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: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
If I have ~p and ~p -> p then it is impossible that ~p is true and p is true — Pippen
~p & ~p -> p leads to a contradiction — Pippen
¬p→p would mean "if there exists nothing, there exists something", not that something is created out of nothing. — BlueBanana
I disagree, because I interpret the implication arrow (->) as "then", a consequence in a formal, non-physical way. So ~p -> p means "if there exists nothing, then there exists something" — Pippen
and isn't that pretty much what we imagine if we talk about a creation out of nothing? — Pippen
If by natural law, you mean laws of physics, then I agree about that; but it is not possible for logic. "Being illogical" does not mean "standing outside of our universe's laws logic", but rather "making no sense". It is an error made by the subject of discussion, and does not say anything about the object of discussion. As such, saying "2+2=3" is not any more sensical than saying gibberish like "the smell of purple has". Practical test: if it is unimaginable, then it is illogical, then it is impossible.Logic and natural laws or part of our universe — BlueBanana
"If there exists nothing, there exists something" means those are true simultaneously. — BlueBanana
saying "2+2=3" is not any more sensical than saying gibberish like "the smell of purple has". — Samuel Lacrampe
Practical test: if it is unimaginable, then it is illogical, then it is impossible. — Samuel Lacrampe
Yes, and also impossible in all universes. Example: It is impossible for Caesar not to cross the rubicon in our universe, because we cannot change the past. But I can image Caesar not crossing the rubicon. It is therefore possible in another universe. However, I cannot imagine Caesar crossing and not crossing the rubicon at the same time. That last statement is therefore impossible in all universes.If we observe something to be unimaginable, then that proves it is unimaginable within our universe, and it is impossible within our universe. — BlueBanana
1. Let p = "There exists at least one thing", so ~p = "There exists no thing at all".
2. Let creatio ex nihilo = ~p & ~p -> p.
3. By logic it follows that 2. is false (and therefore impossible). — Pippen
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.