[Ham]
> I'm looking for logical validation of a principle ("Nothing comes from
> nothing") that is just as true to the empiricist as it is to the philosopher.
> (I do expect to find it, however, perhaps under a different category of
> logical principles.)
But if it really is an EMPIRICAL principle, then it doesn't have (nor do you
want it to have) a LOGICAL validation. What gets validated logically are
INFERENCES (i.e., connections between statements or between
premises & conclusions.) The only single statements that logic deals
with are tautologies & self-contradictions. No respectable logic book
will treat "Nothing comes from nothing" as a tautology. If it did then
that tautology will be worthless as an empirical statement.
[Ham]
> cosmologists "have not got a clue" as to the source of the Big Bang
Exactly. Cosmologists "have not got a clue" as to whether the source
of the Big Bang is something or nothing (= has no source).
[Ham]
> The law of conservation of energy states that energy may neither be
> created nor destroyed; therefore the sum of all the energies in a system
> is a constant. Does this mean that if we look long enough, we'll find a
> system that violates this law?
No, but it does mean that if we don't find the sum of all the energies in a
system is a constant, we'll keep looking.
Craig
Moq_Discuss mailing list
Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
Archives:
http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/
http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
