Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 80 (8871 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 10-21-2018 8:50 AM
255 online now:
PaulK, Percy (Admin), Phat (AdminPhat) (3 members, 252 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: paradigm of types
Post Volume:
Total: 840,476 Year: 15,299/29,783 Month: 1,243/1,502 Week: 0/241 Day: 0/36 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev12
3
456
...
22NextFF
Author Topic:   A Simplified Proof That The Universe Cannot Be Explained
bluegenes
Member (Idle past 402 days)
Posts: 3119
From: U.K.
Joined: 01-24-2007


Message 31 of 330 (784304)
05-16-2016 10:59 AM
Reply to: Message 29 by Dr Adequate
05-16-2016 8:25 AM


Dr Adequate writes:

Huh?

Sorry. I somehow misread your post. If you mean that in a reality of nothing contingent, nothing would be necessary, that seems to be correct on the face of it if we allow reality to be a nothing. However, surely any reality is something and it's necessary that there is one, so there does seem to a contradiction in the proposition of "nothingness" as a reality.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 29 by Dr Adequate, posted 05-16-2016 8:25 AM Dr Adequate has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 32 by Dr Adequate, posted 05-16-2016 12:28 PM bluegenes has responded

  
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16036
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 32 of 330 (784306)
05-16-2016 12:28 PM
Reply to: Message 31 by bluegenes
05-16-2016 10:59 AM


However, surely any reality is something and it's necessary that there is one ...

Why?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 31 by bluegenes, posted 05-16-2016 10:59 AM bluegenes has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 34 by bluegenes, posted 05-16-2016 1:39 PM Dr Adequate has responded

  
Modulous
Member (Idle past 28 days)
Posts: 7789
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 33 of 330 (784308)
05-16-2016 1:37 PM
Reply to: Message 25 by Dr Adequate
05-16-2016 12:33 AM


Well of course entities exist in the reality that we are in. But I have demonstrated that they do not exist as a matter of logical necessity.

And yet I am none the wiser about whether actual necessary entities are real because you are inferring about things in your mind.

And to prove that the opposite was necessary, you would have to show that things couldn't be like that in an imaginary world.

I make no claims about an imaginary world.

In a situation where it is possible that something exists, can it also be possible that nothing exists?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 25 by Dr Adequate, posted 05-16-2016 12:33 AM Dr Adequate has not yet responded

  
bluegenes
Member (Idle past 402 days)
Posts: 3119
From: U.K.
Joined: 01-24-2007


Message 34 of 330 (784309)
05-16-2016 1:39 PM
Reply to: Message 32 by Dr Adequate
05-16-2016 12:28 PM


Dr.Adequate writes:

Why?

Why is it necessary? Because its opposite can't be real.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 32 by Dr Adequate, posted 05-16-2016 12:28 PM Dr Adequate has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 35 by Dr Adequate, posted 05-16-2016 2:25 PM bluegenes has responded

  
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16036
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 35 of 330 (784310)
05-16-2016 2:25 PM
Reply to: Message 34 by bluegenes
05-16-2016 1:39 PM


Why is it necessary? Because its opposite can't be real.

I concede that unreality can't be real.

Nonexistence, on the other hand, can.

If someone told you that unicorns must exist because the unreality of unicorns can't be real, would you buy it?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 34 by bluegenes, posted 05-16-2016 1:39 PM bluegenes has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 36 by Percy, posted 05-16-2016 2:48 PM Dr Adequate has responded
 Message 38 by bluegenes, posted 05-16-2016 3:23 PM Dr Adequate has responded

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 17748
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.6


Message 36 of 330 (784312)
05-16-2016 2:48 PM
Reply to: Message 35 by Dr Adequate
05-16-2016 2:25 PM


Dr Adequate writes:

If someone told you that unicorns must exist because the unreality of unicorns can't be real, would you buy it?

Maybe it would help if we drew a distinction between things that are tangible, real, have existence, etc., and things that are ideas or concepts, which can be true or false or anywhere in between. Then we could call the unreality of unicorns "true" rather than "real." This might avoid the difficulty of somehow incorporating into our worldview that existence includes all ideas that are false, including those not yet thought of, or even ever thought of.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 35 by Dr Adequate, posted 05-16-2016 2:25 PM Dr Adequate has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 37 by Dr Adequate, posted 05-16-2016 3:12 PM Percy has acknowledged this reply

    
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16036
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 37 of 330 (784315)
05-16-2016 3:12 PM
Reply to: Message 36 by Percy
05-16-2016 2:48 PM


Quite. Things exist or don't exist, propositions are true or untrue.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 36 by Percy, posted 05-16-2016 2:48 PM Percy has acknowledged this reply

  
bluegenes
Member (Idle past 402 days)
Posts: 3119
From: U.K.
Joined: 01-24-2007


Message 38 of 330 (784316)
05-16-2016 3:23 PM
Reply to: Message 35 by Dr Adequate
05-16-2016 2:25 PM


Dr. Adequate writes:

I concede that unreality can't be real.

Nonexistence, on the other hand, can.

Non-existence can't exist itself, making the existence of existence a necessity.

Dr. Adequate writes:

If someone told you that unicorns must exist because the unreality of unicorns can't be real, would you buy it?

No. But what actually exists is a state of no unicorns, or a reality of no unicorns. Unicorns are contingent, so you can have a unicorn or no unicorn reality. Because we say casually "unicorns don't exist" doesn't mean we've actually pulled non-existence itself into existence, merely that the current state of existence doesn't include them. We can't do that for reality and existence themselves, as their negations can't be real or exist.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 35 by Dr Adequate, posted 05-16-2016 2:25 PM Dr Adequate has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 39 by Dr Adequate, posted 05-16-2016 4:17 PM bluegenes has responded

  
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16036
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 39 of 330 (784318)
05-16-2016 4:17 PM
Reply to: Message 38 by bluegenes
05-16-2016 3:23 PM


Non-existence can't exist itself ...

Can the non-existence of unicorns exist?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 38 by bluegenes, posted 05-16-2016 3:23 PM bluegenes has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 41 by Percy, posted 05-16-2016 5:15 PM Dr Adequate has responded
 Message 51 by bluegenes, posted 05-17-2016 5:23 AM Dr Adequate has not yet responded

  
nano
Member
Posts: 107
Joined: 09-25-2012


Message 40 of 330 (784320)
05-16-2016 5:10 PM
Reply to: Message 23 by jar
05-15-2016 10:42 PM


But you are assuming that the explanation must be logical and that the first cause had to be caused? Other than your unsupported assertions is there any evidence the first cause had to be caused?

Logically there can be no explanation because there is no first cause. There is only a first thing and it is uncaused. That is the point of the proof.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 23 by jar, posted 05-15-2016 10:42 PM jar has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 42 by Percy, posted 05-16-2016 5:17 PM nano has responded
 Message 44 by jar, posted 05-16-2016 8:08 PM nano has acknowledged this reply

    
Percy
Member
Posts: 17748
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.6


Message 41 of 330 (784321)
05-16-2016 5:15 PM
Reply to: Message 39 by Dr Adequate
05-16-2016 4:17 PM


Dr Adequate writes:

Can the non-existence of unicorns exist?

It's hard to stay in sync in discussions like this. I thought we agreed when you said, "Things exist or don't exist, propositions are true or untrue," but if your question about "the non-existence of unicorns" implies it's a thing rather than a proposition then I probably misunderstood you.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 39 by Dr Adequate, posted 05-16-2016 4:17 PM Dr Adequate has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 43 by Dr Adequate, posted 05-16-2016 5:45 PM Percy has acknowledged this reply

    
Percy
Member
Posts: 17748
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.6


Message 42 of 330 (784322)
05-16-2016 5:17 PM
Reply to: Message 40 by nano
05-16-2016 5:10 PM


nano writes:

There is only a first thing and it is uncaused.

But the lack of a cause doesn't imply a lack of an explanation.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 40 by nano, posted 05-16-2016 5:10 PM nano has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 60 by nano, posted 05-17-2016 4:06 PM Percy has responded

    
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16036
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 43 of 330 (784324)
05-16-2016 5:45 PM
Reply to: Message 41 by Percy
05-16-2016 5:15 PM


It's hard to stay in sync in discussions like this. I thought we agreed when you said, "Things exist or don't exist, propositions are true or untrue," but if your question about "the non-existence of unicorns" implies it's a thing rather than a proposition then I probably misunderstood you.

No, I'm implying that it would be silly for that to be a thing.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 41 by Percy, posted 05-16-2016 5:15 PM Percy has acknowledged this reply

  
jar
Member
Posts: 30920
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 1.7


Message 44 of 330 (784325)
05-16-2016 8:08 PM
Reply to: Message 40 by nano
05-16-2016 5:10 PM


Logically there can be no explanation because there is no first cause. There is only a first thing and it is uncaused. That is the point of the proof.

But there can be an explanation; for example "The first cause has no prior cause." would be an explanation. "It is turtles all the way down." is an explanation. "Brahma slept and dreamed." is an explanation.


Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 40 by nano, posted 05-16-2016 5:10 PM nano has acknowledged this reply

Replies to this message:
 Message 45 by Dr Adequate, posted 05-16-2016 9:25 PM jar has responded

  
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16036
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 45 of 330 (784329)
05-16-2016 9:25 PM
Reply to: Message 44 by jar
05-16-2016 8:08 PM


But there can be an explanation; for example "The first cause has no prior cause." would be an explanation.

That wouldn't be an explanation, just an observation.

"It is turtles all the way down." is an explanation.

How do you explain all the turtles?

"Brahma slept and dreamed." is an explanation.

Why is there Brahma?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 44 by jar, posted 05-16-2016 8:08 PM jar has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 47 by jar, posted 05-16-2016 10:11 PM Dr Adequate has responded

  
Prev12
3
456
...
22NextFF
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2018