A circle is a closed plane curve consisting of all points at a given distance from a point within it called the center. (from the dictionary)
Would that be better? (I’m learning here)
I see this differently compared to “A circle is something that has the properties of a circle” because for me to understand that definition, I would need to know what the properties of a circle are or know what a circle was already.
Versus the first definition, I can figure out what a circle is (assuming I knew what a curve was) by drawing a closed plane, curved line.
I wouldn’t be surprised if I’m way of the mark here though.
[quote]ZJStrope wrote:
A circle is a closed plane curve consisting of all points at a given distance from a point within it called the center. (from the dictionary)
Would that be better? (I’m learning here)
I see this differently compared to “A circle is something that has the properties of a circle” because for me to understand that definition, I would need to know what the properties of a circle are or know what a circle was already.
Versus the first definition, I can figure out what a circle is (assuming I knew what a curve was) by drawing a closed plane, curved line.
I wouldn’t be surprised if I’m way of the mark here though.[/quote]
That’s a fine definition of a circle.
Thing is, because [a closed plane curve consisting of all points at a given distance from a point within it called the center] is [a circle]–always and without exception–the definition you’ve given is but a different (more detailed) way of saying that a circle is [a circle], because the latter term is perfectly and invariably interchangeable with [a closed plane curve consisting of all points at a given distance from a point within it called the center]. Because they mean exactly the same thing.
Try, furthermore, to define each of the subordinate terms of [a closed plane curve consisting of all points at a given distance from a point within it called the center]. That task will lead you to yet other terms, which in turn will lead you to other terms ad infinitum, and you will go on crisscrossing forever–aptly, in one enormous circle.
[quote]ZJStrope wrote:
A circle is a closed plane curve consisting of all points at a given distance from a point within it called the center. (from the dictionary)
Would that be better? (I’m learning here)
I see this differently compared to “A circle is something that has the properties of a circle” because for me to understand that definition, I would need to know what the properties of a circle are or know what a circle was already.
Versus the first definition, I can figure out what a circle is (assuming I knew what a curve was) by drawing a closed plane, curved line.
I wouldn’t be surprised if I’m way of the mark here though.[/quote]
That’s a fine definition of a circle.
Thing is, because [a closed plane curve consisting of all points at a given distance from a point within it called the center] is [a circle]–always and without exception–the definition you’ve given is but a different (more detailed) way of saying that a circle is [a circle], because the latter term is perfectly and invariably interchangeable with [a closed plane curve consisting of all points at a given distance from a point within it called the center]. Because they mean exactly the same thing.
Try, furthermore, to define each of the subordinate terms of [a closed plane curve consisting of all points at a given distance from a point within it called the center]. That task will lead you to yet other terms, which in turn will lead you to other terms ad infinitum, and you will go on crisscrossing forever–aptly, in one enormous circle.[/quote]
And I thought you would say that. So then, how can you ever define an object without it being tautological(sp?)?
And sure, you can have all the parts of a motor cycle and not have a motor cycle. If you could lay all the parts of a circle on a table, you would not have a circle until you have ‘assembled them’ in the correct order.
[/quote]
Which is why the proper assembly is part of the definition. C’mon now.[/quote]
Hence circle part + circle part + circle part +…= Circle
When I see + in this instance, I don’t think equation, I think “consider all of these items together, as a whole.” The same way you must Add together items within ( ) of an equation and multiply them together. For instance 58 = 5(4+4) [/quote]
Okay, so how does that make them identical to the item itself? How are premises identical to a conclusion?
Mentally omitting the functions doesn’t make them disappear, you just not thinking about them. Understanding comes with taking into account everything including the method.
I know this is an appeal to authority but no professor would take this objection seriously. I am not sure what else I have to do or how else to explain this. See the link, perhaps it does a better job of explaining than I am doing.[/quote]
Alright. They are not identical. They, added, are identical. And they, added, is exactly how you defined circle. Therefore, what you said, can be expressed as: A circle is a circle. There is no other way for this to be put, or understood.[/quote]
No, they are not. Premises are parts, components of a conclusion. The conclusion is the result of the premises. A ‘circle is a circle because is it’s a circle’ is literally unintelligible. You cannot know anything about the circle based on that and it cannot be a factor of itself as it would be a propertyless entity. The properties added together, result in a circle, they are not the circle itself. A premise is something different than a conclusion. A set of premises are different from the conclusion. There are many premises, there is one conclusion. Premises can be but are not by necessity mutually exclusive to the conclusion. The purpose of the premises are different than that of a conclusion.
[quote]smh_23 wrote:
Pat, you are confusing who made what claim.
You made the claim that proofs of God rely on no assumption. This, you have not proved.
[/quote]
You brought assumption into this. Deductive arguments require that none of the premises are assumptions. If you are using assumptions than you are then in the realm of deductive arguments.
In a deductive argument the premises are either true or false. They cannot be partially true, or mostly true, they have to be absolute. The conclusion has to be a function of the premises to the exclusion of all other possible conclusions.
There are no assumptions, the premises are either true or false, not thought to be true, or might be true. Deductive arguments are deliberately an necessarily limiting. There are only a couple of options in a correctly setup deductive argument. The premises are true and therefore so is the conclusion, or one or more of the premises are not true and therefore the conclusion, though correctly derived from the premises, is false.
The premises must be true or false. They cannot be mostly true, partially true, or assumed to be true.
Therefore the cosmological argument from contingency is either true or its false.
The premise in question must be true because it’s logically impossible for it to be false. Something from nothing is logically impossible. The only two options with regard to that premise is that something is the result of something or something is the result of nothing. That which does not exist, does not have the capability to bring about, or act on something that does.
That not what they or any other physicist is arguing. The terminology they use is confusing, because they use terms like ‘random’. But they don’t mean random in the sense of ‘x’ happens for no reason. ‘x’ cannot be measured or predicted on when or where it’s going to occur with in the limitations of a quantum field.
You say I made a claim, actually I didn’t. I agree with others that the cosmological argument, it premises and conclusion are true. So I technically made no claim, but agreed with a preexisting claim which is logically sound.
You made two claims:
Deductive arguments are circular.
There is is true exists true randomness (from nothing therefore something), based on an event that occurs in quantum fields which is not from nothing, just unpredictable as to when and where they happen.
These are your claims. Do you disagree you made these claims?
[quote]
So you understand, I don’t aver the opposite of your claim. I aver that your claim is an assumption and either is, or rests on, an unprovable maxim.[/quote]
It does neither. As stated previously, it’s necessarily true because the options are logically impossible to be true and that is not assumptive, by definition.
[quote]ZJStrope wrote:
A circle is a closed plane curve consisting of all points at a given distance from a point within it called the center. (from the dictionary)
Would that be better? (I’m learning here)
I see this differently compared to “A circle is something that has the properties of a circle” because for me to understand that definition, I would need to know what the properties of a circle are or know what a circle was already.
Versus the first definition, I can figure out what a circle is (assuming I knew what a curve was) by drawing a closed plane, curved line.
I wouldn’t be surprised if I’m way of the mark here though.[/quote]
You haven’t proved this one iota. You misused a quantum mechanical phenomena to try and prove randomness, yet a closer look at the actual theory is that it deals with non-local causation. The ‘intrinsic randomness’ of which you speak is the function of non-deterministic systems. Don’t look now, but that’s a cause.
[/quote]
Everything about this excerpt is either in error or without meaning. Again–and for the last time–I’m done with QM. I linked to a physicist who says that uncaused events can happen, because he thinks that events can happen which were not prefigured by any condition in any location. Please stop and note that last point: This is not about locality
[/quote]
If it isn’t then the concept of ‘intrisic randomness’ is not what you are talking about.
They don’t function, nor propose ‘something from nothing’. Please look at the actual theory he is proposing and look at what he says. Even better, post it. Not a part of it, but the actual whole theory.Dark energy is not nothing. Matter lacking the property of mass is not nothing.
[quote]
Now, I’d like to get back to the meat of the matter, rather than dwelling on misinterpretations of recondite theory. I offer again:
[b]Uncaused events can happen.[/b]
Prove me wrong, formally.[/quote]
Uncaused event’s cannot happen because it’s logically impossible for nothing to do something. That is not what Hawking is proposing. He proposes that from that which does not have mass, objects with mass can come from them.
That is not something from nothing. Dark energy is not ‘nothing’. Dark energy, for what most people know about it, is some sort of matter that lacks mass.
He actually ‘stole’ the idea from Lawrence Krauss who conceived that the universe, I.E. the big bang was the result of dark energy. He called it, ‘The universe out of nothing’ and in a physical sense that’s somewhat true. It makes a nice headline, but it’s not what he is actually asserting. That is not ‘something from nothing’ and it’s not out of the realm of possibility, what they say, though it is just a theory.
Where is Dr. Matt when you need him, he could clear this up rather quickly.
Look at what these guys are really saying. Not the catch phrases, but what is behind what they are really proposing and you will notice a trend, there is always something there, ALWAYS.
Now you want a formal argument fine, prove it wrong.
Nothing has no properties, no mechanism of action, there is a complete lack of existence.
In everyway there can be existence, nothingness lacks.
Nothing does not exist.
That which does not exist cannot create, be a factor of or act on something that does exist.
Therefore, something cannot come from nothing.
[quote]smh_23 wrote:
Regarding “uncaused events can happen”–
Before you tell me the burden of proof is on me, know this: I don’t contend that that proposition can be proved true. I contend that it is an assumption, like its inverse, and that neither of them can be proved correct or incorrect. They can only be transformed into other and vaguer assumptions.
When I consider the properties (if you will) of ‘nothing,’ I imagine an infinite expanse devoid of matter (anti-/dark/whatever), energy, and physical laws. This isn’t what physicists are saying, is it? That the natural world popped into being in the middle of the above? If so, which came first the energy/particles or the laws that dictated their popping into reality and subsequent movement from there? Both at the same instant in time?
I’ve never understand why “something from nothing” would be an attack on Creator-centered religious thought. I suppose if you look at it in one way. But if you look at it in another way, it supports at least the base claim of “uncaused cause.” A ‘thing’ that relied on nothing, but for which everything following relied/relies on for existence itself. Such as claim alone (by theists, believe it or not) used to be an object of ridicule for the skeptic. “Well, what created God? God’s existence would have to rely on some thing.”
I would like the formal argument that from nothing, something can come. Not, who you think believes it, but an argument that something can come from nothing.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
When I consider the properties (if you will) of ‘nothing,’ I imagine an infinite expanse devoid of matter (anti-/dark/whatever), energy, and physical laws. This isn’t what physicists are saying, is it? That the natural world popped into being in the middle of the above? If so, which came first the energy/particles or the laws that dictated their popping into reality and subsequent movement from there? Both at the same instant in time?
I’ve never understand why “something from nothing” would be an attack on Creator-centered religious thought. I suppose if you look at it in one way. But if you look at it in another way, it supports at least the base claim of “uncaused cause.” A ‘thing’ that relied on nothing, but for which everything following relied/relies on for existence itself. Such as claim alone (by theists, believe it or not) used to be an object of ridicule for the skeptic. “Well, what created God? God’s existence would have to rely on some thing.” [/quote]
It’s an attack of the cosmological argument for the existence of God.
Atheists use quantum mechannics as an attempt to refute the argument, yet they have no logical, on empirical ground to stand on.
Terminology used to describe particle fluctuations, use grandiose terms such as ‘random’ or ‘nothing’ as a way to describe massless particles. But that terminology is as accurate as calling plantar-fasciitis, turf-toe.
[quote]smh_23 wrote:
Regarding “uncaused events can happen”–
Before you tell me the burden of proof is on me, know this: I don’t contend that that proposition can be proved true. I contend that it is an assumption, like its inverse, and that neither of them can be proved correct or incorrect. They can only be transformed into other and vaguer assumptions.
If you think otherwise, then do it.[/quote]
He’s talking to you…
[/quote]
And, yes, this has been impression of what Physicists mean by ‘nothing.’ That is, not in the absolutely literal ‘nothing.’ But if it is indeed what they mean by ‘nothing,’ perhaps someone can authoritatively correct my misunderstanding. If there’s even energy, than we aren’t talking about ‘nothing.’
“…but made it clear that there’s a plausible case for understanding precisely how a universe full of stuff, like the universe we live in, could result literally from nothing by natural processes.”
“Natural processes” in the middle of absolutely nothing? Eh?
“In particular, nothing is unstable. Nothing can create something all the time due to the laws of quantum mechanics, and it’s - it’s fascinatingly interesting.”
Laws? of Quantum mechanics? But, that’s something…not nothing.
[i]"Our number, 1-800-989-8255. How did the idea - how did - you said that the physics has changed, what we know about the universe has changed so much, dramatically over the last few years, especially the idea that what we think of empty space is really not empty, correct?
KRAUSS: That’s exactly right. Empty space is a boiling, bubbling brew of virtual particles that pop in and out of existence in a time scale so short that you can’t even measure them. Now, that sounds of course like counting angels on the head of a pin; if you can’t measure them, then it doesn’t sound like it’s science, but in fact you can’t measure them directly.
But we can measure their effects indirectly. These particles that are popping in and out of existence actually affect the properties of atoms and nuclei and actually are responsible for most of the mass inside your body. And in fact, really one of the things that motivated this book was the most profound discovery in recent times, and you even alluded to it in the last segment, the discovery that most of the energy of the universe actually resides in empty space.
You take space, get rid of all the particles, all the radiation, and it actually carries [u]energy[/u], and that notion that in fact empty space - [b]once you allow gravity into the game[/b], what seems impossible is possible."[/i]
Ehhhhh? So there has to be prior conditions (like, energy)? How is this literally nothing?
The “nothingness” deal seems to be seriously getting cheesed-up here.
[quote]pat wrote:
Nothing has no properties, no mechanism of action, there is a complete lack of existence.
In everyway there can be existence, nothingness lacks.
Nothing does not exist.
That which does not exist cannot create, be a factor of or act on something that does exist.
Therefore, something cannot come from nothing.[/quote]
I’m going to cut through everything else to the heart of the matter.
In order to prove that something cannot come from nothing, you have taken that which does not exist cannot create, be a factor of or act on something that does exist as a premise. This is question-begging.
So: prove the premise: That which does not exist cannot create, be a factor of or act on something that does exist
If it’s not an assumption, it must be capable of being proved. If you cannot or will not prove it–and, preferably, without begging the question–then it is an assumption.
[quote]pat wrote:
I would like the formal argument that from nothing, something can come. Not, who you think believes it, but an argument that something can come from nothing.[/quote]
Again, I do not see how I’m expected to participate in a debate with someone who has not taken the minute or so to understand my position.
My position is that your argument relies in assumption. That is all. And it is absolutely, absolutely true. And for all this bluster and quoting outside sources, the few attempts that you have made to prove otherwise have amounted to nothing. See my last post. Prove that, without assumption.
And then, when you take that maxim’s conclusion as one of its premises (which you will), prove that. And on and on and on. It will not end. But I’ve got time.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
I’ve never understand why “something from nothing” would be an attack on Creator-centered religious thought. I suppose if you look at it in one way. But if you look at it in another way, it supports at least the base claim of “uncaused cause.” A ‘thing’ that relied on nothing, but for which everything following relied/relies on for existence itself. Such as claim alone (by theists, believe it or not) used to be an object of ridicule for the skeptic. “Well, what created God? God’s existence would have to rely on some thing.” [/quote]
Precisely true. This would be the next step in the debate, if it could get to the next step.
But it won’t. This is because, in the end, all of these arguments that Pat thinks are settled matters rely on maxims that, while they seem monumentally essential to our very most basic understandings of anything at all, are assumptive. I believe that you know this well, since you and I came to the very conclusion just recently.
