Please provide a link or give me the phenomena you are talking about so I can look at it. I have looked into this type of scenario before when looking at null theory, but a deeper look show that it is very much a causal event. I need to know what you are talking about specifically. What’s the theory?[/quote]
Sure thing. Will probably later today though.
By the way, I feel like I should reiterate again that I agree with you on all this. My argument is not that intrinsically random things happen–it’s that some people say they do, and they have some evidence in their favor.
[quote]pat wrote:
Something being a factor of itself is logically impossible. That is to say the circle is a circle because it’s a circle. That’s incorrect by definition. A circle is a circle because it has the properties of a circle, roundness and existence.
[/quote]
A circle is a circle because it’s a circle–incorrect by definition, according to you.
But you say:
A circle is a circle because it has the properties of a circle.
By logical necessity, then, something that has the properties of a circle is a circle.
By logical necessity, then, [circle] and [something that has the properties of a circle] are interchangeable.
By logical necessity, then, premise 1 states that a circle is a circle because it is a circle.
Which you’ve said is by definition incorrect.
Also, it would need to be proved that “a circle is a circle because it is a circle” is by definition incorrect. Again, without making use of assumptions.
Please provide a link or give me the phenomena you are talking about so I can look at it. I have looked into this type of scenario before when looking at null theory, but a deeper look show that it is very much a causal event. I need to know what you are talking about specifically. What’s the theory?[/quote]
Sure thing. Will probably later today though.
By the way, I feel like I should reiterate again that I agree with you on all this. My argument is not that intrinsically random things happen–it’s that some people say they do, and they have some evidence in their favor.[/quote]
Are you still talking about hidden variable theory by chance?
Please provide a link or give me the phenomena you are talking about so I can look at it. I have looked into this type of scenario before when looking at null theory, but a deeper look show that it is very much a causal event. I need to know what you are talking about specifically. What’s the theory?[/quote]
Sure thing. Will probably later today though.
By the way, I feel like I should reiterate again that I agree with you on all this. My argument is not that intrinsically random things happen–it’s that some people say they do, and they have some evidence in their favor.[/quote]
Are you still talking about hidden variable theory by chance?[/quote]
Its alternatives. I am not sure if the phrasing you used here was deliberate, but if it was, excellent pun. Actually, excellent pun either way.
[quote]pat wrote:
Something being a factor of itself is logically impossible. That is to say the circle is a circle because it’s a circle. That’s incorrect by definition. A circle is a circle because it has the properties of a circle, roundness and existence.
[/quote]
A circle is a circle because it’s a circle–incorrect by definition, according to you.
But you say:
A circle is a circle because it has the properties of a circle.
[/quote]
Correct.
Correct so long as you don’t add any properties that make it something else. Other things can have roundness for instance and are not circles, like an ellipse. I didn’t list all the properties of a circle. I only listed two properties it must have to be what it is, that if it did not have it, then it would not be a circle.
Not necessarily. The list of components and the thing itself are not interchangeable. The whole is the completeness of those properties to the exclusion of other things, so that it’s an ‘identifiable particular’.
No.
[quote]
Which you’ve said is by definition incorrect.
Also, it would need to be proved that “a circle is a circle because it is a circle” is by definition incorrect. Again, without making use of assumptions.[/quote]
A circle is not a circle because it’s a circle. A circle is made up of things that make it a circle. The absence of even one essential property of a circle would make it not a circle, but the properties exist separately from the circle. Roundness for instance, exists outside of the circle. And if there was no such thing as a circle, roundness could still exist.
Please provide a link or give me the phenomena you are talking about so I can look at it. I have looked into this type of scenario before when looking at null theory, but a deeper look show that it is very much a causal event. I need to know what you are talking about specifically. What’s the theory?[/quote]
Sure thing. Will probably later today though.
By the way, I feel like I should reiterate again that I agree with you on all this. My argument is not that intrinsically random things happen–it’s that some people say they do, and they have some evidence in their favor.[/quote]
Are you still talking about hidden variable theory by chance?[/quote]
Its alternatives. I am not sure if the phrasing you used here was deliberate, but if it was, excellent pun. Actually, excellent pun either way.[/quote]
lol, I didn’t recognize it until you pointed it out. Which alternative?
A circle is not a circle because it’s a circle. A circle is made up of things that make it a circle. The absence of even one essential property of a circle would make it not a circle, but the properties exist separately from the circle. Roundness for instance, exists outside of the circle. And if there was no such thing as a circle, roundness could still exist.[/quote]
Almost every sentence of this is another assumption that needs proving.
A circle is a circle because it is something that has exactly the properties of a circle.
A circle is something that has exactly the properties of a circle.
Therefore, [a circle] and [something that has exactly the properties of a circle] are interchangeable.
Therefore, a circle is a circle because it is a circle.
Again, if this is fallacious reasoning, then it will imply a formal contradiction. It does not: It implies only tautology, and tautology is by definition valid in propositional logic.
A square is a square because it is something that has exactly the properties of a square.
A square is something that has exactly the properties of a square.
A square is a square because it is a square.
Or:
Something that has exactly the properties of a square is something that has exactly the properties of a square because it is a plane figure with four equal straight sides and four right angles.
[Something that has exactly the properties of a square] is [a plane figure with four equal straight sides and four right angles].
Therefore, something that has exactly the properties of a square is something that has exactly the properties of a square because it is something that has exactly the properties of a square.
It works for anything.
Denial of it necessitates denial of premise 2. That is altogether impossible.
A circle is not a circle because it’s a circle. A circle is made up of things that make it a circle. The absence of even one essential property of a circle would make it not a circle, but the properties exist separately from the circle. Roundness for instance, exists outside of the circle. And if there was no such thing as a circle, roundness could still exist.[/quote]
Almost every sentence of this is another assumption that needs proving.[/quote]
Saying something is an assumption, does to make it so. How do you figure that for a circle to be what it is, it requires roundness is an assumption? That is a plain fact, not an assumption. I don’t assume a circle has the property of roundness, it must have the property or roundness or it cannot be a circle.
How do you figure that roundness, being a property of a circle is not exclusive to a circle is an assumption? Other things have roundness properties and are not a circle. This is not an assumption, it is a fact. An ellipse as mentioned before, has roundness to it, though it is not completely round.
Explain how these things, that are essential for things to be what they are, are assumptions?
A circle is a circle because it is something that has exactly the properties of a circle.
A circle is something that has exactly the properties of a circle.
[/quote]
That’s one circle, not all circles. A circle is the result of the properties that make it a circle and not something else.
No. The properties of a circle are it’s properties, not the circle itself. They are not interchangeable. The properties of a circle are it’s properties and not the circle itself. The circle it identifiably different than it’s properties. It occupies different metaphysical space.
Therefore, you cannot draw ^ that conclusion from those premises because the premises are not correct. The properties of the circle are not mutually exclusive to a circle. The properties result in the circle. Other things have roundness, other things exist, other things have 360 degrees of measure, etc. A circle has these properties, the circle is not these properties.
Circular reasoning is fallacious for two basic reasons. One as stated before, the object itself is a factor for it’s existence, which is not possible; that’s your contradiction. The other reason is it creates a situation where an argument has an infinite amount of premises. You cannot formulate an argument with an infinite amount of premises because you can never reach a conclusion.
An argument can be fallacious for many reasons, it does not have to contradict to be wrong.
A circle is not a circle because it’s a circle. A circle is made up of things that make it a circle. The absence of even one essential property of a circle would make it not a circle, but the properties exist separately from the circle. Roundness for instance, exists outside of the circle. And if there was no such thing as a circle, roundness could still exist.[/quote]
Almost every sentence of this is another assumption that needs proving.[/quote]
Saying something is an assumption, does to make it so. How do you figure that for a circle to be what it is, it requires roundness is an assumption? That is a plain fact, not an assumption. I don’t assume a circle has the property of roundness, it must have the property or roundness or it cannot be a circle.
How do you figure that roundness, being a property of a circle is not exclusive to a circle is an assumption? Other things have roundness properties and are not a circle. This is not an assumption, it is a fact. An ellipse as mentioned before, has roundness to it, though it is not completely round.
Explain how these things, that are essential for things to be what they are, are assumptions? [/quote]
I mean things like: “A circle is not a circle because it’s a circle.”
This is a component of your (assumptive) argument re: contingency.
And it is refuted by my two previous posts. In fact, your description of a circle is a semantic variant of “a circle is a circle because it’s a circle.” See what I wrote about tautology and about the fact that you need to refute the second premise in order to show the sequence to be invalid. If you can do that, I can simply go back and pick out all the other assumptions and go to work on them. But you won’t, because it cannot be done.
Please provide a link or give me the phenomena you are talking about so I can look at it. I have looked into this type of scenario before when looking at null theory, but a deeper look show that it is very much a causal event. I need to know what you are talking about specifically. What’s the theory?[/quote]
Sure thing. Will probably later today though.
By the way, I feel like I should reiterate again that I agree with you on all this. My argument is not that intrinsically random things happen–it’s that some people say they do, and they have some evidence in their favor.[/quote]
Are you still talking about hidden variable theory by chance?[/quote]
Its alternatives. I am not sure if the phrasing you used here was deliberate, but if it was, excellent pun. Actually, excellent pun either way.[/quote]
I am still waiting on this. Nothing I have read about hidden variables implies uncaused-events. Further, the hidden variable theory has been taking a beating in recent articles.
You have to give me specifics. You cannot just say that ‘QM says events are uncaused, trust me’, without laying out some proof. Because, there is nothing I have seen so far, in QM, that is uncaused. I even asked Dr. Matt about that and he also suggests that nothing, even in QM is uncaused.
No. The properties of a circle are it’s properties, not the circle itself. They are not interchangeable. The properties of a circle are it’s properties and not the circle itself. The circle it identifiably different than it’s properties. It occupies different metaphysical space.
[/quote]
I gave this premise, you responded with “no.”
Logically, then, you contend the following:
[A circle] and [something that has exactly the properties of a circle] are not identical.
Please provide a link or give me the phenomena you are talking about so I can look at it. I have looked into this type of scenario before when looking at null theory, but a deeper look show that it is very much a causal event. I need to know what you are talking about specifically. What’s the theory?[/quote]
Sure thing. Will probably later today though.
By the way, I feel like I should reiterate again that I agree with you on all this. My argument is not that intrinsically random things happen–it’s that some people say they do, and they have some evidence in their favor.[/quote]
Are you still talking about hidden variable theory by chance?[/quote]
Its alternatives. I am not sure if the phrasing you used here was deliberate, but if it was, excellent pun. Actually, excellent pun either way.[/quote]
I am still waiting on this. Nothing I have read about hidden variables implies uncaused-events. Further, the hidden variable theory has been taking a beating in recent articles.
You have to give me specifics. You cannot just say that ‘QM says events are uncaused, trust me’, without laying out some proof. Because, there is nothing I have seen so far, in QM, that is uncaused. I even asked Dr. Matt about that and he also suggests that nothing, even in QM is uncaused.[/quote]
As I have said, it is not hidden variable theory, it is hidden variable theory’s refutation. This is a fundamental point, I would suggest doing some reading on it to clear it up. Then google “quantum theory” and “intrinsic randomness.” Show me that intrinsic randomness is not averred under the CI and you can win that point. But it is.
“Randomness comes in two qualitatively different forms. Apparent randomness can result both from ignorance or lack of control of degrees of freedom in the system. In contrast, intrinsic randomness should not be ascribable to any such cause. While classical systems only possess the first kind of randomness, quantum systems are believed to exhibit some intrinsic randomness. In general, any observed random process includes both forms of randomness. In this work, we provide quantum processes in which all the observed randomness is fully intrinsic. These results are derived under minimal assumptions: the validity of the no-signalling principle and an arbitrary (but not absolute) lack of freedom of choice. The observed randomness tends to a perfect random bit when increasing the number of parties, thus defining an explicit process attaining full randomness amplification.”
A square is a square because it is something that has exactly the properties of a square.
[/quote]
It doesn’t have ‘something’ that has exact properties of a square. A square is a square because it’s properties make it a square to the exclusion of being able to be something else.
ok
Again, you cannot draw that conclusion from those premises. A square is a square because it possesses the properties of a square. The properties of a square is not the samething as the square itself.
If you break it down in math 4+4=8 8 is not the same thing as 4+4, 8 is the result of 4+4. One is two numbers and a function, the other is a number. While they equal the same quantity they do not have the same identity. Two different things cannot occupy the same space. Two different things cannot be said to be the same identical one thing.
[quote]
Or:
Something that has exactly the properties of a square is something that has exactly the properties of a square because it is a plane figure with four equal straight sides and four right angles.
[Something that has exactly the properties of a square] is [a plane figure with four equal straight sides and four right angles].
Therefore, something that has exactly the properties of a square is something that has exactly the properties of a square because it is something that has exactly the properties of a square.
It works for anything.
Denial of it necessitates denial of premise 2. That is altogether impossible.[/quote]
That is an assumption
On another note, I have been super uber busy which is why I am not able to get back to the subject in a timely matter. Sorry about that. I will keep up with what I can, but my kids gotta eat, so I gotta do what the man tells me.
On another note, I have been super uber busy which is why I am not able to get back to the subject in a timely matter. Sorry about that. I will keep up with what I can, but my kids gotta eat, so I gotta do what the man tells me.[/quote]
I hear that man, I have been getting hammered by work lately. The debate is great, though, and whenever the opportunity presents itself it’ll be good to continue.
No. The properties of a circle are it’s properties, not the circle itself. They are not interchangeable. The properties of a circle are it’s properties and not the circle itself. The circle it identifiably different than it’s properties. It occupies different metaphysical space.
[/quote]
I gave this premise, you responded with “no.”
Logically, then, you contend the following:
[A circle] and [something that has exactly the properties of a circle] are not identical.
This is your contention. Do you stand by it?[/quote]
Correct. Two particulars cannot occupy the same ‘space’. Those things that make up a circle are not the same as a circle itself. Also, they are not necessarily mutually exclusive to a circle.
