What does it mean for something to be "logically possible"?

[untermensche]

Ehh, it's impossible for something to arise from nothing.

It is equally impossible for something to have always existed.

It is a paradox.

Your side of the paradox has no special place over the other.

The whole issue is that a paradox exists.

Imagining invented concepts like god or eternal existence is just foolishness. Not a rational answer.

 

[Kharakov]

Ehh, it's impossible for something to arise from nothing. We have that "data" which is a fact. If nothing exists, nothing will persist eternally. Nothing didn't exist- something did, which we can extrapolate from observing that something exists.

From the fact that something exists, we can know that something has always existed.

It is equally impossible for something to have always existed.

Where do you get that ludicrously incorrect idea? Are you equivocating "something"? If something changes forms, it is still something, even if it's a something that has changed into a new type of something.

 

[untermensche]

It is equally impossible for something to have always existed.

Where do you get that ludicrously incorrect idea? Are you equivocating "something"? If something changes forms, it is still something, even if it's a something that has changed into a new type of something.

Your inability to comprehend something is no argument.

An infinite past is impossible. Saying something has always existed makes no sense and it can't be defined or explained. And there is no data with which to make the claim.

Claiming a finite past is just as impossible doesn't change anything.

 

[Kharakov]

I suppose everyone except you and Lawrence Krauss understands that something can't come from nothing. And Lawrence Krauss just makes up a framework (something) that causes stuff to appear out of nowhere, and calls the framework (which exists) nothing.

Which is calling something nothing.

 

[beero1000]

Yeah. Seems like a strange idea to you.

Only being about to speak about available data and no more.

Because after speaking about data all you have is imaginary stories.

But some like certain imaginary stories more than other imaginary stories so they claim THEIR stories are the best stories.

Where do you get that ludicrously incorrect idea? Are you equivocating "something"? If something changes forms, it is still something, even if it's a something that has changed into a new type of something.

Your inability to comprehend something is no argument.

An infinite past is impossible. Saying something has always existed makes no sense and it can't be defined or explained. And there is no data with which to make the claim.

Claiming a finite past is just as impossible doesn't change anything.

It's like you don't even bother to listen to the things that you say. I guess it's more of a 'do as I say, not as I do' kind of thing.

 

[Kharakov]

It's like they lack the ability to parse simple logic: nothing begets nothing, so there was never nothing.

1) nothing does not exist (the concept of nothing does, but it is not nothing)
2) things that do not exist do not have properties
3) the ability to cause something to exist is a property
4) existing is a property
5) nothing has no properties, so could not have caused something to exist, and could not have changed into something that exists (otherwise it was something with the property of being able change into something that exists, which means it already existed)

Conclusion? Do you need more premises? Do you understand any of the words you've been exposed to? Beep?

 

[fast]

It's like they lack the ability to parse simple logic: nothing begets nothing, so there was never nothing.

1) nothing does not exist (the concept of nothing does, but it is not nothing)
2) things that do not exist do not have properties
3) the ability to cause something to exist is a property
4) existing is a property
5) nothing has no properties, so could not have caused something to exist, and could not have changed into something that exists (otherwise it was something with the property of being able change into something that exists, which means it already existed)

Conclusion? Do you need more premises? Do you understand any of the words you've been exposed to? Beep?

#4 is false

 

[bilby]

Self evidently, it is a direct response to you. Logically, you appear to be declaring either yourself or your arguments to be nothing; While I would certainly tend to agree with that assessment, I rather doubt that it was your intent.

It is a meaningless rant.

Your continuing inability to extract meaning from any post that disagrees with your preconceptions is noted. Again, you are not doing your own image any favours by your admission of your incompetence in this regard; are you sure that you meant to make that admission?

Good luck.

Thanks, but I don't rely on luck - I have reality on my side.

Empty rant on top of empty rant.

My god you are an ignorant ass.

Talking to yourself is the first sign of insanity.

An abject lack of self-awareness is just sad and pathetic, though. I doubt that you are clinically insane; More likely just way too deep in Kruger-Dunning overconfidence to detect the MASSIVE irony of your last two sentences.

 

[fast]

Self evidently, it is a direct response to you. Logically, you appear to be declaring either yourself or your arguments to be nothing; While I would certainly tend to agree with that assessment, I rather doubt that it was your intent.

It is a meaningless rant.

Your continuing inability to extract meaning from any post that disagrees with your preconceptions is noted. Again, you are not doing your own image any favours by your admission of your incompetence in this regard; are you sure that you meant to make that admission?

Good luck.

Thanks, but I don't rely on luck - I have reality on my side.

Empty rant on top of empty rant.

My god you are an ignorant ass.

Talking to yourself is the first sign of insanity.

An abject lack of self-awareness is just sad and pathetic, though. I doubt that you are clinically insane; More likely just way too deep in Kruger-Dunning overconfidence to detect the MASSIVE irony of your last two sentences.

Could you please retract that bolded part. Please. Pretty please.

[/Oh shit, I'm so screwed]

 

[Kharakov]

It's like they lack the ability to parse simple logic: nothing begets nothing, so there was never nothing.

1) nothing does not exist (the concept of nothing does, but it is not nothing)
2) things that do not exist do not have properties
3) the ability to cause something to exist is a property
4) existing is a property
5) nothing has no properties, so could not have caused something to exist, and could not have changed into something that exists (otherwise it was something with the property of being able change into something that exists, which means it already existed)

Conclusion? Do you need more premises? Do you understand any of the words you've been exposed to? Beep?

#4 is false

What?

 

[fast]

#4 is false

What?

Existence isn't a property. To say of something that it exists is to say of something that it has properties, yes, but existence itself is not a property. For instance, a chair has properties, but existence isn't one of them.

 

[fromderinside]

It isn't called data unless it is observed.

That's what data is.

Data exists. It exists of physical things in the world. It may be described. It may be placed on a page, it may represent measurement from a process. It may be observed, but, it needn't be observed to be data.

 

[Kharakov]

What?

Existence isn't a property. To say of something that it exists is to say of something that it has properties, yes, but existence itself is not a property. For instance, a chair has properties, but existence isn't one of them.

Really? I thought the fact that a chair exists is a property of the chair. An imaginary thing might exist as a thought/concept, but the chair I am sitting on actually exists. It has the property of existing. Nothing doesn't have the property of existing, but the concept of nothing has the property of existing.

 

[fast]

Existence isn't a property. To say of something that it exists is to say of something that it has properties, yes, but existence itself is not a property. For instance, a chair has properties, but existence isn't one of them.

Really? I thought the fact that a chair exists is a property of the chair. An imaginary thing might exist as a thought/concept, but the chair I am sitting on actually exists. It has the property of existing. Nothing doesn't have the property of existing, but the concept of nothing has the property of existing.

Anytime sometimes says, "exists as," you should immediately be on guard that there is a very high likelyhood that something is amiss.

There are things, and of all the things there are, they exist. If we consider something and that something doesn't exist, then we should refrain from insisting they do by saying they exist in the imagination. To say of something that it's imaginary is to deny that it exists--it isn't to assert that something exists and that it located in the imagination. In analogy, if I say nothing is in the drawer, you don't open up an empty drawer and exclaim that you can't find this nothing I speak of that's in the drawer. Why? Because "nothing" doesn't name anything--it's a denial term; I'm not saying that there is this thing called nothing that's situated nice and neatly somewhere. Same thing with imaginary objects. There's not some existing things that's tucked away in our imagination. It's a denial that the thing we call imaginary exists at all.

 

[fast]

It isn't called data unless it is observed.

That's what data is.

Data exists. It exists of physical things in the world. It may be described. It may be placed on a page, it may represent measurement from a process. It may be observed, but, it needn't be observed to be data.

You're really making me think on this one. I really don't know the answer. On the one hand, how in the world can we collect data if there is not already data for the collecting? That account fits your perspective nicely; on the other hand, if data is collection dependent and facts become data as collected, then the scope has a narrow reach just short of your perspective. Tough one.

 

[fromderinside]

If data didn't exist it couldn't be collected or observed.

 

[fast]

If data didn't exist it couldn't be collected or observed.

That's what I understand you to mean. And, you may be right.

Suppose (just as a thought experiment) that data is like hot water and that we have only cold water (like facts) and it only becomes hot water (data) the moment it becomes hot water (like when facts are collected).

 

[fromderinside]

If data didn't exist it couldn't be collected or observed.

That's what I understand you to mean. And, you may be right.

Suppose (just as a thought experiment) that data is like hot water and that we have only cold water (like facts) and it only becomes hot water (data) the moment it becomes hot water (like when facts are collected).

Later I'm gong to attempt a counter analogy.

But first, consider that if a mind didn't exist there would be no matter is we extended your analogy. Stuff is there and it does what it does regardless of whether there is an ear or mind available. If not the mind of which we know wouldn't be there unless another mind existed. Solipsism here we come.

So, OK, I didn't come up with one. Still there is one out there.

 

[fast]

That's what I understand you to mean. And, you may be right.

Suppose (just as a thought experiment) that data is like hot water and that we have only cold water (like facts) and it only becomes hot water (data) the moment it becomes hot water (like when facts are collected).

Later I'm gong to attempt a counter analogy.

But first, consider that if a mind didn't exist there would be no matter is we extended your analogy. Stuff is there and it does what it does regardless of whether there is an ear or mind available. If not the mind of which we know wouldn't be there unless another mind existed. Solipsism here we come.

So, OK, I didn't come up with one. Still there is one out there.

That got deeper than I meant for it to go. I was just considering the possibility that the scope of what data includes has been broadened by philosophical usage. I'm okay with your usage. It's just that if that isn't the mainstream usage, it might be advisable to distinguish between "uncollected data" (which is clearly distinguishable from "collected data"). The distinction would only be important if there's contention regarding the scope of what CONSTITUTES data.

 

[Kharakov]

Really? I thought the fact that a chair exists is a property of the chair. An imaginary thing might exist as a thought/concept, but the chair I am sitting on actually exists. It has the property of existing.

Anytime sometimes says, "exists as," you should immediately be on guard that there is a very high likelyhood that something is amiss.

Show

https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/animalculism : The theory that the embryo exists as a preformed entity in the spermatozoon

You need to bust them for slacking.

To say of something that it's imaginary is to deny that it exists--it isn't to assert that something exists and that it located in the imagination.

Tell that to my hallucinations.

In analogy, if I say nothing is in the drawer, you don't open up an empty drawer and exclaim that you can't find this nothing I speak of that's in the drawer.

You're equivocating nothing. Spacetime exists in the drawer.

Why? Because "nothing" doesn't name anything--it's a denial term;

It's a positive term meaning the absence of anything. A framework that causes universes to pop into existence is not nothing, it's something.


I'm not satisfied with your argument that existence is not a property. I definitely don't think it's funny to say that thoughts are non-existent because they are imaginary.