Bah, Oh well… argueing for the sake of argument, well then here we go:
Change=motion
All things change, and this in itself denies the attributes which qualify a thing as infinite. To understand how an object changes, we must first understand what change is. Change is the basic definition, in itself, of motion; because if an object continues to exist from one moment to the next, this is enough to label it change. In the laws of logic, change is change unbiased to the magnitude. Obviously, that which is in motion must have been set in motion, otherwise it would not be in motion, therefore that which is change, or in motion, must have been acted on by a greater or equal and opposite force to be set in motion.
once again… "Hume did ask the question of causality:
“x causes y” where x is the event of billiard ball a striking billiard ball b and y is the event of ball b moving after being struck…
is the sentence “x causes y” analytic? no, because it is possible to conceive of a striking b, and b not moving…
is the sentence “x causes y” synthetic? one may claim it is, but Hume analyzed the concept further, breaking it into 3 parts, priority, contiguity and necessary connection… priority could be traced to sense impression, x preceeded y; same with contiguity, x contacted y… but no matter how many times Hume observed ball a strike ball b, he could not find any NECESSARY CONNECTION… the fact that if x happens, y MUST happen… without this necessary connection, causality made no sense… Hume demonstrated that when we claim that one thing a causes another b, we are only reporting on our EXPECTATION that a will be followed by b… this is a psychological fact about us and not a fact about the world… this is the problem of induction… what makes us so certain that the future will behave like the past? because it has always happened that way in the past begs the question… Must it do so in the future just because it has always has in the past? what guarantees that the “laws of nature” will hold tomorrow? there is no analytic or synthetic guarantee of this… "
No, which is precisely the problem. If the model of causality made so popular by Newton were logically defensible then the rest of your argument would be defensible, it would follow as valid inference(s). But since the very first premise cannot be shown to be true without having access to a lot more knowledge that we have at any given moment I’d say that the whole think is essentially hokum…
I know it is difficult to see, and yes intuition plays a large role in anything to do with the human ability to think logically, but essentially what I am proving is that all things are possible.
Surely Newton knew what he was talking about.
“object a at time1 is not object a at time2”
Exactly, that’s called change.
It is apparent that all things change, because all things exist. I’m afraid your argument makes less sense than mine. If all things did not exist, then nothing would exist. If only somethings exist, then essentially those things would be what makes all things and all things do exist… kind of like you can’t give 110% because once you could give 110%, then that essentially would be your 100%.
I’m afraid I don’t care about an argument between you and Membraine, please restate your argument according to the subject at hand, you are not a precident.
This COULD be fun, lets sart at the beginning…one piece at a time…
Prove to me why that which exists does not change.
If you feel your article is too long for the forum you could always submit it to symposia, our new article site. The link is symposia.ilovephilosophy.com/submit.php
You could then reference it here and people could be invited to discuss it.
These two work together quite well, if you can support them, which I'm sure you can.
This one threw my guards up. This premise is shaky because it assumes things about the nature of time and change that are inherently metaphysical and thus intelligable (or at least incerdibly tedious/arduous to support). I'll work on the A's and B's of it at work tonight, and get back to ya.
I wish I could work on your conclusions now, but I've got to jet to wor
Your first premise is correct - absolute zero cannot be obtained. Because absolute zero can only be [i]approached[/i], the universe cannot be spatially infinite, because no matter how much matter there was, as long as there was a finite amount of matter, it would be infinitely close to absolute zero. Likewise, if there were an infinite amount of matter, the density of the universe would be infinite (which it is observably not.) Keep these implications in mind.
I agree with the second premise - good ol' law of causality.
Your third premise is where it goes wrong, IMO. Since the universe must be finite and thus have a finite amount of matter-energy, the "primary cause" of all things cannot be infinite in nature.
Okay, I’m going to give up on Imp because he doesn’t want to argue.
It’s a lot easier to say in person, so I’m going to say a couple of things which mean the same thing. Suppose the universe is not infinite, if something were to exist outside of the universe, then that MUST be infinite… Just because it exists outside of the universe does not mean that it is not the underlying framework of the universe… if the universe is expanding, the space into which it expands does not just dissappear.
My actual assertion in the paper is that before all things, nothing existed. Therefore nothing is infinite. Therefore it is and creates and does all things, inherent to the title “infinite”.
In math, there are infinitely many different ways to define zero. 1+(-1); 2+(-2)… is the answer to these not zero? Therefore zero can in fact be created from two (Or however much you want) somethings. 2 in itself exists as something, as does -2, but the way our mind works is that we can’t see how we are part of nothing, when we are 2, that makes no sense. Matter, antimatter…positive and negative. Galileo’s theory of duality.
Ok, I kinda get what you're saying, although I still don't think that your system holds up.
So you would agree that there is not spontaneous action? What then, was the force that produced matter out of nothingness? Is it plausible to say that the universe has every [i]not existed[/i], given that it exists now?
Hum, must be infinite??? Perhaps, to our senses, but perhaps not. Must is an absolute and is generally considered a fallacy. Hence, your premise, unless you can refute my objection, invalidates your claim.
If certain things occur that could not occur given a defined circumstance, then that circumstance must not be present. If there is only one other possible circumstance, then that circumstance must be present.
A and B are the only two mutually exclusive possibilities.
If A is true then C is true.
If B is true then C is not true.
Thus,
If C is not true, B is true.