed is, by definition, logically consistent. > And it's an obvious fact that whatever is observed is what it is and is not what it is not. Remember when it was "logically inconsistent" for a particle to be two > places at the same time...then, OOPS!...quantum mechanics came along. > *You* should remember that next time you claim with confidence that something is or is not logically consistent (like that pink elephant). > 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. > No, there can be no non-triangles in the set of all triangles. Just as number 3 cannot be number 4. -- 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.
