Freethought & Rationalism Archive

George W. · 01-12-2003, 07:34 PM

Syllogism:

1) Everything which is divisible in time is caused.

GW: This is an assumption without basis.

2) Everything which is caused is mobile.

GW: Again a false assumption. Everything we know that exists is in some form of motion, but no one can assume that all is caused.

3) Everything which is divisible in time is mobile.

GW: Meaningless gabberloony.

A sensu contrario:

1) Everything which is indivisible in time is uncaused.

GW: Nothing indivisible in time is known to exist, and perhaps in that sense the non-existent is also uncaused.

2) Everything which is uncaused is still.

GW: I know of nothing that is entirely still. Therefore nothing that I know of is uncaused.

3) Everything which is indivisible in time is still.

GW: Since indivisible in time is a concept that cannot be proven, it is rubbish to assert that it is still, or cubical, or spinning. BTW the above pseudosyllogisms are logically invalid.

Justification:

So atomists will ever be wrong, because, although they imagine mobile atoms, they are not able to explain who or what put them in motion.

GW: I think that the last Atomists died shortly after Aristotle's time.

"If atom* can't split up, then:"

GW: Rubbish. We know all too well that atoms can be split.

"1) It has a free will and an absolute faculty of self-determination; "

GW: That in no way follows from your incorrect premise.

"2) Or it has to be moved outerly."

GW: I think you picked the wrong mushrooms yesterday.

"If it has a free will, which would mean a total uncertainty, science is helpless to understand this kind of phenomena. They would be an eternal Ignotum (X) for human comprehension. "

GW: Free will implies consciousness at the very least. It implies a mental processing that we know exists only in rather complex neuronal structure. Whether free will exists at all is unproven. It may be illusory, and apparent decisions may be inevitable in a particular brain if the same data were presented repeatedly. Of course it can't be done. If you give a brain the same data a second time, the brain has been changed by the first data input. To talk about atoms, protons, quarks, or vibrating strings in terms of free will is a irrational exercise.

"If it has to be moved outerly, then every atom needs something which is not an atom and acts instead of it as its first cause. "

GW: Who besides you think that an Atom has to be moved outerly, whatever that means? If an atom moves it can move by electomagnetic, ionic, and gravitational forces, none of which necessarily qualify as the mythical first cause.

"Being the motive power and the atom two essentialy different things, the motive power will be infinitely divisible. "

GW: That makes no sense since the premises are false.

"Thus, the atomist contradicts himself (matter is and isn't infinitely divisible), or he has to presuppose God anyway. "

GW: I don't know of any living atomists aside from you since Aristotle and some other Greek chaps 2500 years ago.

Conclusion:

"If real atoms existed, they won't move. "

GW: Unsupported claim.

"Things we call atoms move, so they weren't atoms at all. "

GW: Atoms are the names given to particles composed of one or more protons, an equal number of electrons, and a nearly equal number of neutrons in larger atoms. Everything moves, even quarks and vibrating springs.

"Therefore, real atoms don't exist, because everything in nature is continuously in movement. "

GW: No semantic masturbation with the word Atom. An atom is the smallest particle of an element, it is composed at the very simplistic level of a positive proton, and negatie electron, both in motion. At absolute Kelvin Zero degrees atomic motion supposedly ceases, but I think electrons still orbit (I could be wrong on that but a physicist can correct me on that.)

"If matter is infinitely divisible, man, which has a finite understanding, will never dominate the cosmos completely (principle of relative uncertainty). "

GW: Error #1 - we don't know if matter is infinitely divisible.
Error #2 - man having finite understanding can understand finite matter. Error#3 - Man will never dominate the cosmos completely because it simply is too big and to far from end to end.

Daniel.

* I call "atom" any alleged indivisible particle of matter.

GW: I call that a false definition of "atom." An atom is the smallest particle of an element, and not necessarily invisible.

George W.

irichc · 01-13-2003, 07:18 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by George W.
GW: I know of nothing that is entirely still. Therefore nothing that I know of is uncaused.

A sensu contrario: Everything is mobile. Therefore everything must be caused (although we don't know the exact cause).

Daniel.

Biff the unclean · 01-13-2003, 09:08 AM

The problem I have isn't with your argument that there is a "prime cause."
A prime cause, or causes wold seem to be logical.
It is that the prime cause is a God that makes no sense. A God with likes and dislikes, and plans for the future.
There is no way you could possibly know this. No facts even suggest such a thing.
How do you make the vast leap between a cause and a fictional character from mythology?

Feather · 01-13-2003, 12:01 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by tk
Did. I'm curious to hear of any particle which science now alleges is indivisible.

"Total uncertainty" and "total determinism" is still a false dichotomy.

In fact the concept of a particle which is indivisible is meaningless in light of quantum mechanics. Either an entity has a localized wave function (particle) or it's a bit of energy flitting about. Hence the various bits of subatomic particles that were thought to be "fundamental" can decay, morph, and do all manner of neat things that an actual "indivisible" particle would never do.

However, this doesn't mean that matter is continuous. Oh no, it does not. Sadly. That little bit can be a cantankerous ass of a problem to deal with sometimes.

Hawkingfan · 01-14-2003, 06:32 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by irichc
So atomists will ever be wrong, because, although they imagine mobile atoms, they are not able to explain who or what put them in motion.

Like hell they aren't. First off, atoms are not imagined. They can easily be seen with a particle detector (even in color!). Secondly, any matter particle, such as an electron or a quark, emits a force-carrying particle. The recoil from this emission changes the velocity of the matter particle. The force-carrying particle then collides with another matter particle and is absorbed. This collision changes the velocity of the second particle, just as if there had been a force between the two matter particles. It is an important property of the force-carrying particles that they do not obey the exclusion principle (two similar particles cannot exist in the same state). This means that there is no limit to the number that can be exchanged, and so they can give rise to a strong force.
The electromagnetic attraction between negatively charged electrons and positively charged protons in the nucleus causes the electrons to orbit the nucleus of the atom. This attraction is caused by the exchange of large numbers of virtual massless particles of spin 1, called photons. When an electron changes from one allowed orbit to another one nearer to the nucleus, energy is released and a real photon is emitted--which can be observed as visible light by the human eye, if it has the right wavelength, or by a photon detector such as photographic film. If a real photon collides with an atom, it may move an electron from an orbit nearer the nuceus to one farther away. This uses up the energy of the photon, so it is absorbed.

Quote:

1) It has a free will and an absolute faculty of self-determination;[/B]

Atoms do not have free will. An electron does not know where it is and where it is going, simultaneously--just like we don't know it either. It's movement is random, but one can calculate predictions of where it will most likely circumnavigate next (knowing that all possible paths will be traveled eventually).

Quote:

2) Or it has to be moved outerly.[/B]

But the movement is arbitrary, so there is no purpose to it--it is chance. Therefore, the mover would be an idiot.

Quote:

If it has to be moved outerly, then every atom needs something which is not an atom and acts instead of it as its first cause.[/B]

I think that is a poor conclusion. You do not even mention the possibility of the random thermal motion of atoms (the truth for which there is proof).

Quote:

Being the motive power and the atom two essentialy different things, the motive power will be infinitely divisible. Thus, the atomist contradicts himself (matter is and isn't infinitely divisible), or he has to presuppose God anyway.[/B]

The motive power will not be infinitely divisible, the atomist does not contradict himself, and should never presuppose a god unless he is a quack. This is because gravity provides a limit to divisibility. If one had a particle with an energy above the Planck energy, ten million million million GeV (1 followed by 19 zeros), its mass would be so concentrated that it would cut itself off from the rest of the universe and form a little black hole.

tronvillain · 01-14-2003, 02:13 PM

Syllogism:

1) Everything which is divisible in time is caused.
2) Everything which is caused is mobile.
3) Everything which is divisible in time is mobile.

Is it actually the case that "everything which in divisible in time is caused" and "everything which is caused is mobile"? It is not at all clear that it is, making this a rather trivial excercise that proves nothing. There is no apparent logical problem with something caused being still, or even with something divisible in time being uncaused.

A sensu contrario:

1) Everything which is indivisible in time is uncaused.
2) Everything which is uncaused is still.
3) Everything which is indivisible in time is still.

"To sense the opposite"? Finding an exact translation of that phrase is surprisingly difficult. In any case, it does not follow from "everything which is divisible in time is caused" that "everything which is indivisible in time is uncaused", nor does it follow from "everything that is caused is mobile" that "everything which is uncaused is still." They are simply additional unsupported premises.

This argument fails from the very beginning.

irichc · 01-15-2003, 01:41 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by tronvillain
"To sense the opposite"?

Ok, you have found what "a sensu contrario" means. Now try to understand what "tertius non datur" means.

Daniel.

Feather · 01-15-2003, 08:44 AM

Well I for one have always thought that using other, dead languages certainly makes a point more valid than using the mundane living languages of the world.

Biff the unclean · 01-15-2003, 08:51 AM

Wouldn't that be "non datur tertium" (not given a third chance) ?

Do you usually get away with passing off pretension for content in everyday life? Because it isn't working here. No one is fooled.

irichc · 01-15-2003, 09:15 AM

Ok, looks like I'll have to explain it.

You all are reasoning this way:

"If A then B doesn't mean necessarily that if no A then no B. For instance: Every Spaniard is European doesn't imply that any non Spaniard isn't European".

Well, in this exemple tertius non datur DOESN'T WORK, because we don't have a tertius non datur form. Thus, a non Spaniard can be French and still an European (any other nacionality will be the "tertius" or third option which logic doesn't exclude). Nevertheless, when we're talking about mobile and still, caused and uncaused, �is there any third option? �Can anything be neither mobile nor still, neither caused nor uncaused? In that case inferences are totally simetrical: If no A then no B, THEN, if A then B. Or, as I want to prove:

If everything which is still is always uncaused, THEN
Everything which is mobile is always caused.

Saying that everything which is mobile is not always caused is as nonsense as state that everything which is still is not always uncaused, because in that case equivalences are broken: you are turning "mobile" and "still" into synonims. The essential thing in a still object is being uncaused; therefore, the essential thing in a mobile object has to be the opposite, which is being caused.

Another exemple:

If everything which has colour has light --> everything which has no colour has no light (as far as light is essential to colour).

White (maximum light) supposes the potenciality of all colours, and black (maximum shadow) its negation. Therefore, black is not a colour and has no light.

Daniel.

01-12-2003, 07:34 PM	#21
George W. Junior Member Join Date: Jan 2003 Location: Washington State, USA Posts: 9	What?????? Syllogism: 1) Everything which is divisible in time is caused. GW: This is an assumption without basis. 2) Everything which is caused is mobile. GW: Again a false assumption. Everything we know that exists is in some form of motion, but no one can assume that all is caused. 3) Everything which is divisible in time is mobile. GW: Meaningless gabberloony. A sensu contrario: 1) Everything which is indivisible in time is uncaused. GW: Nothing indivisible in time is known to exist, and perhaps in that sense the non-existent is also uncaused. 2) Everything which is uncaused is still. GW: I know of nothing that is entirely still. Therefore nothing that I know of is uncaused. 3) Everything which is indivisible in time is still. GW: Since indivisible in time is a concept that cannot be proven, it is rubbish to assert that it is still, or cubical, or spinning. BTW the above pseudosyllogisms are logically invalid. Justification: So atomists will ever be wrong, because, although they imagine mobile atoms, they are not able to explain who or what put them in motion. GW: I think that the last Atomists died shortly after Aristotle's time. "If atom* can't split up, then:" GW: Rubbish. We know all too well that atoms can be split. "1) It has a free will and an absolute faculty of self-determination; " GW: That in no way follows from your incorrect premise. "2) Or it has to be moved outerly." GW: I think you picked the wrong mushrooms yesterday. "If it has a free will, which would mean a total uncertainty, science is helpless to understand this kind of phenomena. They would be an eternal Ignotum (X) for human comprehension. " GW: Free will implies consciousness at the very least. It implies a mental processing that we know exists only in rather complex neuronal structure. Whether free will exists at all is unproven. It may be illusory, and apparent decisions may be inevitable in a particular brain if the same data were presented repeatedly. Of course it can't be done. If you give a brain the same data a second time, the brain has been changed by the first data input. To talk about atoms, protons, quarks, or vibrating strings in terms of free will is a irrational exercise. "If it has to be moved outerly, then every atom needs something which is not an atom and acts instead of it as its first cause. " GW: Who besides you think that an Atom has to be moved outerly, whatever that means? If an atom moves it can move by electomagnetic, ionic, and gravitational forces, none of which necessarily qualify as the mythical first cause. "Being the motive power and the atom two essentialy different things, the motive power will be infinitely divisible. " GW: That makes no sense since the premises are false. "Thus, the atomist contradicts himself (matter is and isn't infinitely divisible), or he has to presuppose God anyway. " GW: I don't know of any living atomists aside from you since Aristotle and some other Greek chaps 2500 years ago. Conclusion: "If real atoms existed, they won't move. " GW: Unsupported claim. "Things we call atoms move, so they weren't atoms at all. " GW: Atoms are the names given to particles composed of one or more protons, an equal number of electrons, and a nearly equal number of neutrons in larger atoms. Everything moves, even quarks and vibrating springs. "Therefore, real atoms don't exist, because everything in nature is continuously in movement. " GW: No semantic masturbation with the word Atom. An atom is the smallest particle of an element, it is composed at the very simplistic level of a positive proton, and negatie electron, both in motion. At absolute Kelvin Zero degrees atomic motion supposedly ceases, but I think electrons still orbit (I could be wrong on that but a physicist can correct me on that.) "If matter is infinitely divisible, man, which has a finite understanding, will never dominate the cosmos completely (principle of relative uncertainty). " GW: Error #1 - we don't know if matter is infinitely divisible. Error #2 - man having finite understanding can understand finite matter. Error#3 - Man will never dominate the cosmos completely because it simply is too big and to far from end to end. Daniel. * I call "atom" any alleged indivisible particle of matter. GW: I call that a false definition of "atom." An atom is the smallest particle of an element, and not necessarily invisible. George W.

01-15-2003, 09:15 AM	#30
irichc Regular Member Join Date: Jan 2003 Location: Barcelona, Spain Posts: 425	Tertius non datur Ok, looks like I'll have to explain it. You all are reasoning this way: "If A then B doesn't mean necessarily that if no A then no B. For instance: Every Spaniard is European doesn't imply that any non Spaniard isn't European". Well, in this exemple tertius non datur DOESN'T WORK, because we don't have a tertius non datur form. Thus, a non Spaniard can be French and still an European (any other nacionality will be the "tertius" or third option which logic doesn't exclude). Nevertheless, when we're talking about mobile and still, caused and uncaused, �is there any third option? �Can anything be neither mobile nor still, neither caused nor uncaused? In that case inferences are totally simetrical: If no A then no B, THEN, if A then B. Or, as I want to prove: If everything which is still is always uncaused, THEN Everything which is mobile is always caused. Saying that everything which is mobile is not always caused is as nonsense as state that everything which is still is not always uncaused, because in that case equivalences are broken: you are turning "mobile" and "still" into synonims. The essential thing in a still object is being uncaused; therefore, the essential thing in a mobile object has to be the opposite, which is being caused. Another exemple: If everything which has colour has light --> everything which has no colour has no light (as far as light is essential to colour). White (maximum light) supposes the potenciality of all colours, and black (maximum shadow) its negation. Therefore, black is not a colour and has no light. Daniel.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

01-13-2003, 09:08 AM	#23
Biff the unclean Banned Join Date: Oct 2002 Location: an inaccessible island fortress Posts: 10,638	The problem I have isn't with your argument that there is a "prime cause." A prime cause, or causes wold seem to be logical. It is that the prime cause is a God that makes no sense. A God with likes and dislikes, and plans for the future. There is no way you could possibly know this. No facts even suggest such a thing. How do you make the vast leap between a cause and a fictional character from mythology?

01-14-2003, 02:13 PM	#26
tronvillain Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2000 Location: Alberta, Canada Posts: 5,658	Syllogism: 1) Everything which is divisible in time is caused. 2) Everything which is caused is mobile. 3) Everything which is divisible in time is mobile. Is it actually the case that "everything which in divisible in time is caused" and "everything which is caused is mobile"? It is not at all clear that it is, making this a rather trivial excercise that proves nothing. There is no apparent logical problem with something caused being still, or even with something divisible in time being uncaused. A sensu contrario: 1) Everything which is indivisible in time is uncaused. 2) Everything which is uncaused is still. 3) Everything which is indivisible in time is still. "To sense the opposite"? Finding an exact translation of that phrase is surprisingly difficult. In any case, it does not follow from "everything which is divisible in time is caused" that "everything which is indivisible in time is uncaused", nor does it follow from "everything that is caused is mobile" that "everything which is uncaused is still." They are simply additional unsupported premises. This argument fails from the very beginning.

01-15-2003, 08:44 AM	#28
Feather Veteran Member Join Date: May 2002 Location: Gainesville, FL Posts: 1,827	Well I for one have always thought that using other, dead languages certainly makes a point more valid than using the mundane living languages of the world.

01-15-2003, 08:51 AM	#29
Biff the unclean Banned Join Date: Oct 2002 Location: an inaccessible island fortress Posts: 10,638	Wouldn't that be "non datur tertium" (not given a third chance) ? Do you usually get away with passing off pretension for content in everyday life? Because it isn't working here. No one is fooled.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.