Multiverse!

[Scott Mayers]

I think the default position is for assuming anything about reality is to assume nothing. Then assume that whatever totality is, default to assuming anything applies and then narrow down what we can understand from there. Even with or without a proof of any greater existence beyond ourselves, asserting what is certainly untrue about what we cannot determine is more foolish.

As for science proper, this should still act from our local perspective outward. But we should still encourage theoretical ideas regarding our reality to seek new foundational arguments that help connect this logic to the practical sciences.

A "multiverse" idea is more universal and doesn't eliminate other possibilities off hand. Thus you can narrow things down by trying to find certain disproofs as much as trying to posit straight-forward connections. But logic has to be understood as a real up front to argue from any bottom-up process. I also think that logic is also as empirically determined too. But much of how we initially learn the simplest ideas are hard for most to deal with.

[raw_thought]

Scott Mayers just came up with the perfect analogy. The odds of me winning the lottery is tiny. However, the odds that someone will win the lottery is great. Similarly the odds of one universe having constants suitable for life is tiny. However, if there are trillions of universes the odds that one of them will have constants suitable for life is great.

However if there is only one universe and that universe has life in it then the odds of that universe having life in it are 100%. On the grounds of Occam economy this explanation must be preferred over one which cannot be verified, even in principle. Attempting to derive meaning from a counterfactual event is a logical fallacy which no grown-up logician should be guilty of.

By the way if you're relying on Scott Mayers as your consultant logician I suggest you pay due heed to his understanding of the Monty Hall puzzle.

It is funny that after committing a big time logical error,Leo accuses me of not being a grown up logician!

[raw_thought]

I disagee. To assume anything about reality is not to assume nothing. Without assumptions no knowledge is possible. For example, I assume that one cannot say that A is true and A is not true simultaneously.

[raw_thought]

Scott Mayers just came up with the perfect analogy. The odds of me winning the lottery is tiny. However, the odds that someone will win the lottery is great. Similarly the odds of one universe having constants suitable for life is tiny. However, if there are trillions of universes the odds that one of them will have constants suitable for life is great.

However if there is only one universe and that universe has life in it then the odds of that universe having life in it are 100%. e.

I realize that you are VERY literal. I confess that you did not say " the universe has constants suited for life because the universe has constants suitable for life"
However, that is implied and is the meaning of what you said. You offered the above response as an explanation as to why the constants are so perfect for life.

[Scott Mayers]

I disagee. To assume anything about reality is not to assume nothing. Without assumptions no knowledge is possible. For example, I assume that one cannot say that A is true and A is not true simultaneously.

Perhaps you mistake my wording. I am stating that you initiate an inspection into something without assuming anything true nor false. I also happen to 'assume' nothingness to start my argument. later. But you begin by what you already know as a human and determine a logic. Then you demonstrate that 'a' nothing exists and is meaningful.

Once this is established, you then assume a nothingness to 'test' how anything else can follow. This introduces a the idea of contradiction and how it acts as a 'law' that causes reality to repair this condition through contrast (or contraries). If A and non-A cannot exist in one "place", it begs that A or non-A CAN. Thus A and non-A CAN exist by a need to expand totality to include them distinctly. Each new truth again creates another contradiction which must be again further repaired in kind. This is the motivational 'cause' that needs no thing, including an exclusion of any forces or entities that have purpose (like a god, etc.)

[raw_thought]

" Logic is emprically determined "
Scott
Interesting! And I say that with respect! I have grown to respect your opinions. But I have to disagree. Are you saying that 1+1=2 does not have to apply to physical reality? That in some physical reality 1+1does not equal 2?

[Philosophy Explorer]

Interesting! And I say that with respect! I have grown to respect your opinions. But I have to disagree. Are you saying that 1+1=2 does not have to apply to physical reality? That in some physical reality 1+1does not equal 2?

Add two lumps of clay together and you will still get a lump of clay.

PhilX

[raw_thought]

"lump" is a different level of abstraction.
I am familiar with "fuzzy logic" (based on the sorties paradox) However, I do not think it applies here.

[Philosophy Explorer]

"lump" is a different level of abstraction.
I am familiar with "fuzzy logic" (based on the sorties paradox) However, I do not think it applies here.

I offered a case of 1 + 1 = 1 which does apply to physical reality in our universe. It's just a matter of interpretation.

PhilX

[Scott Mayers]

" Logic is emprically determined "
Scott
Interesting! And I say that with respect! I have grown to respect your opinions. But I have to disagree. Are you saying that 1+1=2 does not have to apply to physical reality? That in some physical reality 1+1does not equal 2?

NO, I'm saying that in order to provide an argument, you first have to establish how we reason as a human in order to understand the nature of our objective world, which minimally includes numbers and logic. But since this is hard for us to think this way normally because our own conscious biology dictates us to think in patterns inductively and aim to appeal to emotions. So you have to establish how we determine what we can know in a Cartesian type of process.

So you (1) start with a human argument to (2) understand a method to discovery using a rationale => implying a logic. Then you (3) show how this logic is closed and (4) Demonstrate what nothingness is and how it exists.

In a second stage, once this is established, you then reverse it assuming the logic you are confident with. Then (5) you assume nothingness to test whether in this logic (from your perspective) operates in reality without you necessarily being their to judge. If you can establish a non-essentially human logic, it then follows that whether you exist or not, the nature of reality has this property too. Then (6) you demonstrate how absolute nothingness leads to it necessarily being a something too (the contradiction). Etc. ...

[Hobbes' Choice]

Black Adder; Now Baldrick, I have two beans, and I add two more beans. What have I got???
Baldrick: Some beans.

[Obvious Leo]

Black Adder; Now Baldrick, I have two beans, and I add two more beans. What have I got???
Baldrick: Some beans.

One of my favourite TV shows of all time. You bring back some fond memories.

[Scott Mayers]

Black Adder; Now Baldrick, I have two beans, and I add two more beans. What have I got???
Baldrick: Some beans.

But according to your comment on the apples before, you'd argue that no two beans are the same.

By the way, what were you even referencing this to (with regards to this thread, that is)?

[Hobbes' Choice]

Black Adder; Now Baldrick, I have two beans, and I add two more beans. What have I got???
Baldrick: Some beans.

But according to your comment on the apples before, you'd argue that no two beans are the same.

By the way, what were you even referencing this to (with regards to this thread, that is)?

Have you never heard of humour?

[Scott Mayers]

Black Adder; Now Baldrick, I have two beans, and I add two more beans. What have I got???
Baldrick: Some beans.

But according to your comment on the apples before, you'd argue that no two beans are the same.

By the way, what were you even referencing this to (with regards to this thread, that is)?

Have you never heard of humour?

I got the humor. I was only asking as I couldn't determine how you related it particularly to the discussion at present unless you were thinking about those apples earlier (?). And if you got the humor, if it was about this, then this is why I pointed out the apparent interpretation you placed on differentiating the uniqueness of apples you used before to state that we cannot classify any two apples collectively.