at1with0 wrote:It is also a noun according to m-w.com
It is a number which in and of itself, lacking anything to describe, is meaningless. Math is not used to calculate nothings. It's used to calculate actual things and units of things.
It's not meaningless. One is the successor of zero. Zero is the quantity corresponding to nothing or absence of quantity. I have used one as a noun and expressed something that entails that the word one has meaning.
How can the word one be meaningless if you know what I mean when I say it?
One is a thing since it is an object of thought. A thing is something which is or can be an object of thought. It is a thing which was not created.
I can't think of a single, actual thing that was not created.
What created evil?
Once again. Evil is a noun per sé, but it is meaningless without the action that it describes. The devil is said to be evil personified
which means his actions and thoughts are pure evil, but again, evil is used as a descriptive term to define an action.
I was being tongue and cheek there.
Which ball was placed first? That's the begining ball.
I think you're missing the point.
How about I remove the ball that was placed first, leaving three balls. Then I shuffle the balls and show it to an observer. Which ball should the observer call the beginning ball?
Ok well, now you have someone who behind the scenes is jumbling everything up to confuse the observer. That's something completely different and had the person not done that, the observer could clearly define the beginning and the end of the design.
How about the amalgam of all water on the planet. Where is the beginning of that? Or a photon. Where is the beginning of that?
Perfect circles exist only in our minds. Any presentation in thisdimension of a perfect circle, it seems to me, would have to be invisible.
Are you saying that humans and their minds are required in order for circles to exist? (The word perfect is redundant)
The word perfect was necessary because anyone can draw a "circle" but it would be imperfect. An imperfect circle can exist in this dimension. A perfect circle cannot exist in this dimension except as a concept. I'm sure there could be other beings out there capable of conceiving of a perfect circle, but unless that's the case, I expect the answer is yes. Without an imagination, a perfect circle cannot exist in this dimension. I challenge you to prove otherwise.
A circle is defined to be the locus of points equidistant to a center; so that settles that. Matter is discrete, not continuous, and won't be appearing as a circle near us.
I find it interesting that we can talk at length about circles, knowing exactly what a circle is, and you claim that circles don't exist.
No. I got what you said. You suggested that logic is not always right. And I believe you are wrong. Right?
I am saying that the three "laws of thought" Aristotle developed can not be proved using the three laws of thought and, moreover, that they can be altered like how Euclid's axioms can be altered to give rise to nonEuclidean geometry.
Great! Then... we're in agreement? Or.... not. My statements stands, either way.
Depends on whether or not you believe the laws of thought are absolutely true.
If it is omnipotent and/or omniscient, it defies logic.
That makes no sense. That's like a clay jar saying it is illogical for a creator to have made it. It might very well be
illogical to the jar, but that's because it isn't informed enough to know that the presence of human beings and pottery wheels is actually... quite logical.
No, it's omnipotence that contradicts logic and omniscience implies, assuming logic, that God has no free will.
Axiom shmaxium. The presence of 2 quanta, each part of a formerly single particle, is totally logical.
It's one particle located in two places and that violates the axiom of identity, the first "law" of thought.
humphreys wrote:At1, if MWI of quantum physics is true, how then is logic violated? Frrosted would be correct in that instance, where logic appears to be violated only because our understanding of what is happening in QM is wrong.
Also, what if logic always holds but it's simply our observations that are in error?
Frrosted, you can't think of a single thing that wasn't created? So, you do think God was created then?
The law/axiom of the excluded middle fails to hold in fuzzy logic (which is kind of an ironic example).
As far as MW, you'd have to be careful with how you define something. Suppose object X has copies which exist in many other parallels. What is X? Also, is there just one X or are there many X's? The law/axiom of identity says that a thing is itself but in MW, X is a thing and also more.
greeney2 wrote:To be fair, I watched without sound, and will watch again at home to hear that part, I'm not sure where to turn the speakers on where I am at. However, the visual part of your example At1, does not proove your point, because my perception is that the moving balls both have a beginning and end point. The one on the circle begins at the 12 oclock postion from the stationary ball, that rotates in place. It make a full rotation to the same point and begins again. The 12 oclock position being the beginning and end point of one rotaion. Similarly, the ball on the straight line begins from outside the screen, has a 2nd beginning entering the circle, and ending leaving the circle, and again leaves the screen on the right. It illustrates 2 beginnings and 2 endings. The straight line ball bisects the circle, and the rotating ball illustrates every chord possible around the circle. In programming this, the entire video is a program to "Do if", the program has a beginning and a end point. It only begins when the "Play button begins the program". You use a example of a video that has a "begin" command to proove things can have no beginning. The components like the straight line are a "Do Until" command, both on the staight line ball, and on the ball going around the circle, both have a beginning and end point to their cycles.
It also assumes that the balls will slide in some imaginary hole in the center to ajust for the length of the chord, and the 12 oclock ball has a rotating axis, not to mention the balls can pass each other, collide, and ignore bouncing off each other at intersections. In other words your visual leaves the watcher, having to accept some of these conditions or errors, and disregard them. Entertaining, but it prooved nothing to me. You are attempting to proove with math or geometry, a philosofical question.
The picture is an approximation.
Do you believe God had a beginning?
When was that, that God began?