On Monday, October 29, 2018 at 4:54:10 AM UTC, 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? > > > > >> 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. >
*Haven't you read Bruce's recent analysis and mine independently last summer, that what you claim is based on a fallacious interpretation of a superposition? Since one can decompose and represent a wf in many different bases, the assertion that the system the wf represents as its state is physically one or another basis makes no sense. Nor, of course, that it is simultaneously in the component states when the components depend on the basis chosen. AG* > > > 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.
