Does anything exist?

[Thermal]

Sorry, I don't follow. What do you mean, "digging in against it"? What position? Have I ever said anything that would contradict the post you quoted?

The vascillating between the meta argument and finer post points is maddening. They tend to be at odds with each other and make for confusing discussion.

Then do you disagree with those who have claimed that philosophy gives better results than the alternatives? Or do you not care about the question?

I disagree with the paradigm set up where there are different "kinds of thinking" that are treated as if they are interchangeable with the same subject.

Religious thinking is restricted to religion and god stuff. We don't use religious thinking (whatever that may be, and I assume it is no more than regular thinking with an accepted set of premises regarding a god) to design mousetrap. There is no point to doing so.

Who ever said that it does? Maybe you have me confused with another poster?

If you want to apply scientific principles to that question, you'll have to ask it more precisely, e.g. providing what you consider to be a good government, its goals, etc. And then you can look at various forms of government and how they reach those goals, in measurable ways. But let's not kid ourselves: in the end the decision will be based on values, not facts. Humans are, after all, humans.

Right, values: philosophy. Which highlights the vascillation; you ask about getting better answers, but without a reference to what kinds of questions.

You argued earlier that philosophy cannot claim logic as both its creation and a tool it uses. I give you the parable of the table.

A carpenter makes a table. He both made it, and uses it. It's design is free for others to use too. No copyright action.

A plumber in the back row says carpentry does not exist, or is everything and therefore meaningless, because everyone uses tables. He insists that since he uses one, it's a plumber's thing. The carpenter points out that a plumber might even make one, but he is using carpentry to do so. Most of us have some carpentry skills, yes?

No! screams the plumber. If I use it, it's plumbing! Or its just a thing. Carpentry isn't real!

Kind of where we are at.

 

[Belz...]

Again, your rhetorical fantasies are just yours and have absolutely nothing to do with me.

I still don't know what you're on about. You spent pages obsessing about whether or not a follow-up question is moving the goalposts and other nonsense, and then played childish word games to avoid dealing with your failings, and now you talk about my rhetoric? Don't be silly.

It doesn’t matter what it is, your claims, you support them or abandon them.

Meh. It's like asking me to prove I've eaten pizza yesterday. Either look it up or don't. I don't care.

Since no one claimed “every word of a thread needs to be on topic”

I didn't say someone had claimed this. I'm making a statement of fact, since you don't seem to understand that fact.

No one said you asked me to tell you what it isn’t

Yeah, that's what I just said. That is such a weird response.

- "Hey, what time is it?"
- "It isn't time to go to bed, that's for sure."
- "I didn't ask you to tell me what time it isn't."
- "No one said you asked me to tell you what it isn't."

See how silly the second person sounds? Yeah, that's you. You're either trolling, drunk, or broken to use such .

You asserted that it was like particle annihilation and so I explained to you that it isn’t.

You attempted an explanation at the time, but it fell short of actually explaining what the contradiction is. The rest of your paragraph here continues that fine tradition, merely repeating that it's possibly a contradiction without explaining how, but using a lot of words, some of them quite valuable in Scrabble.

Again, as such, the interpretation stands.

No. You don't get to decide what the consensus us in the discussion.

Again the point being that such interpretations are arguable and thus, even physically and existentially, the mutual exclusion of A and ~A questionable.

Lots of things are arguable. Even patently impossible or illogical things are arguable sometimes. I'll remind you that I'm not looking for some hypothetical scenario or potential interpretation, although at least this time you've passed the threshold of presenting one of these.

For example it is hypothesized that the total energy of the universe is zero. So on the scale of the universe, positive and negative energy cancels each other out.

Which has dick all to do with logical contradictions. It's like I said earlier: things canceling out, or being in opposition, isn't a logical contradition. I'm disappointed that in all that text you didn't actually take that step into a definite demonstration of your claim. It seemed for a moment that you would.

 

[Belz...]

The vascillating between the meta argument and finer post points is maddening. They tend to be at odds with each other and make for confusing discussion.

That's possibly my fault. It's hard to follow the plethora of posts made by various posters, and pin everyone down on their claims, sometimes. When I try, the topic suddenly changes.

I disagree with the paradigm set up where there are different "kinds of thinking" that are treated as if they are interchangeable with the same subject.

That sounds like a bit of a dodge, though. There are different ways to think about the same topic. Are they all "philosophy"?

Religious thinking is restricted to religion and god stuff. We don't use religious thinking (whatever that may be, and I assume it is no more than regular thinking with an accepted set of premises regarding a god) to design mousetrap. There is no point to doing so.

No but we're specifically discussing ethics and morals and things supposedly outside the purview of science. I think religion can look at ethics, don't you?

Right, values: philosophy.

Wait, wait. Back up, there. Values are, mostly, not considered or thought over very much. They're just preferences and wants and likes and dislikes. They're directly consequent from emotions. Why lump them into philosophy? As a bonus question, do you see what I mean when I accuse others of making philosophy into everything?

Which highlights the vascillation; you ask about getting better answers, but without a reference to what kinds of questions.

But I'm not the one claiming that philosophy provides better answers to those questions that are claimed to be out of reach of science. Why do you expect me to support that argument, since I'm not the one making it?

You argued earlier that philosophy cannot claim logic as both its creation and a tool it uses. I give you the parable of the table.

A carpenter makes a table. He both made it, and uses it. It's design is free for others to use too. No copyright action.

Yeah but the important difference is that the claim was that logic is a fundamental tool of philosophy. It can't operate with it. So how did it create logic? As I said earlier the confusion arises from two different definitionf of logic. I think that's been cleared up, myself.

 

[Thermal]

Sorry for late response, didn't see your reply.

That's possibly my fault. It's hard to follow the plethora of posts made by various posters, and pin everyone down on their claims, sometimes. When I try, the topic suddenly changes.

I think we've all been doing that. There is Philosophy, the discipline of rigorous thought or whatever we have agreed to, then *a* philosophy, the product of having worked out your own right way of thinking (more subjective).

That sounds like a bit of a dodge, though. There are different ways to think about the same topic. Are they all "philosophy"?

They may each be *a* philosophy, sure. *A* philosophy can be turned on it's variants, though. We do it all the time on these fora; a devout Muslim argues his religious philosophy and we counter with our logical one, expecting evidence to evaluate the worth of the claims.

No but we're specifically discussing ethics and morals and things supposedly outside the purview of science. I think religion can look at ethics, don't you?

Yes, agreed, but the difference is largely in the starting premises of the devout. We can counter these premises by evaluating them logically. They hate that, because their starting assumption is often intuitive, that it just seems like there should be a god.

Religious thought can opine on ethics, but that ultimately falls back on the value assessment that follows from their starting assumptions. So when we talk about religious philosophy opining on ethics, it's not a distinct ethical position. It is the logical extension of their weighing of knowledge. If one accepts that God says it, the rest follows without further specialized philosophy.

Wait, wait. Back up, there. Values are, mostly, not considered or thought over very much. They're just preferences and wants and likes and dislikes. They're directly consequent from emotions. Why lump them into philosophy?

Because philosophy, as my instructor summarized it, is working out the right way of thinking about things. That will often be naked logic, and often be subjective value judgements. Both weave together in determining how you will think about a subject.

As a bonus question, do you see what I mean when I accuse others of making philosophy into everything?

Absolutely I get that. But again, the (involuntary) conflation is Philosophy the discipline and *a* philosophy, the subjective application. Related, of course, but very different.

But I'm not the one claiming that philosophy provides better answers to those questions that are claimed to be out of reach of science. Why do you expect me to support that argument, since I'm not the one making it?

Nor do I. But when you ask how philosophy gives "better" answers, it is necessary to define what the question is. Science doesn't answer what an ideal government would be or how much we value human life. It's just not what it is for, so the argument about philosophy answering questions that science can't seems nonsensical. My hammer doesn't compete with my laptop. They do entirely different things, and are used with entirely incomparable "kinds of thinking".

Yeah but the important difference is that the claim was that logic is a fundamental tool of philosophy. It can't operate with it. So how did it create logic? As I said earlier the confusion arises from two different definitionf of logic. I think that's been cleared up, myself.

Good enough. I thought that the ancient "lovers of wisdom" developed logical thinking, and it changed philosophy fundamentally. You *can* run without logic, but why would you, except for some paradoxical situations.

 

[Belz...]

Nor do I. But when you ask how philosophy gives "better" answers, it is necessary to define what the question is.

Sure, but I'd expect the claimants to give examples, and to be fair to them they tried, but failed at the next step of showing that the answers were better, or better than what something else could provide. Then we got lose in semantics again, and... honestly it's a bit exhausting, which might actually be the whole point of all this.

I think we're otherwise largely in agreement.

 

[theprestige]

Sure, but I'd expect the claimants to give examples, and to be fair to them they tried, but failed at the next step of showing that the answers were better, or better than what something else could provide. Then we got lose in semantics again, and... honestly it's a bit exhausting, which might actually be the whole point of all this.

I think we're otherwise largely in agreement.

Sorry, I took it for granted that we all agreed science cannot answer questions of moral ought at all. I didn't realize you needed examples. That said, I have provided several examples in passing. I just expected them to be accepted without comment (except perhaps, "ah, right, I see what you mean and agree"). Not to be met with sheer refusal to even see or recognize them.

 

[xjx388]

Sure, but I'd expect the claimants to give examples, and to be fair to them they tried, but failed at the next step of showing that the answers were better, or better than what something else could provide. Then we got lose in semantics again, and... honestly it's a bit exhausting, which might actually be the whole point of all this.

I think we're otherwise largely in agreement.

An answer, even a squishy, subjective answer, is better than no answer at all. Science cannot tell us what the aims of our justice system should be, for one broad example. Should it be retributive? Rehabilitative? Deterrent?

Therefore, philosophy gives us a better answer than no answer at all.

 

[Belz...]

Sorry, I took it for granted that we all agreed science cannot answer questions of moral ought at all.

Well, we don't. I've already addressed that upthread.

 

[Belz...]

An answer, even a squishy, subjective answer, is better than no answer at all. Science cannot tell us what the aims of our justice system should be, for one broad example. Should it be retributive? Rehabilitative? Deterrent?

Therefore, philosophy gives us a better answer than no answer at all.

Science is not the only alternative unless you define philosophy as "everything but science". Why is the answer given by philosophy better than one given by religion or other methods? By what metric?

And you repeat that science cannot do these things even though you know I disagree. If you define your values and objective beforehand you can absolutely answer these questions with the scientific methods.

 

[xjx388]

Science is not the only alternative unless you define philosophy as "everything but science". Why is the answer given by philosophy better than one given by religion or other methods? By what metric?

Fine. If you consider religion separate from philosophy, I would say that it gives answers as well. Answers that run some countries today. I don’t think either is better or worse -I’m kind of a cultural relativist. I ain’t tryin’ ta judge.

And you repeat that science cannot do these things even though you know I disagree. If you define your values and objective beforehand you can absolutely answer these questions with the scientific methods.

I agree with that, actually. The trick is in defining the values and objectives.

 

[The Man]

I still don't know what you're on about. You spent pages obsessing about whether or not a follow-up question is moving the goalposts and other nonsense, and then played childish word games to avoid dealing with your failings, and now you talk about my rhetoric? Don't be silly.

What I’m on about is that whatever ID monster it is you have in your head, it ain’t me and has nothing to do with me. Now? I’ve talking about your rhetoric from the start because silly is the rhetoric you opened with at the start of our exchanges. I’ve even told you about this rhetorical nonsense before.

Sure, words have meanings; however, it is the ambiguity of common language that lead to the development of more formal languages, like math, logic, and even science. Again, I don’t give a crap about what you simply think, I think. If you have a problem with what have written, be specific, state what I said and where that lead you to your conclusion and I’ll try to address it. The problems of communication befall the writer (or speaker) more than the reader (or listener). An old saying, can’t remember from whom, ‘a presenter that can’t get their point across to an audience, demonstrates their lack of knowledge of the subject the audience or both’. Neither of which, I will deny. Increasingly, you seem to be having some argument with some caricature in your head. If you expect me to simply take up the mantel of arguing from that caricature’s perspective, (to quote Judas Priest) “you’ve got another think coming”.

So, as I’ve said before I will not engage with and certainly not as whatever imaginary opponent it is you have in your head. Think what you want about me, it makes no difference to me. However, when you try to posit your own thinking, assertions of motivation or words as being mine I will simply point out that it is only yours. Heck, even if you were some kind of closet solipsist it would still only be you but at least then you might have some philosophical basis for your thinking of my thinking being my thinking.


The obsession with your ‘follow-up question’ was again simply yours and evidently still is. I answered your actual follow up question when you asked it. Then you asked for something else just pretending as if it was the same question, your ‘challenge’. That, I had no interest in and wouldn’t take up as I kept telling you, that’s the opposite of “obsessing”, at least on my part. It was only your obsession and continued pressing for your follow-up questions why it kept being brought up at all. That is was a moving of the goal posts is simply a statement of fact and also ended up being brought up again and again because of your obsession with your “challenge”.

This is what you asked.

Epistemology, I'm with you. Ethics, half-and-half, because in the end it's how you feel about X that'll determine if it's good or not, regardless of how much thinking you do about it. Logic? The study of it, maybe. The use of it, maybe. But the actual boolean implications of P and Q? Nah. That has nothing to do with philosophy, and here's a demonstration: "Is the question 'are X and ~X mutually-exclusive' a matter of philosophy?"

This was your follow-up question.

Marvelous. My first direct answer in this thread. So now, the follow up: could philosophy conclude that X and ~X are NOT mutually exclusive?

This was the answer to your follow-up question.

Again, as directly answered before, it is a philosophical approach called Dialetheism. Though "conclude" would be a misrepresentation since it would be like a contradiction always being false (due to TRUE = NOT FALSE being an axiom), a foundational presupposition, as abaddon noted.

This is what you then said you were looking to get as an answer to your original question.

Find me any philosophy, theory or idea that presupposes the opposite. You won't, because that logical reality is so fundamental and self-evident that nobody has ever argued that it can possibly be wrong. So, in fact the answer to my first question is NO, because there cannot be a rational discussion about whether that presumption is false.

I had already given you that. Then it went on for a bit due to your BS rhetoric of “In other words”. Even then you were trying to put words in my mouth and I was calling you on it.

This is where you first asked for a demonstration, after you had already been given what you said you wanted for your original question and after your follow-up question had already been answered.

Dialetheism claims that logical contradictions are possible? I would love to see a demonstration of this.

You asked for an answer, I gave you that. Do those goalposts have a starting and ending point?

You then tried to BS that it was the same question. Heck, asking for a demonstration is not even the same question as your follow-up question, which was also already answered

What are you talking about? This is the exact question that I've been asking since the beginning. My larger point is that there's no way to conclude, in any way, shape or form, that X and ~X can both be true at once. It's impossible. Philosophy has nothing to do with this.

So asking for a demonstration was actually your follow-up follow-up question.

I then asserted

You weren't asking for a demonstration before. Again it is an actual philosophical position that a contradiction can be true.

To which you responded

Well I'm asking for a demonstration now. Show me an example of working philosophy that takes it as axiomatic that proposition A can be true AND false at the same time.

At which point, having answered your original and your follow-up questions, I had no intention of chasing your goal post around. Particularly with the BS you were trying to pull before about it being the exact same question you were asking before. Again if that were the case it would have already been answered with both those other questions.

As for childish games you were playing childish word games from the start, trying to posit your own words and thinking as if they were mine. Which I called you on before, more recently here even you are asserting that this…

"I know you are, but what am I?" Very mature.

"I will continue to troll you until you make me stop!" is also very mature.

"I refuse to acknowledge what you tell me and then demand that you show that you told me so I can ignore it again"

Much like the other stuff before

Quotations? Have you never heard of that expression? Kids use it all the time. I don't believe for a second that you didn't know that and that you didn't understand why I used it. At this point you are desperate to "win" any aspect of the discussion.

Is what kids do. Of course I knew exactly what you were doing it, it’s what you’ve been doing all along, playing childish word games.

Meh. It's like asking me to prove I've eaten pizza yesterday. Either look it up or don't. I don't care.

No it is not like asking to prove you eaten pizza yesterday. That is, unless you posted a picture of you eating pizza yeasted on this thread or simply claimed that you did. That you don’t care what BS you post is evident.

I didn't say someone had claimed this. I'm making a statement of fact, since you don't seem to understand that fact.

Again no one claimed or even implied otherwise (that is also a statement of fact). Even a simple statement of fact can be BS when it has no relation to what was actually being said or is perhaps just asserted to deliberately misrepresent what was being said. Particularly, as you just did, to assert some imagined lack of understanding. You are making a statement of fact to simply portray it as if it was some refutation of something that was never asserted or even thought by anyone but you. Though I do have to admit, even though ineffective, an inventive change of technique that is far more subtle then the “In other words” or the made up quotations and at least has an ‘Oh, I’m just stating a fact’ pseudo defense. However, still just your rhetoric of trying to posit your imagined discussion onto the actual discussion.

Yeah, that's what I just said. That is such a weird response.

- "Hey, what time is it?"
- "It isn't time to go to bed, that's for sure."
- "I didn't ask you to tell me what time it isn't."
- "No one said you asked me to tell you what it isn't."

See how silly the second person sounds? Yeah, that's you. You're either trolling, drunk, or broken to use such .

Here is the actual exchange, again.

How is that a logical contradiction? This is exactly like the discussion on positronium in the other thread. Sure, once two particles annihilate each other they no longer exist, and they exist just prior. There is no moment at which they both exist and don't exist. There's no contradiction.

No it is not like the annihilation of electrons and positions. In the annihilation of of electrons and positions, much as you state, they meet, annihilate and that's it. For reflective destructive interference it is continuous, as long as the source is generating, the particle motions act against each other. The particles must always be in such motion just to be able to act against each other. Also, you can vary the phase between the original and reflected wave, changing the interference. Showing that both those particle motions do still exist.

You didn’t ask what it isn’t you asked for how it was a contradiction, again, that I had explained before and you clearly understood since you asserted "There is no moment at which they exist and don't exist". Then you simply asserted it was like something it isn’t. So I explained why it isn’t.

So your hypothetical conversation would actually be…

Earlier conversation
- "What's the date?"
- "It's the 23rd."


- "What's the date? Hey, it’s like 5 o’clock now. Today can't be the 23rd."
- "No it is not like 5 o’clock now, that’s hours away."
- "I didn't ask you to tell me what time it isn't."
- "No one said you asked me to tell you what time it isn't."

If you would just refer to the actual exchange you wouldn’t need BS hypothetical conversations that portray the exchange differently.

You attempted an explanation at the time, but it fell short of actually explaining what the contradiction is. The rest of your paragraph here continues that fine tradition, merely repeating that it's possibly a contradiction without explaining how, but using a lot of words, some of them quite valuable in Scrabble.

Again I explained it, you not only acknowledged that explanation you directly mentioned what it was in your erroneous attempt to compare it to particle annihilation (as quoted above), so stop with the BS. Your only later objection was your assertion of some unspecified equivocation. That it is possibly a contradiction is exactly the point. Were it provable or demonstrable one way or the other, it wouldn’t be a questionable.

No. You don't get to decide what the consensus us in the discussion.

No decision or consensus was ever asserted, in fact that alternate interpretations were also given demonstrated none was even implied. Again arguing against some BS assertion only you make just so you can argue against it, is still just you arguing against yourself.

Lots of things are arguable. Even patently impossible or illogical things are arguable sometimes. I'll remind you that I'm not looking for some hypothetical scenario or potential interpretation, although at least this time you've passed the threshold of presenting one of these.

Since it was the possible interpretations that were explicitly asserted as arguable that would preclude your “patently impossible” constraint and if something is illogical depends on the type of logic being applied. I’ll remind you that I already gave you what you asked for, a philosophical position. Your threshold was crossed on my second post on this thread. Again I don’t care where you moved your threshold to after it had been crossed and then your follow up question answered. I’m still not doing your challenge, I’m just exploring if physical contradictions are possible and what it might take to define or classify them. Also as noted physically contrary situations were A and ~A are both false would also be a lack of A and ~A mutual exclusion.

Which has dick all to do with logical contradictions. It's like I said earlier: things canceling out, or being in opposition, isn't a logical contradition. I'm disappointed that in all that text you didn't actually take that step into a definite demonstration of your claim. It seemed for a moment that you would.

As explicitly stated, and ignored by you, that was given as an example of the differences that happen with scaling. It wasn’t asserted as a possible physical contradiction and wouldn’t be since, within the universe, the positive energy of the mass only occupies a finite volume. While the negative energy of the gravitational fields span the entire volume of the universe (having theoretically infinite range). Since they don’t occupy the same space that would be akin to A and ~A not being used in the same context in a statement. I also explained before, for the sound cancellation, that the logical contradiction is that waves have to exist to cancel out yet do not exist because they cancel out. As the reflected wave returns to the generating source it counter drives the source returning energy to it. At that point the driving element, let’s say a speaker, behaves as if it is in a vacuum but it is not. The electrical energy and power consumed driving the element drops to almost zero (just what is needed to flex that material of the element) as the energy the element transfers to the air molecules returns to the driving element by the reflected wave. There was a paper that ran trough the power calculations but I’m not sure if I can find it again, I tried some time before but couldn't. Both varying the phase or periodicity the amplitude demonstrates the wave motions exist because then the level of cancellation would vary.


I’ll be on vacation for the next couple of weeks so my engagement with the forum, if any, will be more sporadic than usual.

 

[LarryS]

Science is not the only alternative unless you define philosophy as "everything but science".

Philosophy, specifically metaphysics, proposes tentative claims re the nature of reality, what reality is. Examples of metaphysics include flavors of physicalism/materialism, flavors of Idealism, Dualism, Panpsychism, etc. If philosophy is marked as dead or useless, then all such tentative claims have to be abandoned.
IOW, is physics the study of the contents of consciousness, or, the study of this stuff called matter? Well, without philosophy, we can no longer argue for, or endorse any answer to this question.
If we abandon metaphysics we have to abandon physicalism, for physicalism is a metaphysics. Endorsing physicalism doesn't feel like doing philosophy only because it is the current paradigm.
Which is fine, because science (ie physics) works either way, science is independent of, and agnostic regarding any ontology.

 

[The Man]

I see what you mean. I think the instrumentality arises from the premise that scientific premises are universal and testable. You can make a prediction about the speed of light in a vacuum, and then measure it to see if the prediction is true.

You can't really measure or test the moral value of humans versus other animals. Where science is descriptive and predictive, philosophy is prescriptive. "If you believe humans have greater moral value than other animals, you should probably..."

I do have to add, theprestige, that I also have a new found respect for philosophy because of this thread, though I’m still not any particular fan. Specifically it is a respect for the engagement of philosophy with science and the particular sub-fields of the philosophy of science. Due to my own review of QM for this thread and the other scientific papers referencing philosophical works, I didn’t even think that was happening. Heck, the scientific papers I’ve read over the past decades might have had such references to philosophical works and I wouldn’t have known it without specifically going to that referenced paper. It was simply an assumption on my part that the references would be to other scientific papers not perhaps some philosophical work. Also a reference to the work of some well known physicist I would have particularly just assumed was a scientific work. However, as noted in a paper I linked before, some often do regularly publish such philosophy of science or physics works.

Even after years of studying QM and it's development history I had never heard that Schrödinger had tried to formulate his time independent wave function equation without complex numbers because he felt the wave function should be a real wave. Let alone that he had actually done it (in another of the papers I linked before). So certainly, it appears there may be interesting information in such works that isn't generally included in the purely scientific references and text books.

 

[Belz...]

What I’m on about is that whatever ID monster it is you have in your head, it ain’t me and has nothing to do with me.

It's funny how I've managed to quote that imaginary monster right here, complete with a link to the post in question.

The rest of your post just repeats the same stuff I've already addressed. If you can't explain or demonstrate your claim you could do it in fewer words. To summarize:

I also explained before, for the sound cancellation, that the logical contradiction is that waves have to exist to cancel out yet do not exist because they cancel out.

This is just a fundamental misundersanding of time and causality, so much so that it's hard to imagine how to snap you out of it. No wonder you think real logical contradictions exist in real life. They do not.

 

[The Man]

It's funny how I've managed to quote that imaginary monster right here, complete with a link to the post in question.

I have a moment or two, for simply this thread.

If your imaginary monster is simply that your thinking of me ain’t me. Again, that’s simply your problem. If “the post in question” refers to the post you link below, then, again, that has nothing to do with your assertions of your own thinking of me being my thinking. If you actually want to take ownership of your own thinking of me, perhaps we can address that. However, as I said, I will not engage with it or particularly as it, when simply posited as being my thinking. Perhaps you are, or are simply pretending to be, some kind of closest solipsist. There’s also a number of psychological conditions where people don’t take their own thinking as, well, just their own. Take your pick, makes no difference to me and has nothing to do with me.

The rest of your post just repeats the same stuff I've already addressed. If you can't explain or demonstrate your claim you could do it in fewer words. To summarize:

Actually, the rest of my post demonstrated how (by the actual discussions) your imagination (and hypothetical BS) simply doesn’t reflect the reality of the discussion that transpired. Again, in the rest of my post I showed I explained it and you acknowledged that explanation by specifically citing it in your ‘particle cancellation’ attempt to refute it. As to a demonstration, again, you were the one claiming that no one has actually considered or proposed “any philosophy, theory or idea that presupposes the opposite” as your “demonstration”. Again, as asserted in the parts of the post you simply ignored. That counter “demonstration” was made, whatever additional demonstration you now want (your moved goalposts), is simply your problem. Again, I redressed all your counter assertions to reflective cancelation, which you were willing or able to support.

This is just a fundamental misundersanding of time and causality, so much so that it's hard to imagine how to snap you out of it. No wonder you think real logical contradictions exist in real life. They do not.

Excellent, a new argument that actually goes to the physics of the question of just if physical contradictions can exist. Not just logical contradictions, contradictory statements that dialetheism explicitly addressed. It’s a conflation you continue to make and evidently simply tried to ascribe to me in your purported logical “stuff” compared to other “stuff”, multiple times, explanation that you could not support or even simply rearticulate when given the option. You want to seriously discuss it? We can, but you have to drop the rhetorical BS. Again, as asserted in what you ignored, it’s not that physical contradictions must exist but just that they are possible. The problem being is in how to define and classify them, as again asserted in what you ignored, it’s not a simple one to one relationship. Heck, what does even falsity mean in the universe? As far as I know the universe simply is, what in the universe is inherently in and of itself false? Truth, falsity, logical and illogical are simply ascriptions we give to our own thinking and descriptions of the universe. The “stuff” being compared to “other “stuff”” in your pretense and evidently falsely given explanation, if I’m not mistaken, so, to get back on track to your latest post, what is your understanding “of time and causality” that precludes them? Heck, what specifically is it that you simply think is my “misunderstanding” of such?


I'll look again when my standby time at work needs to be occupied, about another week.

 

[MinnesotaBrant]

According to Neil Degrass Tyson when you die that’s it, nothing in the universe is saved and he should know because he is the master of physics

 

[MinnesotaBrant]

I get people from other dimensions trying to scope me out and it’s like everyone is looking at me because space does not exist in the 4th dimension