Total posts: 7,093
Posted in:
-->
@Theweakeredge
IF our mathematics break down THEN we have no way of gathering informationTHEREFORE we have no data nor precedent to draw from to make deduction or induction, ERGO, logic breaks down.
Well stated
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
Assuming that was for me
It was not so don't trouble yourself.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
This is NOT a SOUND argument (because the premises are not TRUE).It’s true under those circumstances.It's a hypothetical statement.It's only "true" in the context of the hypothetical.It is NOT true outside the context of the hypothetical.
Well stated. You could even say that
VALID=TRUE EVEN IF ONLY HYPOTHETICALLY
SOUND=TRUE ONLY IF ACTUALLY TRUE HYPOTHETICALS NOT WITHSTANDING
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
This is NOT a SOUND argument (because the premises are not TRUE).It’s true under those circumstances.
Would you agree that this more or less sums up why this argument is valid but not sound?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
I would then be forced to simultaneously believe many contradictory and or mutually exclusive propositions. The cognitive dissonance might be physically painful.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
All sound arguments MUST be valid.But not all valid arguments are sound.A valid argument that is not sound,(IFF) all dogs are blue (AND) you have a dog (THEN) your dog is blueThis is a VALID argument.This is NOT a SOUND argument (because the premises are not TRUE).
What's more is we don't actually have to use the words valid and sound but absent of some nomenclature to distinguish an argument with logically necessary conclusions that are nevertheless not true our conversation becomes an exercise in frustration.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Benjamin
Logic is based on our understanding of HOW THINGS HAVE ALWAYS WORKED. There is no reason to believe that things worked the same way before the big bang and so logic isnot necessarily a reliable manner of evaluation. I know it seems counter intuitive but the cosmos is under no obligation to make sense to us.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Dr.Franklin
Then why is there so much disagreement about right and wrong?were talking about the fundamentals, not everyday disagreements
Please describe these fundamentals. I remain unconvinced that we do agree as axiomatically as you seem to be suggesting.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Benjamin
Tell me, what do you actually mean by these "we don't know" arguments?
Our math breaks down. We have no useful tools for evaluating or understanding the "time before the big bang" or to even say that there was time before that. Logic cannot help us understand and we have NO WAY of evaluating the truth value of ANY statement concerning it.
Created:
Posted in:
Echoing over the waters of the sound was the sound of sailors sounding the depths from the deck of their sound little boat.
In English one word may have many meanings.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
An argument is a discourse one bases upon something that one assumes is conclusive. Ergo, also assumed to be a sound argument.Nonetheless:Whether said argument is or can be proven to relate to a factual conclusion, is a separate issue.So if said argument relates to something that is unprovable or unknowable, an existent God or an objective morality for example. Then all arguments are actually unsound, irrespective of what may or may not be conclusive.In these circumstances any sincere argument is valid but not sound. Nonetheless that does not imply that an argument in itself is not reasonable, and in this respect sound.Such is the variability of how we define and utilise the word "sound".....The inherent contradictions of the English language as it were.
Good point.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@FLRW
Not true, A sound argument is necessarily valid, but a valid argument need not be sound. The argument form that derives every A is a C from the premises every A is a B and every B is a C, is valid, so every instance of it is a valid argument. ... Note that an unsound argument may have a true or a false conclusion.
Well stated.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Benjamin
If the universe did not exist before BB
We actually DO NOT KNOW what the state of affairs was before the big Bang or even if before is a nonsense term.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Discipulus_Didicit
I am not suggesting that you allow anyone to stay in your house. IF everyone is provided housing then you would not have to.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Dr.Franklin
were talking about the fundamentals, not everyday disagreements
Please define these fundamentals.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@EtrnlVw
In as much as believing is different than knowing I'm not really convinced that we are not both ignorant in this respect.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@EtrnlVw
That amounts to bald assertions and arguments from special knowledge and after all these years you should know that these kinds of arguments are cnot compelling to me.
Created:
Posted in:
In the context of debate there is a very specific definition of valid and sound. Moreover I have supplied a definition which is specific. If you understand my definitions and if they facilitate the conversation the only reason to object to their use for our purposes is because YOU don't actually want to have any conversation at all. Particularly since this is our second seperate conversation and your behavior is not improved I am going to assume any refusal of my specific definitions as you wishing to discontinue our conversation. When you are ready to compromise in the interest of having intelligible discussion let me know. Any other response will be received as an invitation to stop responding.
Created:
Posted in:
I'm not sure what to tell you. I am informing you how I am using them.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
Colloquially that would be acceptable but this context necessarily requires two terms. All sound arguments are valid but not all valid arguments are sound.
Valid: an argument is valid if and only if it is necessary that if all of the premises are true, then the conclusion is true
Sound: a sound argument is an argument that is both valid, and all of whose premises are true.
Source Google
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
An argument with premises that lead logically to the conclusion is a valid argument. An argument with premises that do not make the conclusion a logical necessity is invalid.
This is different from a sound argument (a valid argument whose premises are accepted as true)
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Benjamin
The universe existed BEFORE Big Bang
The universe did not exist before the big bang although the cosmos may have and there is no reason to think if this is the case that we could know or even describe what form it took or how ot behaved or how pr why the big bang happened.
The universe did NOT exist before Big Bang
If this is the case it does not necessitate that the universe has any cause and it also does not necessitate that there was only one cause.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Benjamin
If quantum laws can create energy, then energy can indeed be created and destroyed, which makes it NOT independent, but dependent on the process that created them.
This is I am afraid a nonstarter since the quantum laws do not describe anything being created but merely events for which no cause is known. Perhaps they are causeless and perhaps they have an as yet unobserved cause. This does not in any way suggest any supernatural cause. In fact any time humans have made supernatural claims that were later through expanding understanding able to be investigated it has been supernatural exactly 0.0% of the time.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Benjamin
The mathematics we currently use break down before a time somewhat after the beginning of the event colloquially as the big bang. This said we really have no way of evaluating any before if before is even an applicable concept in this context. Assuming that stuff existing means there us some eternal stuff, which is not by any means demonstrated, doesn't tell us anything about eternal stuff.
So far this is all speculation and special pleading.
I need you to understand that if you cannot demonstrate a proposition you cannot put that proposition forward as a cause for anything. We need to be sure it isn't in category one before we go any further as we have agreed that anything in category one cannot by definition be a cause of anything.
Created:
Posted in:
Something exists because (we observe it)
It has been caused (unfalsifiable claim)
Something exists independently of any external cause. If we grant this then it is not logically incoherent to believe that whatever form it took the component elements from which the observable universe is formed exist independently of any cause. Unless you can explain why one proposition could exist eternally (some god(s)) and the other cannot have existed eternally (the component elements from which the observable universe is formed) you are by definition committing a special pleading fallacy.
Again I do not favor one argument over another I am just evaluating how valid and sound your argument can be said to be.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Benjamin
Well I'm not certain I agree I'm just granting it for arguments sake to see if it even matters to confirming your argument but it does not. Your proposed first mover is still unfalsifiable and therefore dismissable.
Created:
Posted in:
- Nonexistent things
- Caused things
- Uncaused things
The first group MUST exist, by philosophical necesity.
Must NOT exist I think you mean but yes I get you n. Not everything would appear to exist so some things by logical necessity don't.
The second group we observe
Agreed
The third group MUST exist if the second group is observed
Ok then (some) things can exist without a cause and we do not know what things these might be. Maybe proto-universes or preuniverses require no cause.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Benjamin
Nothing cannot cause something.
Having no cause is not the same as being caused by nothing. I agree being caused by nothing would be nonsense.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Benjamin
You can add all the special definitional traits you like but if you cannot demonstrate the thing you are defining it is INDISTINGUISHABLE from a fiction.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Theweakeredge
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@fauxlaw
I have not suggested an implementation method yet. We are as of now examining the implications of the idea itself.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@fauxlaw
I do not pay for your privileges
I am not suggesting that you do. At the moment my questions are pretty simple.
Is life a right or a privilege and (the question of whether life is a privilege or not aside) how would your life be changed by a UBI? If people were provided with a UBI and worked only to obtain luxuries, to care for those who cannot care for themselves (sick, elderly, children) or for the satisfaction of the work itself how would the lives of the wealthy who already enjoy this state of affairs stand to lose anything?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Benjamin
Not at all. "Everything has a cause, except things that by definition have no cause", is not special pleading, it is a logical NECESSITY.
Be careful of defining things out of existence.
IF your argument is that the local observable instance of spacetime (ostensibly the physical cause that is the first observable cause leading up to you being born) MUST have a seperate cause BECAUSE we do not observe anything causeless THEN it is anathema to your argument to suggest ANYTHING that constitutes a causeless thing. You immediately invalidate your own argument that things cannot exist without a cause. You can add all the special definitional traits you like but if you cannot demonstrate the thing you are defining it is INDISTINGUISHABLE from a fiction.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@fauxlaw
If you are willing to be entitled to have because other people do the work while you earn at leisure,
This is not at all what I am suggesting.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@fauxlaw
If you work at what you like just because you enjoy it even though you don't have to NOW
AND
If you could work at what you like just because you like it even though you don't have to if sone form of UBI were instituted how does your situation change and why do you object? What is the REAL ISSUE?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
Tarik is the winner!!!
Hurray for Calvin Ball!!!
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Theweakeredge
What constitutes hard work is going to depend I think on a number of factors and is in any case different from adding much value which is also depends on a number of subjective factors.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
valid and sound are synonymous (and you accuse me of being pedantic smh).
No they are not. Validity refers to the structure of an argument, soundness refers to the truth value of its conclusion. They are separate though related terms.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Benjamin
not requiring or relying on something else
Why could the universe itself (or at least all the matter/energy) which comprises it not simply be independent then?
I'm sorry but you are now making a case of special pleading.
"Everything has to have a cause except for the one specific thing I am proposing" is not significantly different than saying "not all things require a cause". If not all things require a cause then perhaps the cosmos is the thing which doesn't require one. Perhaps it was just a tiny dissonance like a single subatomic particle appearing for a virtual moment without any cause, as quantum mechanics seems to suggest is at least possible, and it set off the "avalanche" of "reality". As I said I'm not arguing for a specific cause or lack thereof I am simply unconvinced by your arguments, the premises of which are impossible to realistically evaluate and so whose soundness is unknowable to is.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
Please just re-state your current argument in your own words.No
Reasonable expectations based on past experience allowed me to predict this post.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
Coming from the guy that ASKED ME what valid meant
How else am I to know if you understand the term and are using it properly in the context. The problem was your using the word to describe something other than an argument and you seemed to be confused and using valid to mean sound and also to want to skip having a sound argument.
Look it's none of my business and you are not obligated to improve but if you would like to I don't think taking the time to help you improve would be time wasted on my part.
The purpose of a debate or philosophical discussion is to determine firstly what is logically valid and secondly if the valid argument is sound. ONLY once both these criteria are met can we determine a conclusion to be "correct".
Until you know how to evaluate an argument's structure you cannot be certain of its validity and the process stops there.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Benjamin
Why is god like a necessary trait for a cause to have?
In any case as far as I understand the concept of independence it is SEPERATE FROM something as in UNAFFECTED BY and NOT EFFECTING the thing it is independent of. If you think this is incorrect please provide your preferred definition of the term INDEPENDENT.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Theweakeredge
I think people forget that it's the people that actually make up the economy... so if you increase the average income of the average American, you stimulate the economy.
The average income is not the issue if your goal is (roughly and in a much as it is even possible) equal freedoms to qualifying participants of an economy it is the wage gap.
That some DESPITE working very hard their entire lives have virtually nothing and struggle to feed and clothe and educate and provide medicine for their families whole others DESPITE living at the expense and/or exploitation of others are ridiculously wealthy. I'm not even impugning the wealthy. Having money does not make you a bad person (though it is hard to participate in American society at all, let alone become wealthy within it, without benefiting from the suffering of others in some way) but neither does not having money make you a lesser person (provided life is a freedom rather than just a privilege, it goes without saying that if life is a privilege which you must earn with money then people with less money regardless of how honest and hardworking are less deserving of it than the ultra wealthy even those whose wealth has been acquired largely through human exploitation).
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
Instead of accepting my premise and conclusion at face value you run with your own and claim it’s based on mine (which it isn’t) that’s what’s wrong.Please just re-state your current argument in your own words.
That is apparently problematic as is making any logical inferences from any argument that your interlocutor has not explicitly already made. At least Tarik has objected to my following one logical conclusion of the idea that if we cannot prove that our lives are objectively meaningful to him that we should no longer care about our lives. I think what he objected to was being held to the same standard although I'm not sure as he claimed I was lying instead of examining the structure of my argument for flaws.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Benjamin
You have not shown that the traits you are describing are necessary for the purposes of universe creation in a much as you have not explained the process of universe creation.
Let's take the trait "very powerful". This isby no means a logical necessity. Very small causes can potentially create massive effects especially when dealing with longer and longer timeframes. If a single snow flake or the cough of a climber can cause tons upon tons of snow to become dislodged and bury an entire village in an avalanche perhaps a single falling snowflake could trigger the universe.
We can if you like go through the whole list but suffice to say that you are taking a LOT for granted here that our current understanding WILL NOT support.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Benjamin
You are forgetting several options including but not limited to...
Something dissimilar from your preferred god concept (say a mindless force such as the ones responsible for making snowflakes or regulating the dance of heavenly bodies in their circling of the galaxy.
The energy/matter of the universe having always existed in one form or another.
The universe being an unintended byproduct of something else or perhaps just an accident in and of itself.
Also there do appear to be particles that spring spontaneously into existence.
Part of the trouble is that a thing which spontaneously happens with no cause is INDISTINGUISHABLE from a thing for which the cause is still unknown.
I am not claiming one of these possibilities is the correct one or even trying to argue one is more likely. I am actually arguing that to do so would be foolish given our current level of understanding about the observable universe (low) and our current level of understanding about whatever, if anything, is outside the observable universe (none).
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
Bad at what?
At forming and recognizing valid arguments.
At formulating and recognizing sound arguments.
At recognizing the difference between valid and sound.
At recognizing premises and differentiating them from conclusions.
At forming and evaluating syllogisms.
Really just doing this in general.
Look this isn't about your bad argument, although it is bad, and it isn't about arguing in bad faith although you have, it is about giving you this skills necessary to participate effectively on this platform at all.
If that is what you want let me know but we are going to discuss the basics of logic and argumentation before we discuss anything else.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Benjamin
For an objective first cause, it must be unchanging.
This seems nonsensical. Every cause and effect is a change. Anything unmoved cannot be a mover in as much as we understand cause and effect.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@EtrnlVw
@Benjamin
I mean you can claim it just began just because it happened to spontaneously happen but that's speculation too.
What if my claim is that we do not know how it happened and that speculation is therefore all we are capable of? What if I further claim that speculation absent evidence is a poor pathway to truth.
This may lean we don't have and cannot find an answer. I am sorry if this is an uncomfortable thought for you but really humans don't know much in the grand scheme of things and I would find a way to square myself with 'I don't know' if I were you.
Created: