quote:
Freudian Slip! He meant to say "poof," but he said "proof." It kind of changes the entire meaning of what he was trying to say, doesn't it?
The F slip may better apply to the poof being more plausable than the proof. The poof applies to an ex nehilo premise, while proof applies to its subsequent stage only. Before we can rationalise and explain something, it has to be existant, while that same mode of proof cannot explain or ratify the existant's origins: it will always end in a brick wall.
Analogy: a car can be proved to be made via proof, by following all the imprints from car to car maker, car factory, to metal, to forces and equations. However, this same proof cannot apply to where the forces, equations, metals, man - come from. There is no alternative to the poof factor in the foremost first factor instant. IOW, we cannot use the components of the universe to explain the universe - because this would violate the finite premise of the universe: all the components are also finite, and never existed pre-universe. This does not contradict any science or maths factors, for the same reason: the science and maths only apply post-universe, and these cannot measure what does not exist.
Edited by IamJoseph, : No reason given.
™ Version 4.2
