On 10/29/2018 3:09 AM, Tomas Pales wrote:
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.
Which just an instance of the general, vacuous proposition that whatever
exists has a consistent description. Which is not the same as it's
converse.
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.
It doesn't "explain" it; it merely asserts it. And what ever empirical
evidence seems to contradict it is countered as being otherwise in other
universes. So it is completely empty.
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).
You accepted that it was contradicted by the evidence - so you
hypothesized another universe to save your "theory". They people who
discovered quantum mechanics did it in this world.
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.
Then you were mistaken to hypothesize a circle in that universe. I was
accepting your premise "If a circle was a member of this universe." and
drawing the empirical conclusion. You're trying to posit two
hypotheses that are in contradiction and say that it makes the second
one false. From a contradiction alone there is no way to say which
clause is false.
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.
