Philosophy Now Forum

Speakpigeon wrote: ↑Sat Mar 16, 2019 7:00 pm

Atla wrote: ↑Sat Mar 16, 2019 6:50 pm

Speakpigeon wrote: ↑Sat Mar 16, 2019 6:37 pm
You're contradicting yourself. If it's not impossible, then it's possible, and if' it's possible, then it's logically possible, and if it's logically possible, then it's not illogical. QED.
EB

Umm no. You say: if' it's possible, then it's logically possible.
What if the world isn't logical?

The only way to falsify the implication that if' it's possible, then it's logically possible, is by being illogical. But then you don't need to assume the world is illogical since you're being illogical yourself.
You seem to be confused by the fact that if it's logically possible maybe it's still not physically possible, which is true. But the reverse is not true. To make it true, you need to be illogical yourself, which maybe you are.
EB

Umm no. You are still applying logic to illogicality here, so on another level you are still assuming that the world is logical.

Atla wrote: ↑Sat Mar 16, 2019 7:06 pm

Speakpigeon wrote: ↑Sat Mar 16, 2019 7:00 pm

Atla wrote: ↑Sat Mar 16, 2019 6:50 pm Umm no. You say: if' it's possible, then it's logically possible.
What if the world isn't logical?

The only way to falsify the implication that if' it's possible, then it's logically possible, is by being illogical. But then you don't need to assume the world is illogical since you're being illogical yourself.
You seem to be confused by the fact that if it's logically possible maybe it's still not physically possible, which is true. But the reverse is not true. To make it true, you need to be illogical yourself, which maybe you are.
EB

Umm no. You are still applying logic to illogicality here, so on another level you are still assuming that the world is logical.

I don't assume anything. I'm just myself a logical being. I also don't think it's even meaningful to talk of the world as logical or illogical. The world is what it is and I have no idea what that is. However, I have no doubt that my own mind is logical. And it's you who introduced the question of logicality, not me. Still, if you can provide a consistent explanation as to what it means for the world to be illogical, you're welcome.
EB

Speakpigeon wrote: ↑Sat Mar 16, 2019 8:52 pm

Atla wrote: ↑Sat Mar 16, 2019 7:06 pm

Speakpigeon wrote: ↑Sat Mar 16, 2019 7:00 pm
The only way to falsify the implication that if' it's possible, then it's logically possible, is by being illogical. But then you don't need to assume the world is illogical since you're being illogical yourself.
You seem to be confused by the fact that if it's logically possible maybe it's still not physically possible, which is true. But the reverse is not true. To make it true, you need to be illogical yourself, which maybe you are.
EB

Umm no. You are still applying logic to illogicality here, so on another level you are still assuming that the world is logical.

I don't assume anything. I'm just myself a logical being. I also don't think it's even meaningful to talk of the world as logical or illogical. The world is what it is and I have no idea what that is. However, I have no doubt that my own mind is logical. And it's you who introduced the question of logicality, not me. Still, if you can provide a consistent explanation as to what it means for the world to be illogical, you're welcome.
EB

But consistency is logical. I'm simply saying that the world might not be logical, so something non-logical like infinite linear time might be possible as well.

If we stick to a logical picture of the world, then infinite linear time is impossible and the only solution I know of is a closed loop spacetime (which I think is probably the case).

Atla wrote: ↑Sat Mar 16, 2019 9:07 pm But consistency is logical. I'm simply saying that the world might not be logical, so something non-logical like infinite linear time might be possible as well.

Oh, OK.
Except that the idea of an infinite linear time isn't illogical.

Atla wrote: ↑Sat Mar 16, 2019 9:07 pm If we stick to a logical picture of the world, then infinite linear time is impossible and the only solution I know of is a closed loop spacetime (which I think is probably the case).

I already asked you what would be the problem with the idea of an infinite linear time... No answer yet.
What would be illogical with the idea of an infinite linear time?
EB

Speakpigeon wrote: ↑Sat Mar 16, 2019 9:23 pm

Atla wrote: ↑Sat Mar 16, 2019 9:07 pm But consistency is logical. I'm simply saying that the world might not be logical, so something non-logical like infinite linear time might be possible as well.

Oh, OK.
Except that the idea of an infinite linear time isn't illogical.

Atla wrote: ↑Sat Mar 16, 2019 9:07 pm If we stick to a logical picture of the world, then infinite linear time is impossible and the only solution I know of is a closed loop spacetime (which I think is probably the case).

I already asked you what would be the problem with the idea of an infinite linear time... No answer yet.
What would be illogical with the idea of an infinite linear time?
EB

Totality contains all possibilities. So both of you are correct. But only a totality derived of absolutely nothing justifies change at all. So the inclusive possibility makes Speakpigeon remain 'more' correct given Alta is limited to a state without causation.

Speakpigeon wrote: ↑Sat Mar 16, 2019 9:23 pm

Atla wrote: ↑Sat Mar 16, 2019 9:07 pm But consistency is logical. I'm simply saying that the world might not be logical, so something non-logical like infinite linear time might be possible as well.

Oh, OK.
Except that the idea of an infinite linear time isn't illogical.

Atla wrote: ↑Sat Mar 16, 2019 9:07 pm If we stick to a logical picture of the world, then infinite linear time is impossible and the only solution I know of is a closed loop spacetime (which I think is probably the case).

I already asked you what would be the problem with the idea of an infinite linear time... No answer yet.
What would be illogical with the idea of an infinite linear time?
EB

Of course it's illogical, that's obvious. The idea that time has an actual direction, that things can actually change at all, is perfectly illogical. And here we have infinite change. Does the past just disappear or what? Does the future not yet exist? Crazy ideas coming from everyday illusions.

Scott Mayers wrote: ↑Sat Mar 16, 2019 9:29 pm

Speakpigeon wrote: ↑Sat Mar 16, 2019 9:23 pm

Atla wrote: ↑Sat Mar 16, 2019 9:07 pm But consistency is logical. I'm simply saying that the world might not be logical, so something non-logical like infinite linear time might be possible as well.

Oh, OK.
Except that the idea of an infinite linear time isn't illogical.

Atla wrote: ↑Sat Mar 16, 2019 9:07 pm If we stick to a logical picture of the world, then infinite linear time is impossible and the only solution I know of is a closed loop spacetime (which I think is probably the case).

I already asked you what would be the problem with the idea of an infinite linear time... No answer yet.
What would be illogical with the idea of an infinite linear time?
EB

Totality contains all possibilities. So both of you are correct. But only a totality derived of absolutely nothing justifies change at all. So the inclusive possibility makes Speakpigeon remain 'more' correct given Alta is limited to a state without causation.

What are you even talking about, what possibilities have I excluded?

Atla wrote: ↑Sat Mar 16, 2019 9:36 pm What are you even talking about, what possibilities have I excluded?

Sorry, maybe you're not following my activity. I have argued for the paradoxes and the only resolution to them is, IF there is an 'origin' is to one that originates in an Absolute Nothingness because it has no 'law' there to break. As such, an origin follows the logic:


0 = 0 & 1

but


1 = 1 and not 1 = 1 & 0.

...where "0" represents and origin of no value [Absolute Nothing] and "1" is Totality itself [or Absolutely All or Everything]

Logic is the ASSUMPTION that the universe has structure. It doesn't have to - it owes us nothing.

None the less, it is obvious that logic itself has structure, so it begs a question: where does this structure come from?

Your mind. Inspired by the patterns it observer in the universe.

Scott Mayers wrote: ↑Sat Mar 16, 2019 10:18 pm

Atla wrote: ↑Sat Mar 16, 2019 9:36 pm What are you even talking about, what possibilities have I excluded?

Sorry, maybe you're not following my activity. I have argued for the paradoxes and the only resolution to them is, IF there is an 'origin' is to one that originates in an Absolute Nothingness because it has no 'law' there to break. As such, an origin follows the logic:


0 = 0 & 1

but


1 = 1 and not 1 = 1 & 0.

...where "0" represents and origin of no value [Absolute Nothing] and "1" is Totality itself [or Absolutely All or Everything]

"Originating" in "absolute nothingness" is an oxymoron.

Atla wrote: ↑Sat Mar 16, 2019 11:02 pm

Scott Mayers wrote: ↑Sat Mar 16, 2019 10:18 pm

Atla wrote: ↑Sat Mar 16, 2019 9:36 pm What are you even talking about, what possibilities have I excluded?

Sorry, maybe you're not following my activity. I have argued for the paradoxes and the only resolution to them is, IF there is an 'origin' is to one that originates in an Absolute Nothingness because it has no 'law' there to break. As such, an origin follows the logic:


0 = 0 & 1

but


1 = 1 and not 1 = 1 & 0.

...where "0" represents and origin of no value [Absolute Nothing] and "1" is Totality itself [or Absolutely All or Everything]

"Originating" in "absolute nothingness" is an oxymoron.

If you believe this with certainty, then this is fair. But you MUST then logically adopt the infinite version of thinking at least. But if all truths possible are possible by 'infinity' then this has to include any 'origin' which can ONLY be derived from and Absolute Nothingness. Otherwise, you must have some belief in some unique SPECIAL CREATION, something religious.

Speakpigeon wrote: ↑Sat Mar 16, 2019 6:41 pm

bahman wrote: ↑Fri Mar 15, 2019 10:07 pm

Speakpigeon wrote: ↑Fri Mar 15, 2019 8:54 pm
What is the problem with an infinite past?!
EB

You cannot reach from eternal past to now by waiting.

Non-sequitur.
The assumption of an infinite past doesn't imply that there should be somebody waiting for time to elapse.
You don't understand the concept of the infinite. Some people throughout history have been a witness to this medical condition.
EB

It is not non-sequitur. There should be an eternal time elapse if time was in eternal past. It is contradictory to say otherwise.

Scott Mayers wrote: ↑Sat Mar 16, 2019 11:19 pm

Atla wrote: ↑Sat Mar 16, 2019 11:02 pm

Scott Mayers wrote: ↑Sat Mar 16, 2019 10:18 pm

Sorry, maybe you're not following my activity. I have argued for the paradoxes and the only resolution to them is, IF there is an 'origin' is to one that originates in an Absolute Nothingness because it has no 'law' there to break. As such, an origin follows the logic:


0 = 0 & 1

but


1 = 1 and not 1 = 1 & 0.

...where "0" represents and origin of no value [Absolute Nothing] and "1" is Totality itself [or Absolutely All or Everything]

"Originating" in "absolute nothingness" is an oxymoron.

If you believe this with certainty, then this is fair. But you MUST then logically adopt the infinite version of thinking at least. But if all truths possible are possible by 'infinity' then this has to include any 'origin' which can ONLY be derived from and Absolute Nothingness. Otherwise, you must have some belief in some unique SPECIAL CREATION, something religious.

Truths are epistemic, infinite reality is ontologic. Mixing them like this is nonsense, you seem to make truths ontologic too.

Atla wrote: ↑Sat Mar 16, 2019 11:25 pm
Truths are epistemic, infinite reality is ontologic. Mixing them like this is nonsense, you seem to make truths ontologic too.

You are just creating a division line of your own choice. I already KNOW something about REALITY. Thus while you are welcome to dismiss me off-hand because you disagree to a combination of ontological and epistemic philosophy, I'm not going to settle with your own limited perception about what is both real to my senses AND logically valid. Do you deny that 'soundness' is unreal if logical but real but never logical?

Scott Mayers wrote: ↑Sat Mar 16, 2019 11:49 pm

Atla wrote: ↑Sat Mar 16, 2019 11:25 pm
Truths are epistemic, infinite reality is ontologic. Mixing them like this is nonsense, you seem to make truths ontologic too.

You are just creating a division line of your own choice. I already KNOW something about REALITY. Thus while you are welcome to dismiss me off-hand because you disagree to a combination of ontological and epistemic philosophy, I'm not going to settle with your own limited perception about what is both real to my senses AND logically valid.

Not my choice. Ontological infinite reality doesn't contain all possible truths, in fact it doesn't contain any truth, since truth statements are epistemic and merely say something about ontological reality, they aren't "physically" part of it like that. Ontological reality only "physically" contains the truth statements in human heads etc. in the form of thoughts etc., and these truth statements have no further effect on / implications for the rest of reality at large.

Therefore in no way does it follow that something must be originated in absolute nothingness (which is an oxymoron anyway since you can't originate something in nothing, and even the idea of "origin" itself may be highly suspect/illogical).

In short, truths are part of the map/the cognitive overlay, not part of the territory. If we allow truths to be part of the territory, then we should also allow every other form of magic to be part of infinite possibilities. So, "because Magic" or "because God did it" is a perfectly fine explanation for any paradox.