New Argument (Hope it works)

[Laila]

So it's a new thing. Ok dokie.

No; it's essentially just the slow filling in of the "God of the gaps."

It's been going on for thousands of years, it's just that it's gone from stuff like "The earth is flat, therefore there must be an edge, a bottom, and something holding or pushing it up" to "time is relative and therefore must reach 0 at the speed of light," and in the future will go deeper and deeper.

For instance we're starting to realize possibilities that just fuck up space time entirely, like particles that may effectively move backwards through time, which could display the universe as creating itself not at its start, but essentially retroactively.

[Arberian]

Scientists use equations to test philosophies on physical application.

Basically, we've just gotten to the point where shit that was purely philosophical for millennia is test-able with our available tools. So we need to convert philosophies into equations to become proofs or disproofs.

Science is philosophy because science tries to draw conclusions.

[Deleted]

2)If everything which begins to exist has no cause, nothing caused it to begin to exist.
-->Since nothing(non-existent) has no actual properties it is impossible for it to "be" the cause of something.

I don't think you can say that if something has no cause, it's cause was nothing. You say nothing is something, a cause. You equate something with nothing, then use the fact that they are not equal as your argument. All you can say is that there is a lack of a cause, not that the cause is X (in this case nothing).

[Poppincaps]

This reminds me of the theory that there is a higher probability of us being brains imagining our universe than our universe actually existing the way it does. Ultimately, it doesn't matter whether we are imagining our existence or if we actually exist in terms of this reality.

- - - Updated - - -

Science is philosophy because science tries to draw conclusions.

Pasta must be a sandwich then because you eat them both...

Science relies on hard facts. Philosophy depends on logic and rational arguments. They both draw conclusions but the conclusions they draw and they way they draw those conclusions are different.

[Kasierith]

This is more of a series of disjointed statements that do not start with axiomatic statements than a structured argument.

[Kuntantee]

Not to be dismissive (although I already admitted my bias here..) Does philosophy use equations now? Is it like the new thing, like postmodernism was in the past? A whole lot of nothing to sound impressive rather than getting to the point? =/

Philosophers are thought various predicate calculi. Since what philosophers do is always employ logical connectives via English, it provides them a more formal and rigorous way of expression.

- - - Updated - - -

Science is philosophy because science tries to draw conclusions.

Now you started make 0 sense.

- - - Updated - - -

This is more of a series of disjointed statements that do not start with axiomatic statements than a structured argument.

First proposition is an axiom. Read it harder. Those propositions are far from disjoint statements, they are quite consistent. Not that I find it valuable or impressive, yet your analysis is absurd.

[Deleted]

BTW philosophy is all about drawing right conclusions.

According to some definition of "right".

[Laila]

Philosophers are thought various predicate calculi. Since what philosophers do is always employ logical connectives via English, it provides them a more formal and rigorous way of expression.

- - - Updated - - -



Now you started make 0 sense.

- - - Updated - - -



First proposition is an axiom. Read it harder. Those propositions are far from disjoint statements, they are quite consistent. Not that I find it valuable or impressive, yet your analysis is absurd.

The first is an axiom.

The second is 1+1=1+1.

The third and fourth are pulled directly from the ass of someone that came up with a conclusion, then started thinking about evidence and decided on some circular logic.

[Kuntantee]

The first is an axiom.

The second is 1+1=1+1.

The third and fourth are pulled directly from the ass of someone that came up with a conclusion, then started thinking about evidence and decided on some circular logic.

I already said what I think about those 5 propositions, you can check arguments I provided to Ysilla. I think the flow of propositions are quite logical. Only problem is definition of cause and I've addressed that as well.

ps: I am talking about the original propositions. This modified versions seems too conclusive and problematic.

[Kasierith]

First proposition is an axiom. Read it harder. Those propositions are far from disjoint statements, they are quite consistent. Not that I find it valuable or impressive, yet your analysis is absurd.

Not really. A subset of it was that the universe was created. New models from quantum mechanics demonstrate that the universe as it was not created. The big bang has never been held as the most valid theory given the evidence at the time, and the new presence of models that fit what we know about dark matter makes the assertion that the universe was created not axiomatic.

In other words, given current models you cannot assert that existence was created.

[Kuntantee]

Not really. A subset of it was that the universe was created. New models from quantum mechanics demonstrate that the universe as it was not created. The big bang has never been held as the most valid theory given the evidence at the time, and the new presence of models that fit what we know about dark matter makes the assertion that the universe was created not axiomatic.

That statement is axiom regardless of the scientific discoveries. It only depends following premise:

caused == !uncaused or
caused IS NOT(uncaused)

[Kasierith]

That statement is axiom regardless of the scientific discoveries. It only depends following premise:

caused == !uncaused

Caused ==! uncaused depends on spontaneous generation of existence. This model fails axiomatically.

[Kuntantee]

Caused ==! uncaused depends on spontaneous generation of existence. This model fails axiomatically.

What is "spontaneous generation of existence" and how does effect causality? I will let you explain yourself before labeling posts as non-sense.

[Deleted]

Caused ==! uncaused depends on spontaneous generation of existence. This model fails axiomatically.

Isn't spontaneous generation of existence a phenomenon used to explain vacuum energy and a few other things in quantum physics?

[Kasierith]

In other words, this being an axiom is completely dependant on two possibilities.

Something that was brought into existence was caused.
Something that was brought into existence was uncaused.

It ignores the third possibility.
Something was never brought into existence but currently exists.

Which is where the current quantum mechanics structures point.

- - - Updated - - -

Isn't spontaneous generation of existence a phenomenon used to explain vacuum energy and a few other things in quantum physics?

What I am referring to.
http://phys.org/news/2015-02-big-quantum-equation-universe.html

- - - Updated - - -

What is "spontaneous generation of existence" and how does effect causality? I will let you explain yourself before labeling posts as non-sense.

I suggest you actually read a post before reacting to it.

[Kuntantee]

In other words, this being an axiom is completely dependant on two possibilities.

Something that was brought into existence was caused.
Something that was brought into existence was uncaused.

It ignores the third possibility.
Something was never brought into existence but currently exists.

This is what I call axiomatic failure.

[Kasierith]

This is what I call axiomatic failure.

Take it up with modern quantum mechanics, bub. I've referenced myself already.

[Vyxn]

For ever action there is a reaction one of the fundamental laws of physics
so if we never have an action we will never have a reaction so going by the fundamental laws of physics there has always has to be a cause

[Deleted]

What I am referring to.
http://phys.org/news/2015-02-big-qua...-universe.html

Interesting read but as they say themselves it's still in it's early shoes. The most notable part of the article was that the universe must have a finite size for it to be infinite in age, which currently cannot be proven i think. (i forget if we know for sure if our universe is curved or not etc, tho i personally belief the universe to be finite). The other notable part is that they remove a singularity by introducing a infinity.

This is what I call axiomatic failure.

If your axiom fails a possibility is always that your axiom is wrong.

[Kuntantee]

Take it up with modern quantum mechanics, bub. I've referenced myself already.

You have two very big problems

- You can't differentiate a scientific and philosophical discussion, just like many people here
- You base your ideas on concepts you probably can't understand and interpret.

I actually read your "reference". It doesn't mention anything related with "spontaneous generation of existence".