I’m not sure what you mean by that.
With anyone who you suspect might contribute a logically critical view. You are merely seeking any varied perspectives that might point out anything that you left out.
Really?
Did I say anything about asking others, such as scientists for what is true?
Logic doesn’t change through time, merely people’s use or misuse of it.
If something is totally logically impossible, do you believe that there is any possibility that it will happen anyway?
It refers to your point 2). Again the following example: The conclusion that „all metals are heavier than water“ had been „true“ until the potassium was discovered. It seems that conclusions can also “die”.
Logic as a such doesn’t change, but some or many contents of it change; they may have a proton pseudos or any other logical falsity. The conclusion that „all metals are heavier than water“ had been “true” for a long time; but then it changed to “false” because the potassium was discovered. Since the potassium was discovered the conclusion that „not all metals are heavier than water“ has been veing “true”; probably it will be “true” forever because probably the premise that "potassium is a metal" will be “true” forever". Please don’t forget that this example refers to science, thus is not merely logical but also scientifical, thus is not merely theoretical but also empirical, and it is the science (and not the logic as a such) which caused the false conclusion.
Oh, I see. I’m sorry. I wasn’t referring to SCIENTISTS and whatever they might say, but rather the scientific method of observing an occurrence that could logically only happen if the hypothesis was true because there is no alternative.
You didn’t answer my question. But I see that you are conflating what is said to be true by others with what is “actually true”, not merely what is speculated by others.
Remember:
Nullius in Verba.
Never mind.
I answered that question not directly but indirectly, although it is not typical for me to answer questions indirectly.
Okay, so what is the “direct” answer?
It’s like the indirect answer but not so easy to find out.
What do you say? According to RM:AO “nothing is possible until something is impossible”. What is your answer to the question wether there is any possibility that something will happen although it is totally logically impossible?
From another thread:
“We have been through this before” probably means “no one else than you and I have been through this before”.
And that is a bad sign, at least then, if it is not explained that it has not very much to do with mathematics. It has very much to do with confusing the people, so that it becomes easier to reconvert science to religion.
I thought it was on an open forum. Very few people see any of these conversations anyway.
Mathematics has become merely mysticism for the masses, much like early Hinduism rituals - “seemingly profound”, thus alluring to the masses.
But among the scientists, the mathematicians are currently the least corrupted scientists.
The same is true of the other religions. Those doing the real thinking deep within the church are the honest ones, not those reporting to the public.
Yes. Those who think deeply are the best, and those who report to the public are the worst.
B.t.w.: If the term “universe” includes the term “space and time”, then the term “universe and time” means that there is also a “time beyond the universe”. What do you think about that?
Emmm … no.
I take “Universe and time” as a title meaning “the universe including time”, not presuming them to be separate entities.
As it has turned out, time and physical universe are very directly related and inseparable. The physical universe is the changing and time is the measure of that changing.
The universe is a space including change, and the measure of this change is the time.
It is kind of an interesting question as to which “came first”, the space or the changing? Is the changing creating the space? Or is the space instigating the changing?
That’s really an interesting question, yeah.
What do you think?
Well, relativity tries to claim them to be the exact same thing, conflating ontology. From my perspective, there is no existence without affect and thus change. And there can be no affect without distinction and thus distance. But then distance is merely determined by the immediacy of affect.
So I guess that I have to stick with the idea that none can exist without the others and thus none “came first” or “caused” the others.
Did you mean four spatial dimensions? or the “space-time” dimensions?
Either way dimensions are merely mental reference constructs with no physical existence of their own.