Clutch

Daniel, no, you don't have to explain it. Which is good, because your "explanation" is unintelligible.

You just have to either call it by its familiar technical name, the Law of Excluded Middle, or at least spell its Latin name correctly -- tertium non datur -- so people can look it up and discover what your hilariously baroque point really is.

In any case. Of course the mobile-still dichotomy does not exhaust the options if these terms are meant in the pre-Galilean absolute sense. The third option, in that case, is the availability of the relativistic (viz, the 400 year-old obvious) interpretation. But on the relativized interpretation, stillness and mobility by definition have no application to the universe as a whole. Either way your reasoning flops.

irichc

You find it unintelligible? I'm so sorry. I'm going to post it in the original version. I hope your spanish is as good as my english, so you can understand.

"Tertium non datur" and "tertius non datur" are the same thing (in passive voice), and I can't believe that, if you knew the first form, you haven't recognized the second.

Finally, I know that according to a relativistic point of view the beholder is still, but I'm talking in absolute terms. Although nobody can prove that everything is mobile, no one can demonstrate that anything is absolutely still. And, if he could, it will go against 2nd law of thermodynamics.

Daniel.

PS: The "0 degrees Kelvin" objection flops too, because every object has an higher heat.

* * *

Here you have the spanish version. Please, enjoy:

Así, vienes a decir algo del estilo de:

"Si A entonces B no implica necesariamente que si no A entonces no B. Por ejemplo: Todo español es europeo para nada implica que todo el que no es español no es europeo".

Pues bien, estúpido, viejo chocho, o no sé ya cómo llamarte, en este ejemplo que planteas y que, simplificándolo, yo versiono en forma no abstracta NO ACTÚA el tertius non datur. Es decir, un no español puede ser francés y seguir siendo europeo (cualquier otra nacionalidad europea sería el "tertius" o tercera opción que la lógica no excluye). En cambio, cuando hablamos de lo móvil y de lo inmóvil, de lo causado y de lo incausado, ¿existe una tercera opción? ¿Puede algo no ser ni móvil ni inmóvil, ni causado ni incausado? En este caso las inferencias son absolutamente simétricas: Si no A entonces no B, ENTONCES, si A entonces B. O, para lo que me interesa probar:

Si lo inmóvil es siempre incausado, ENTONCES
lo móvil es siempre causado.

De lo contrario, decir que lo móvil no siempre es causado es tanto como afirmar que lo inmóvil no siempre es incausado, pues quedan rotas las equivalencias: conviertes "móvil" e "inmóvil" en sinónimos. Lo esencial de lo inmóvil es ser incausado (algo que tú y yo aceptamos), de modo que lo esencial de lo móvil, su opuesto absoluto, ha de ser también lo inverso, esto es, ser causado (algo que yo acepto y tú niegas ridículamente).

Contesta, charlatán.

Daniel.

Biff the unclean

Well you also have things that were still and then set into motion and things that were in motion and then stopped…if you want more categories.
The big problem is with the rather loaded word you are using, created

Everything is in motion. Every single thing, even those objects that exist at absolute zero and have had their atomic motion frozen. Everything is in motion because space itself is expanding.
In no way does this resemble something created, as the word created carries with it the implication of an intellectual/artistic process. Rather we are living in the aftermath of the greatest explosion of all time…the Big Bang. This is destruction not creation. We are the fragments of whatever existed before. Whatever that was, it was obliterated.
You cannot play word games and claim that this is a creation because it is moving. It just is. And to claim that something that isn't moving is uncreated is equally groundless. Because everything is moving, there is nothing still, because space itself is moving. And because the word creation is non-applicable, in the sense in which it is being used; that is as an anthropomorphism.

irichc

ANY destruction supposes creation, and viceversa. YOU are playing word games, avoiding the main problem.

Daniel.

Biff the unclean

Well if I am playing word games then let's play with the word "anthropomorphism"

Silent Acorns

¿You want a third option? ¿How about something that is still and caused? ¿How does the statement "everything that is mobile is caused" automatically make this option impossible? ¿Why couldn't someone (your "God" for one) cause something to be still?

Clutch

Daniel, here's the thing. I'm not posting in Spanish word-salad, then twitting people for not seeing the point. See the difference?

You seem to suggest -- though it's hard to tell -- that all you're trying to do is show that nothing is absolutely motionless. If that's your point, then you're breaking down an open door; you know on independent grounds that absolute motion makes no sense. So what's the point of the argument?

More importantly, this leaves you exactly nowhere, since the upshot of such an argument would be: Therefore, the only coherent concept of motion is frame-relative. Which, again, we already knew.

As I've said elsewhere, I'm trying to take you seriously. But these massively gappy arguments larded with grandiose premises, and defended with one-liners about reading other things, cannot be taken seriously. If you want real discussion, you have to produce posts with actual content.

Biff the unclean

And it probably only fair to warn you Daniel that there are different customs to debating in English than there apparently are in Spanish. I'm referring to the use of Latin phrases. Educated English speakers stopped doing this in the nineteenth century for three reasons. First it's pretentious.
Second it is a hold over from the Medieval Ages when the past-the Roman Empire-was considered the height of knowledge. And the present to be a "Dark Age" where this classical knowledge had been lost. This condition no longer exists.
Thirdly instead of facilitating the transfer of information the use of a dead language actually hinders it.
In English the Latin user is a comic stereotype in books and movies. A pseudo intellectual who tries to hide his ignorance with his vocabulary. I can only assume that the same custom does not hold true in Spain, but it is one of the reasons you are getting the reaction you are from English speakers.

irichc

What? Something that is still and caused? Then you're talking about causes without effects, pseudo-causes (oops, I apologize for using "pseudo", which is greek and means "false"). I call them "pseudo-causes" because EVERY cause has an effect and EVERY effect brings movement. Plus, you're assuming that in the Universe there are things without motion, which is false.

Daniel.

irichc

It is not pretentious, it's a technical term with an actual use. I didn't know that english language got another one which means the same. Then, I can't understand why I'm unpolite for using the latin one. If you were educated you would have known this term, and if you were gentle you will be using it as a common term for us all, which is neither spanish nor english, instead of accusing me of being a caricature.

Daniel.