 |
Yes I did. Nothing important there.Quote:
Originally Posted by Akoue
Numbers, sets of numbers, propositions, etc.? These are concepts and thoughts. Nothing real there.Quote:
Originally Posted by Akoue
No, there is logically NOTHING that is eternal. Why do you seem to have such a problem with that ?
:)
.
.
Really? Abstract entities aren't real? That's going even farther than the positivists did. (Of course, concepts and thoughts are real too: I'm having thoughts right now, and using concepts to do so. They sure seem pretty real.)Quote:
Originally Posted by Credendovidis
Let's take a simple proposition. "2+2=4". This is true. It is an a priori truth, so it isn't only contingently true--it is necessarily true. Is it not eternally true?
Mostly because it's false.Quote:
No, there is logically NOTHING that is eternal. Why do you seem to have such a problem with that ?
When you say "logically" I took you to be using it to refer to logic. But since no laws of logic militate against eternal existents, I guess you're using it the way Mr. Spock does on Star Trek, to mean something like "plausible". Am I mistaken?
Akoue,
Good question.
Live long and prosper,
Fred
I obviously referred to your previous statement, in which you postedQuote:
Originally Posted by Akoue
Numbers, sets of numbers, and propositions are concepts and thoughts. Nothing real there, as far as "eternal" is concerned. Unless of course you can provide any OSE for your suggestion that numbers, sets of numbers, and propositions are eternal.Quote:
Originally Posted by Akoue
It is our way to calculate. Why the sequence 1,2,3,4,5 ? Why not the sequence 1,3,2,5,4 ? Because we humans decide to use the first sequence. It is not a universal truth. And certainly not eternal - the (intermediate) subject here.Quote:
Originally Posted by Akoue
Yes you are. You are now desperately pointing at words. But the subject here is the concept of eternal.Quote:
Originally Posted by Akoue
Where is YOUR OSE that anything is or can be eternal? I provided the scientific reasons both matter and energy are NOT eternal.
From there it is logical to reject the concept "eternal" as meaningful.
:)
.
.
Cred,
I'll do as I please and Akoue is right and far more logical than you have been on this.
You are desperately resisting the fact that there are things eternal.
Sorry for you about that.
But believe as you wish as always.
Fred
The numbers 1 2 3 4 5 are just labels for the concept of 1 2 3 4 5. It doesn't matter if we labeled them "a s d f g or "! " £ $ %" they are still the numbers 1 2 3 4 5 (using our conventional labels for the sake of clarity). Daniel Dennett has a very interesting discussion about this in his book Dawin's Dangerous Idea.
He also mentions what Akoue mentions about 2+2=4 being a true.
On a side note if you haven't read that book already you should because I think you would really enjoy it based on your discussions on these boards.
templelane
Yes numbers can be written differently but the math remains true and the same.
2+2=4 has and will always be the same eternally even if it is written t + t = f.
Peace and kindness,
Fred
So mathematics is subjective, then? Why use it in doing physics? If it were purely a matter of convention, as you seem here to suggest, we couldn't rely upon it to deliver OSE. The mathematization of the sciences came about in the first place as a way to make them more rigorous. But no one thinks empirical science--which is *empirical*-- can ever be as rigorous as math and logic.Quote:
Originally Posted by Credendovidis
I'll also second templelane's seconding of Dan Dennett (who is no lover of platonism, by the way--he's a sententialist). You don't want to confuse the sign ("1", "2", "+") with the thing it signifies (the number one, the number two, the addition function).
Well, you're the one who keeps saying that it is "illogical" that anything be eternal. I've just pointed out that the claim violates no rule of logic. Whether it's true or false is another matter (which I've also addressed).Quote:
Yes you are. You are now desperately pointing at words. But the subject here is the concept of eternal.
I agree with you that neither matter nor energy is eternal. It doesn't follow from that that *nothing* is eternal. You see the difference, right?Quote:
Where is YOUR OSE that anything is or can be eternal? I provided the scientific reasons both matter and energy are NOT eternal.
From there it is logical to reject the concept "eternal" as meaningful.
Mathematics doesn't give us OSE; it gives us something even better, more rigorous. This is why I don't accept your assumption that OSE is the measure of all things epistemic. There is knowledge outside of science. We have access to mathematical knowledge, moral knowledge, aesthetic knowledge, perhaps (gasp!) even religious knowledge. If you want to be a skeptic about all of these, then you'd better have arguments to show that all knowledge is confined to science. And it won't do to beg the question of any or all of them by dogmatically asserting that they lack OSE since that's the standard for *scientific* knowledge, not for all knowledge. Many mathematicians find the sorts of things that count as evidence in science to be paltry compared with the rigor we find in logic and mathematics. The claims of science are only probabilistic, not apodictically certain.
So you aren't justified in your assertion that nothing is eternal. You can't even justify that claim by your own standard (OSE) because you cannot survey an infinite number of existents in a finite time. The most you are entitled to is the claim that you *believe* that nothing is eternal. Which, as I said in my first post, is on an epistemic par with Fred's claim that he *believes* that God is eternal.
Why all the bile? (Is it because you know you're on the losing end of the argument?)Quote:
Originally Posted by Credendovidis
Akoue.
He isn't losing the argument.
He lost it.
OSE is one thing but math and logic is another,
One is temporal the other is eternal.
If that is wrong then prove that math and logical are not eternal.
It can't be done with math or logic or OSE so some other way must be used or invented.
Peace and kindness,
Fred
Wow, I never expected this! Great stuff guys, try to keep it civil.
At any rate, you all seem to be saying that numbers can be expressed in different ways, what about equations?
Forexample: 2+4+8=14 or 2+4+8= 10+4
or 5*4+3-9= 100,014-100,000
So there for the logical and provable OSE here is? (I may mis some so please do fill in the blanks.)
1) the equation is equal on both sides.
2)there are different ways to EXPRESS the same answers/meanings.
3)Also, there is more than one way to get the answers.
4)The possibilities "maybe" infinate, since we could, "if we so choose" to, imagine and define the numbers forever. And even if we died, and could not finnish. That doesn't mean we still couldn't have kept going with it.
So, maybe we are all wrong, all right, and neither, and both. All and nothing. Feel free to tell me why that is not logical.
;):)
P.S. In this kind of discution, there are no winners or lossers. There can be, but I prefer to think that there are only possibilities. ;)
Kindof covers my don't you thing. ;)
All right, well I won't go so far as to say nothing is eternal. For the simple reason is we have no idea what started the fabric of our universe. For all I know our universe could have formed in a universe or multi-verse where the rules of that universe don't cause entropy. There really isn't any reason why the physical laws that are in our universe have to be in all universes. I only reject that god did only because god is a concept of faith not one of evidence. If there was evidence for it, I'd consider it but right now there is no more proof that god did than there is to say I did it.
That we do not know what started the universe is actually irrelevant towards eternity.Quote:
Originally Posted by michealb
This universe has certain "rules" that show that "eternal" is an empty and invalid proposition.
If there are other universes or multiverses is also irrelevant, as for all in this universe the rule is : this universe is it. Even if (repeat : IF) there would be an "outside" of our universe, we will never know, as we are bound to our space-time.
:)
.
.
michealb and Nestorian ,
There is plenty of logical evidence that God exists,
BUT... one can or will not accept it.
Many people have and many people have not.
AND in math there is an great indication of infinity.
There is a symbol for it and other indications such as pi what goes on infinitely. Even super computers have not been able to produce a repeat.
It is what caused Sagan to change his atheist attitude and he wrote a book about it.
The number of scientists who believe in God continues to grow according to a study made a few years ago.
I tied to goggle it but could not find the one I was looking for but came up with this to consider...
Sciencedude survey: Do O.C. scientists believe in God? - Sciencedude - OCRegister.com
By the way, Cred,eternal is not irrelevant to those who think and believe it is.
I may be so to those who BELIEVE it is.
Example: It is not to me.
Peace and kindness,
Fred
Dear FredQuote:
Originally Posted by arcura
With that statement you just proved that it is you who lost whatever you call "the argument".
1 - OSE is one - important - thing. It means Objective Supporting Evidence. Proof in simple English. Without OSE you have to base everything on BELIEF. For instance religion is based on BELIEF, because it lacks any format of OSE.
2 - Logic (the other "thing") is clear about proof : you can prove a positive suggestion , but proving a negative suggestion is impossible. So your "... prove that math and logical are not eternal ..." is a nonsensical demand (and you know that very well, as I have explained that to you umpteen times by now).
It is people like you who have to show that ''eternal'' is a valid concept. I do not have to show that what you CLAIM (but can't prove) to be valid is in fact invalid. I gave you the reasons nothing is eternal. You refuse to accept that , so it is up to you to prove your point.
3 - Eternal suggests an unlimited time. Both science and logic are clear : nothing is in reality eternal.
Eternal is a concept required within religion to explain that the deity was always there, and will always be there. Mainly because theists need - but can't - explain the origins of their deity.
:)
.
.
Fair enough. That seems perfectly reasonable.Quote:
Originally Posted by michealb
Cred even within our universe I don't think the big crunch theory has been ruled out yet as far as I know. If that proves to be correct our universe may have been in a state of expantion and contraction eternally. All I'm saying is that I wouldn't rule it out just yet I think there are more information.
I haven't seen anything that uses standard logic. All I have seen is people finding things they don't know the answer to saying god did it then say that is evidence. If you have something different I'd like to hear it.Quote:
There is plenty of logical evidence that God exists
How strange than that I NEVER have seen any OSE for "God's" existence...Quote:
Originally Posted by arcura
:)
.
.
We were discussing eternal / eternity , not Big Crunch or any other expansion suggestion.Quote:
Originally Posted by michealb
A Big Crunch was one of the possibilities, but since 1999 we know that the "expansion" of the universe seems to increase. But even with a Big Crunch there is no reason to assume a repeating process.
:)
.
.
| All times are GMT -7. The time now is 02:27 AM. |