Way better universe. You can actually shake hands.

While I agree with Mr. LeMaitre that religion and science should be separate, it is not fair to keep the 'creation ex nihilo' hypothesis while removing the 'supernatural cause' hypothesis; because the 'creation ex nihilo' hypothesis implies that the 'supernatural cause' hypothesis is false. Both should be removed on the ground that they are both unscientific (above the realm of science).

It's the same with ↪Samuel Lacrampe's attempt to prove ex nihilo with arithmetic: he interprets 1 apple + 1 apple =/= 3 apples as saying that an extra apple cannot appear outta nothin'. But, if arithmetic is his tool of choice, then all this says is that if you got an apple and another apple, then together you have two apples (and not three). If then, by some miracle, another apple appears outta nothin', then with the two apples that you already had, you will have three apples all told. — SophistiCat

I understand your point, that at the time that there were 2 apples, then there were 2 apples, and at the time that there were 3 apples, then there were 3 apples. And to that I agree. But my argument says more than this:

In theory, 2≠3, that is, 3 cannot result from 2 and nothing else. But in the apple thought experiment, if 'nihil ex nihilo' is false, it follows that in practice, 3 apples could result from 2 apples and nothing else. The consequence is that there is a discrepancy between theory and practice, or between logic and reality. And this is absurd.

If then, by some miracle, another apple appears outta nothin' ... — SophistiCat

'By some miracle'? As in 'caused by a miracle'? But a miracle is not nothing. What this says is that, while miraculous events escape the laws of physics by definition, they too don't escape the nihil ex nihilo principle. And neither do you in practice, apparently. ;)

I never thought God as being logical or religion for that matter. I always thought that both were a matter of faith so whatever they say is it. — Rich

Truth does not contradict truth, and so if a claim is illogical, then it cannot be true. That goes for all types of truths, including religious claims. That is not to say that there cannot also be faith. One may have faith that a claim is true, but only insofar that the claim is not illogical.

I will read the blog and get back to you on it.

God's omnipotence is not defined as the ability to do anything whatsoever, but the ability to do anything that is logically possible. If God wills for us to have free will, then he cannot logically will to remove our free will at the same time.

Are you asking whether Calvinists believe in free will, or are you asking if there is room for free will if God willed whatever comes to pass? If the former, I don't know the answer, and I too would like to know what Calvinists believe.

If the latter, then free will is logically compatible with God willing everything. In short, God willed humans to have free will. At which point, we have full control (and responsibility) over our intentions.

It is true that for a mirror, our right becomes its left and vice versa, and I think the same would apply for coordinate systems.

Alright, new attempt to find a difference, by involving free will. In this universe, my duplicate necessarily replicates my every move, or vice versa. Therefore if I have free will, it does not. If I am the master, it is the slave. Or vice versa, but we cannot both have free will or be the master. Kind of like the characters in 's Youtube videos (hilarious by the way).

We need to differentiate between 3 modes of reality:
(1) Impossible, (2) possible and not actual, (3) possible and actual.

(1) 2+2=3 is impossible. It is unimaginable. It cannot exist in any universe.
(2) A unicorn is possible and not actual. It is imaginable. It can exist in another universe, or in ours later.
(3) A horse is possible and actual. We have observed it. It exists in our universe.

Mr. Pippen's argument is aiming to make 'something from nothing' impossible, thereby making 'nihil ex nihilo' a necessary principle. Your argument here would at best make 'something from nothing' possible and not actual, but not impossible.

I'll play devil's advocate. Just because we don't see something from nothing, it does not mean that we can't see something from nothing.

Having said that, since we have indeed never seen it, then it becomes the prima facie, and the other side has the onus of proof to demonstrate that something from nothing is indeed possible.

Hello. I never learned to read logic symbols like this, and just caught up by reading wikipedia for 5 minutes. But what happens if we reverse the variables, as such?

1. Let n stand for nothingness.
2. Then ~n is not nothingness, that is, something.
3. ~n→n means we can get nothing from something.
4. ~n & ~n→n leads to a contradiction, so it's false that 'nothing can come from something'.

But... it seems possible to get nothing from something, by common sense.

Fun. I can think of one "move" that would not be the same, if we use the term generally to mean things like events and outcome: I raise my right hand and say "I am raising my right hand". The difference between me and my duplicate is that I am telling the truth, where as my duplicate is lying.

I agree with when he says that even money has no intrinsic value and only has extrinsic value as a means for exchange of other goods. The question is thus, what good can you think of that has any intrinsic value? It seems that me that all tangible things that can be stolen only serve as a means to a greater end, ends such as pleasure, necessity (like surviving) or ethics.

It is true that the method gives the same step-by-step solution to both (1) perception of malicious intentions, and (2) perception of looking down on others. That said, it is useful to make the distinction.

If you want to avoid being the conflicter: A lot of honest people will understand that they must avoid (1), but may not know about avoiding (2). Avoiding (1) is like the negative form of the golden rule "don't do onto others as you don't want them to do onto you". Avoiding (2) is like the positive form of the golden rule "do onto others as you want them to do onto you". Both are needed to avoid conflicts.

If you want to avoid being the conflicted: It is valuable to determine if your conflicter fits into (1) or (2), as it may change the approach you take to bring the perception to light. If you suspect (2) and not (1), then the conflicter has no motive to lie, and so you can be more forward about it. If you suspect (1), then the conflicter may lie, and so further investigation would be needed to get to the bottom of the conflict (while still assuming innocence until proven guilty ... not an easy thing to do).

It is true that if there is no end, then the means to that end becomes obsolete. But back to your original question about if there is something worth stealing, are you saying that it is not worth stealing the plans from the nazis, even if it would serve to end the war?

Good question.
They are both unethical behaviours for failing the golden rule; but 'malicious intent' is a dishonest mistake, where as 'looking down on someone' is an honest (yet unreasonable) mistake.

Example of malicious intent: I talk trash about you behind your back and humiliate you in public. My intent is to harm you.

Example of looking down on someone: I consistently forget my daughter's birthday, yet always remember my son's birthday. Or, I invite my whole group of friends for a BBQ, except for Tom, out of negligence. My intent is not to harm anyone, and yet I evidently see my daughter as having lesser value than my son; or Tom as having lesser value than the other friends in the group.

If I understand you correctly, you are saying that stealing the plans is only a means to the end of the good cause, and thus not the end itself. This is true, but then again, this also applies to stealing money does it not? Nobody steals money for the sake of keeping money, but always as a means to purchasing other things. So just as money acquires value as a means to purchase other goods, so do the nazi plans acquire value as a means to another good, like ending the war.

Maybe this falls outside of your 'economical' theme, but what about stealing for a good cause?
For example, stealing plans from the nazis to stop their next attack?

You are missing out on a really fun conversation. But as you wish. See you later.

I agree with you that 'some' does not necessarily mean 'all'. But it is also just logic that there are only 3 ways to see the proposition: (1) everything can come from nothing, or (2) some things can come from nothing and some things cannot, or (3) nothing can come from nothing.

Looking at (1): the I+I≠III argument must be addressed, because it contradicts that proposition.
Looking at (2): those things that can come from nothing must escape the I+I≠III argument.
Looking at (3): it is compatible with the I+I≠III argument, and unless (1) and (2) can be defended against the I+I≠III argument, then (3) becomes the only possibly true proposition.

Interesting claim. If I understand you correctly, you reject the proposition that "anything can come from nothing", and say that "some things can come from nothing, and some things cannot". I also take it you agree that apples are part of the things that cannot, as demonstrated in the I+I≠III argument (unless you see a flaw in that argument).

What follows is that the things that can come from nothing must escape the I+I≠III argument. Is that correct so far?

Alright. See you later.

It's so not a necessary consequence. — Srap Tasmaner

To be more specific, which following statement do you disagree with?
1. If a thing can come from nothing, then an apple can come into existence from nothing.
2. I put 1 apple and another 1 apple in a closed system. Then a third apple comes into existence from nothing, thereby resulting in 3 apples in the closed system.
3. From statement 2, we conclude that "1 apple + 1 apple = 3 apples" is possible in practice.
4. I+I=III is impossible.

Here is my point: If the necessary consequence of a hypothesis is impossible, then the hypothesis is false. For the hypothesis 'Something can come from nothing', a necessary consequence is that 3 apples could logically result from 2 apples; because the third apple could come into existence from nothing. But we agree that "I+I=III" is mathematically impossible; thereby making the event of 3 apples resulting from 2 apples impossible.

Conclusion: the hypothesis of 'Something can come from nothing' is false.

Glad to see we can still find some solid ground in math. But now I see a possible contradiction with what you said earlier, regarding the apple scenario. I asked if, by denying the principle that 'nothing comes from nothing', you expected that 3 apples could result out of 2 apples; and you said it was logically possible:

That's not to say that there is something logically wrong with that scenario, but nomologically I would not expect it to happen. — SophistiCat

But if we agree that I+I=III is mathematically impossible, then it is impossible for 3 apples to result from 2 apples. We just need to replace the bars "I" with apples to see this.

Some non-standard logics are of the mathematical sort, but many are attempts at remedying perceived shortcomings in classical logic as a tool for reasoning. — Srap Tasmaner

That is my thought as well. Non-classical systems are an addition to the classical system when classical logic has reached it limits, and not in opposition to it. What follows is that if one was able to logically prove a case using classical logic, then no non-classical systems would be able to disprove it.

No, you were clearer before, and going back to vague expressions like "things don't come from nothing" or "just the sum of all things in it" is not helping. — SophistiCat

I will put this argument on hold to focus on the next one for now.

Not possible if what you are trying to model is intuitive arithmetics. Otherwise, of course, you can redefine any of the symbols and introduce different axioms. — SophistiCat

You can change the symbols (such as from decimal system to duodecimal system as discussed above) but the concept of the number remains the same. For simplicity, we can strip the symbol away from the number, and thus 1=I, 2=II, 3=III, 4=IIII as so on. Thus the question can phrased as:
Is it possible to change the math axioms such that I+I=III is mathematically possible?
I will go with no. Objections?

This is a non-personal conflict as per what I mean by 'personal'. Admittedly, I am not very clear about what I mean. Personal conflicts are ethical issues with a perception of unethical or unjust behaviour from a specific person. I have trouble finding a better definition, and so I will use case examples:

Your example of conflict is non-personal because neither the dad nor the son is perceived to act unjustly by the other. The root cause is not about the dad or the son, but about the mutually exclusive desires.

In contrast, the following would be a personal conflict: My son wants to watch tv with me and I say no. Then my daughter wants to watch tv with me and I say yes. There is here a perception of injustice.

Thanks. I have ventured in that weird place before. I am no expert at this non-classical logic thing, but my understanding is that, although different, no system of logic contradicts any other system. Rather, they each have their unique strength suitable to different applications; much like calculus is different than statistics while not contradicting each other. That said, I wonder if "changing axioms of mathematics" means something different.

So it does. But this is merely changing the symbols of numbers, not the concepts the symbols represent. The number 4 can be symbolized as 4, four, IV, or really anything as long as we are clear and consistent. But its actual concept, which we can approximate as "IIII" does not change. (Note: the real concept is not necessarily made of bars, but we've got to write it down somehow.) Thus whether we write 6+6=12 in decimal system, or 6+6=10 in duodecimal system, we still mean "IIIIII"+"IIIIII"="IIIIIIIIIIII" when simplified to its concept.

Reducing the symbols to their concepts, I'll ask again:
Is it possible to change the math axioms such that I+I=III is mathematically possible? If all that is meant by 'changing axioms' is things like changing the decimal system, then I am leaning towards no.

A mathematical or logical system is given by its axioms and definitions, and those can certainly be varied. — SophistiCat

Is it possible to change the math axioms such that 1+1=3 is mathematically possible? If not, then the scenario of 3 apples resulting from 2 apples is logically impossible. [Note: this is a lot like the argument 0≠x above, except here we don't need to agree about what 0 really is. I trust that numbers 1, 2 and 3 are much less ambiguous.]

But what would be the context for the universe as a whole? — SophistiCat

Maybe I was not clear. Let me rephrase what I meant in a syllogism:
- The prima facie for all things in the universe is to expect that things don't come from nothing.
- The universe is just the sum of all things in it. (Just like the ocean is just the sum of all water drops in it).
- Therefore, the prima facie for the universe is to expect that things don't come from nothings.

This is once again describing an economical or political conflict, and not a personal one as per the original post is about. A personal conflict is about a person's personality or behaviour, not about disparities.

Regarding math: I wouldn't disconnect it from reality. Engineers design planes to stay in the air using math. Furthermore, it seems to me that 2+2=4 is a necessary truth, as I cannot imagine it to be otherwise. For my knowledge, could you give an example of an axiom that would change the classic logic? I have heard that claim before but never saw an example of it.

That's not to say that there is something logically wrong with that scenario, but nomologically I would not expect it to happen. — SophistiCat

Very well, but if you expect things in the universe to behave that way, (i.e. apples don't just appear by themselves) then why not expect it for the universe as a whole? The universe is just the sum of its parts.

And you have once again locked yourself into this faulty analogy in which nothing is like an empty bag. — SophistiCat

This is a misunderstanding. I was merely using the empty bag to represent a closed system. The nothingness is represented by the non-existence of the third apple, before it coming to existence by itself; and this non-existence state is independent of the bag.

The conflicter may be a bad person and have false perceptions, but also occupy a position from which the conflicted can not reach them. For instance, the CEO of the company might dislike homosexuals and harbor all sorts of false views about them, and might frustrate their desires to advance. The conflicted homosexuals in the company may not be able to arrange any sort of significant face-to-face confrontation. [...]
The conflicter may not care what the conflicted thinks, and be in a position to ignore the conflicted's objections.
The social structure of organizations can wrongfully disadvantage some people (conflicted) without any one worker (conflicter) being responsible. If organizations intend to disadvantage some individuals, they will have no redress.
Sometimes the conflicted need to combine their individual strengths and address conflicter(s) as a group. — Bitter Crank

Everything you said above fits into the outcome (ii) in my original post, that is, real malicious intentions from the conflicter. You are correct that there is no full-proof solution to solve the problem. My method only gets you to the point where you can have a confident judgement about the conflicter and the situation. After that, it will not prevent you from getting murdered if that is the conflicter's true intention.

The conflicted and conflicter may have both true and false impressions of the other, which more than a little negotiation will be required to sort out. — Bitter Crank

Not 'negotiation', but 'conversation', which is a means to the end of removing any possible misunderstandings. The point is that perceptions are not always accurate, and so it is necessary to validate them before deciding what to do next to resolve the conflict.

Perception is necessary. Let's say that I indeed would be upset if you had something I did not have.
- If it is true but I don't know about it, then I would not be upset.
- If it is not true but I think it is, then I would be upset.

Additionally, I would not classify this case as a 'personal' conflict, that is, a conflict with the person's personality or behaviour, because the conflict is about the 'something' that the conflicter possesses, and not about the conflicter himself. This would be instead a 'technical' or 'economical' conflict.

0! = 1 — Srap Tasmaner

Yes; that is because there is 1 way to arrange 0 objects. But then it is also true that there is 1 way to arrange nothingness, and so this does not prove that 0 and nothingness are not the same thing.

most mathematicians most of the time would say 00 = 1 — Srap Tasmaner

Wow. I had no idea some people thought that. Who knew that arguing about math would be so hard. I guess Descartes was over-optimistic when he claimed that math was the one field without any ambiguity.


Possibly. Let me try one last attempt from a different approach: If you believe that the principle 'nothing comes from nothing' is not always true, then does it follow that you would not be surprised, when putting one apple and another apple in an empty bag, to sometimes find three apples later?

I disagree with your claim that 0 is only analogous to nothing, and I claim they represent the same concept. 'Nothing' means 'no things', means 'zero things' means 'zero'. 0x = 0y = 0z = 0, and this is true for whatever x, y, or z may be, including properties.

I will grant you that at least one thing remains: the laws of logic; since I rely on mathematics (logic of numbers) to demonstrate that 'nothing comes from nothing' is true. But I trust you agree that logic transcends the physical world, as opposed to being dependent on it.

Here is my attempt to demonstrate that the principle 'Nothing comes from nothing' is necessary:

Let nothing=0. Let something=x, where x>0.
Mathematically, 0≠x, and 0+0≠x
Therefore x cannot result out of 0; otherwise 0=x, or 0+0=x would be possible.
Therefore nothing can come from nothing.

You can always rescue a vague premise by retreating to less controversial, though usually less interesting positions, and this is what you've done by reducing what sounded like a universal and far-reaching metaphysical principle to some particular references to popular physics. — SophistiCat

You keep saying that the principle has been reduced to the laws of physics. When in our conversation has it been reduced? Here is an example that uses the principle without it being reduced to the laws of physics: knowledge and information. If I give you info, you gain the info, and I don't lose it; thus this causal relation does not follow the law of conservation of mass and energy. And yet, it follows the principle that 'no effect can be greater than its causes', because you can gain the exact amount of info I give, or less (by not listening or forgetting), but cannot gain more from me than what I give. This is also implied in Hume's work when he claims that 'each simple idea is derived from a simple impression, so that all our ideas are ultimately derived from experience'.

I suggest we drop the big bang conversation because it was always just a thought experiment on my end to see what conclusion to draw if only the laws of physics exist; which I don't believe to be the case.

You are assuming that there was a process, which is the assumption that I challenge.

If there is a cause to the existence of the universe, then there is a 'process' from the cause to the effect. If not, then not. I suppose this brings us back to the original disagreement on the 'Nothing comes from nothing' principle. Do you really believe this principle to be false? If so, then we should focus on this fundamental point before anything else.

You are kidding, right?

Too soon?

I think your definition A is the old definition prior to an established 'scientific method', back when the words 'science' and 'philosophy' were interchangeable. B sounds like the modern use of the word, and I agree with the three points as being the necessary ingredients. I would also add 'quantifiable' as an ingredient, but it may not be necessary.

With one singular, possible exception, there is absolutely nothing of scientific knowledge (in sense B) that “necessarily leads to materialism”. — javra

I agree, and I think it can be proven: If a non-materialist philosophy is about things that are not observable, and science deals only with things that are observable, then science could never prove or disprove such a philosophy, as the things in question stand outside of the data set of science.

the mainstream paradigm in most fields of empirical science contains the inference that awareness has developed from out of a perfectly non-aware universe (such as in, life having developed from nonlife)… thereby implying [...] the metaphysics of materialism — javra

Science could indeed prove that life (at least simple living things) is material, if it can create life out of non-life in a test; but this would not prove or even suggest that everything is material. For this to be a valid inference, science would have to prove through testing that all things we can think of can be created out of material things.