Logic that will make your head spin

page: 1
56
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
+36 more 
posted on Sep, 18 2011 @ 12:56 PM
link   
The ancient greeks had some crazy theories, like how movement is impossible, and how a multi-verse is a contradiction of both nothing and infinity. For thousands of years people have attempted to disprove these, not because they seem illogical, but because they appear so logical as to be nonsensical. See if you can comprehend the logic, or if you are a skeptic, to crack the code and show where the logic is faulty (they could be, these are my summaries of the theories in my own words, so I may have missed something).

#1. Nothing can come from nothing. Consequently, something can not become nothing.

If nothing can come from nothing (a well known axiom of Greek thought), then if you are something because you are alive, you must have come from something. Similarly, when you die, it's impossible for something to go into nothing, and thus it's impossible for you to die in the sense of becoming nothing.

#2. The multiple universe is a self-standing contradiction, thus it can not exist.

If the universe is a thing, then the building blocks of the universe must have come from something prior. That thing must have come from something prior, and on, and on, infinitely, until the first thing came from nothing, which is impossible since nothing can come from nothing.

If something came from nothing (somehow), then this nothing must have given birth to particles which form together to create a thing (the universe). It is impossible for nothing to add together to create a thing, thus it is impossible for the universe to come from nothing.

If particles somehow come from nothing, they must be infinitesimally small, and combine together to form something cosmically large, since the universe must be both infinitesimally small and cosmically large, it is a standing contradiction as a single thing. The universe must be two things, infinitely small and infinitely large. Since something infinitely small can not be compared with something infinitely large, it is impossible to compare the part to the whole, and equally impossible to compare the whole to the part, and thus no standing thing is proof that the universe exists.

#3. Movement is impossible.

If you attempt to go from point A to point B, you must first travel from point A to point A(1)

A.......A(1).........B

In order to travel from A to A(1), you must travel from A to A(2),

A........A(2).........A(1)........B

and to travel from A to A(2), you must travel from A to A(3,4,5,6,7...infinity). Thus, you must travel an infinite distance to travel a finite distance. Since this is impossible, movement is impossible. (This is known as Zeno's tortoise paradox).

#4. Aging is impossible (similar to the theory of movement).

If something ages from 0 to 1 sec, it must first age 0.5 seconds, then 0.25 seconds, then 0.125, etc, etc, an infinitely smaller and smaller number while never touching zero. Thus, you must travel an infinite number of finite fractions of a second in order to reach 1 second. Since it is impossible to age an infinite amount of finite seconds, age is impossible.

#5. Space does not exist.

If two objects are separate from each other, it is said there is space between them. But since each of their atomic components rest alongside air particles (particles in the air, elements), which in turn rest alongside other air particles, and any other material in the air or in the way (atoms, electrons, quarks) until it reaches the second object, by which there is no space between the first object because of these microscopic particles in the way.

Furthermore, if you are at the top of the sky, and you look towards the ether/oblivion, since the oblivion is nothing, there is no space between you and something that doesn't exist, since nothing has no coordinates, there can't be space next to it.

#6. The universe must be either finite or infinite, and not both.

If the universe consists of finite atoms, the universe can not be infinite since finite things can not add together to reach infinity. If the universe is finite, there is room to grow, but the destination will never be reached, and so it is never a true unchanging thing, and so saying "the universe" is about as illogical as saying "the day" which you know will change into "the tomorrow".

If the universe is infinite, no finite atoms can exist, because an infinite thing can not consist of finite things. Thus there is no such thing as finite bodies within the infinite universe.

#7 "Particulars" are not "Universals"

A universal 'horse' is not a particular horse, because the universal refers to all horses and not one horse. Similarly, one horse can not describe the universal horse. Thus, there is no logical reason to call a particular horse a 'horse.'



edit on 18-9-2011 by filosophia because: (no reason given)




posted on Sep, 18 2011 @ 01:02 PM
link   


Woah!!!

S&F



posted on Sep, 18 2011 @ 01:12 PM
link   
reply to post by filosophia
 


Some of those did, yes. Make My head spin. But the first lies on the ground that something can't come from nothing. This can be shown to be false in that virtual particles "spring from nothing." Or would You call them and their energy nothing?

And, in truth... How do We KNOW something cannot come from nothing?



posted on Sep, 18 2011 @ 01:16 PM
link   
this circumlocution is even more magnified when you add vibration into the mix, since vibrations are sin waves that start from a theoretical zero point, then rises up to a theoretical positive peak, and back down to the theoretical zero point, then below that zero point to the negative peak and back to the theoretical zero point again and when you consolidate the zero points and pull the one side of the sin wave over to connect it to the other side of it, you will have a complete circle.......yet, these vibrations are what makes it possible for us to exist (or not exist) in this reality and keeps everything moving in no direction and all directions at the same time.....



posted on Sep, 18 2011 @ 01:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by Amaterasu
reply to post by filosophia
 


Some of those did, yes. Make My head spin. But the first lies on the ground that something can't come from nothing. This can be shown to be false in that virtual particles "spring from nothing." Or would You call them and their energy nothing?

And, in truth... How do We KNOW something cannot come from nothing?


We know something can not come from nothing, because a tree does not come from nothing, it comes from a seed. A person does not come from nothing, it comes from a womb. Fire does not come from nothing, it comes from heat. Heat does not come from nothing, it comes from the sun or an external source. Using that logic, they assume that the universe itself must also obey this law.

Something is called "virtual" because it is not real. Like a virtual girlfriend. If from nothing comes a virtual particle, that particle still does not have any reality to it, otherwise it would not be a virtual particle, but simply a particle. They say 'virtual' particle because they can't get around the axiom that nothing comes from nothing. And even if a virtual particle comes into existence, no matter how many virtual particles you add together, you can't have a real particle, in the same way that you can't add imaginary numbers together in the hopes that you will get a real number.
edit on 18-9-2011 by filosophia because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 18 2011 @ 01:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by Amaterasu
reply to post by filosophia
 


Some of those did, yes. Make My head spin. But the first lies on the ground that something can't come from nothing. This can be shown to be false in that virtual particles "spring from nothing." Or would You call them and their energy nothing?

And, in truth... How do We KNOW something cannot come from nothing?



pics or it ain't true!!!



you have to show me some documentation that suggests virtual particles "spring from nothing", these "virtual particles are actually atoms imitating other atoms....so, they do not "spring from nothing"



posted on Sep, 18 2011 @ 01:20 PM
link   
reply to post by filosophia
 


I have vivid memories of #3 blowing my mind when I was about eight years old. There's no way to shake the logic of that (and you explained that logic really clearly), and no way to shake the fact that movement is possible, so the only conclusion I could make was that reality can't possibly be real. Thirty or so years later, here I am...



posted on Sep, 18 2011 @ 01:21 PM
link   
...and it still doesn't answer what came first...

the chicken or the egg?



posted on Sep, 18 2011 @ 01:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by Julie Washington
...and it still doesn't answer what came first...

the chicken or the egg?


they both came at the same time, what is in the egg? a chicken......think about it real hard



posted on Sep, 18 2011 @ 01:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by filosophia

Originally posted by Amaterasu
reply to post by filosophia
 


Some of those did, yes. Make My head spin. But the first lies on the ground that something can't come from nothing. This can be shown to be false in that virtual particles "spring from nothing." Or would You call them and their energy nothing?

And, in truth... How do We KNOW something cannot come from nothing?


We know something can not come from nothing, because a tree does not come from nothing, it comes from a seed. A person does not come from nothing, it comes from a womb. Fire does not come from nothing, it comes from heat. Heat does not come from nothing, it comes from the sun or an external source. Using that logic, they assume that the universe itself must also obey this law.


No. Those are just examples of things that did not come from nothing. That list does not disprove something coming from nothing.


Something is called "virtual" because it is not real. Like a virtual girlfriend. If from nothing comes a virtual particle, that particle still does not have any reality to it, otherwise it would not be a virtual particle, but simply a particle. They say 'virtual' particle because they can't get around the axiom that nothing comes from nothing. And even if a virtual particle comes into existence, no matter how many virtual particles you add together, you can't have a real particle, in the same way that you can't add imaginary numbers together in the hopes that you will get a real number.


Can't find it now but I did read that there is evidence that some VP's do indeed NOT annihilate and therefore achieve "realness." The particle and its antiparticle fail to recombine. Also, the particles do exist - they just had not the refined instrumentation to discover that they do exist in time when the particles were named. So We have an example of something coming from nothing and then something returning to nothing - or not.
edit on 9/18/2011 by Amaterasu because: clarity



posted on Sep, 18 2011 @ 01:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by Julie Washington
...and it still doesn't answer what came first...

the chicken or the egg?


This question explains why logically, neither the chicken nor the egg can physically exist, since both must necessarily exist for the other to exist (the egg must have come first, because chickens come from eggs, paradoxically, the chicken must have come first, since chicken eggs must come from a chicken). You can not argue with the logic, you can only enjoy your mind getting blown.



posted on Sep, 18 2011 @ 01:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by patternfinder

Originally posted by Julie Washington
...and it still doesn't answer what came first...

the chicken or the egg?


they both came at the same time, what is in the egg? a chicken......think about it real hard


What came first, the male or the female?




posted on Sep, 18 2011 @ 01:31 PM
link   
reply to post by filosophia
 


All concepts that will warp the mind to the point you aren't really sure that you just went to work and back...

However regarding #6 I would argue the "universe" could very well be infinite and finite...as in a simple circle is finite expressed infinitely in a circle. There is "no such thing as a straight line" which has some serious implication but would explain why/how infinity could exist in harmony with finite. A mobius trip is a good example of how this concept works.

If you fold a "finite" piece of paper 10 inches long into a circle the "length" becomes irrelevant and disappears as you can circumnavigate/travel across its surface infinitely.

I am more and more on board with the idea that “reality”, physics and math and all the tools to explain “reality are just a very complex illusion…

The concept of infinity can drive people insane because they constantly try to unknowingly “quantify” it…and the second they “quantify” infinity they start to realize how incredibly “illogical” movement, time, space, and all together “reality” really is..

edit to add: "reality" is a "quantified" infinity........


Great stuff S&F

edit on 18-9-2011 by Sly1one because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 18 2011 @ 01:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by patternfinder

Originally posted by Amaterasu
reply to post by filosophia
 


Some of those did, yes. Make My head spin. But the first lies on the ground that something can't come from nothing. This can be shown to be false in that virtual particles "spring from nothing." Or would You call them and their energy nothing?

And, in truth... How do We KNOW something cannot come from nothing?



pics or it ain't true!!!



you have to show me some documentation that suggests virtual particles "spring from nothing", these "virtual particles are actually atoms imitating other atoms....so, they do not "spring from nothing"


Where do You get THIS from. I'll source if You will.

EDIT to add: Here's some stuff:

www.scientificamerican.com...

www.newscientist.com...

www.quora.com... an-interaction

www.sciencedaily.com...

www.nature.com...
edit on 9/18/2011 by Amaterasu because: addition



posted on Sep, 18 2011 @ 01:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by Julie Washington
...and it still doesn't answer what came first...

the chicken or the egg?

the rooster



posted on Sep, 18 2011 @ 01:32 PM
link   
reply to post by filosophia
 


It just goes to show that the human language we have made up just isnt good enough to describe the universe.

Or alot of other things for that matter.

Interesting read anyhow.
edit on 18-9-2011 by CharterZZ because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 18 2011 @ 01:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by filosophia

Originally posted by patternfinder

Originally posted by Julie Washington
...and it still doesn't answer what came first...

the chicken or the egg?


they both came at the same time, what is in the egg? a chicken......think about it real hard


What came first, the male or the female?



it's usually the male!!!



posted on Sep, 18 2011 @ 01:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by Amaterasu

Originally posted by patternfinder

Originally posted by Amaterasu
reply to post by filosophia
 


Some of those did, yes. Make My head spin. But the first lies on the ground that something can't come from nothing. This can be shown to be false in that virtual particles "spring from nothing." Or would You call them and their energy nothing?

And, in truth... How do We KNOW something cannot come from nothing?



pics or it ain't true!!!



you have to show me some documentation that suggests virtual particles "spring from nothing", these "virtual particles are actually atoms imitating other atoms....so, they do not "spring from nothing"


Where do You get THIS from. I'll source if You will.


i asked you first, but i will tell you this, just because we cannot measure something doesn't mean it is safe to say it is not there.......plus, when you get far enough down to the most minute particle, we cannot successfully "observe" it because just the act of "observing" will affect the outcome.....read up on entanglement in quantum physics......



posted on Sep, 18 2011 @ 01:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by CharterZZ
reply to post by filosophia
 


It just goes to show that the human language we have made up just isnt good enough to describe the universe.

Or alot of other things for that matter.

Interesting read anyhow.
edit on 18-9-2011 by CharterZZ because: (no reason given)


it's like trying to explain the meaning of a two deminsional world to people that live in a one dimensional world...those ideas just don't exist in the one dimensional world.......



posted on Sep, 18 2011 @ 01:39 PM
link   
This isn't logic. It's a bunch of made up s***.

You know someone is stupid when despite having living proof of time, space and distance they are still trying to convince others that those three don't exist.





new topics
top topics
 
56
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join