Walt Whitman? ..........

no, but you have one more try.

Thanks. Howdy Doody?

One way is to see if it logically possible. We can imagine X, and the properties of X. If we find something inconsistent about the properties, the there is a good chance that X probable don` t exist.

Quote:
Originally Posted by jack

But this talk is just nonsense. One premise you have is that exploring what could exist is falsifiable. One question: How?



yet using Reason its a good chance we don't quite then understand X

rather than thinking X doesn't exist

If you believe there are true contradictions. I sure hell don` t.

and you are out!

north;155826 wrote:

Quote:
Originally Posted by north
Quote:
Originally Posted by jack [URL="http://www.philosophyforum.com/images/PHBlue/buttons/viewpost.gif"]http://www.philosophyforum.com/image...s/viewpost.gif[/URL]

But this talk is just nonsense. One premise you have is that exploring what could exist is falsifiable. One question: How?



yet using Reason its a good chance we don't quite then understand X

rather than thinking X doesn't exist

Let me say this again "If something has contradictory properties, then it cannot exist". Why? Because everything is possible.


Let p, q, r be propositions. let r be an proposition. Let q=-p.

1. p or r
2. q
--------------
r


So, i am right, and you are wrong.

---------- Post added 04-23-2010 at 07:08 PM ----------

kennethamy;155848 wrote:

Hey, three strikes are out, not two.

It is 2 out of 3. If you win 2, you win the game. If you fail 2, you lose the game. simple.

Quote:

Let me say this again "If something has contradictory properties, then it cannot exist". Why? Because everything is possible.


Let p, q, r be propositions. let r be an proposition. Let q=-p.

1. p or r
2. q
--------------
r


So, i am right, and you are wrong.

---------- Post added 04-23-2010 at 07:08 PM ----------



It is 2 out of 3. If you win 2, you win the game. If you fail 2, you lose the game. simple.

You win. Your game. You make the rules.

---------- Post added 04-23-2010 at 08:23 PM ----------

TuringEquivalent;155863 wrote:

Quote:

Let me say this again "If something has contradictory properties, then it cannot exist". Why? Because everything is possible.

Could you explain how if everything is possible, contradictory things cannot exist? I agree with the conclusion of course. But how does the conclusion follow from that premise?

Maybe your argument is:

1. If X is a contradiction then everything is possible.
2. If everything is possible, then X cannot exist.

Therefore, 3. if X is a contradiction, then X cannot exist.

Now, that argument is valid. But could you tell me why you think that 2. is true? I don't see why.

TuringEquivalent;155863 wrote:

You win. Your game. You make the rules.

---------- Post added 04-23-2010 at 08:23 PM ----------

TuringEquivalent;155863 wrote:

Could you explain how if everything is possible, contradictory things cannot exist? I agree with the conclusion of course. But how does the conclusion follow from that premise?

Maybe your argument is:

1. If X is a contradiction then everything is possible.
2. If everything is possible, then X cannot exist.

Therefore, 3. if X is a contradiction, then X cannot exist.

Now, that argument is valid. But could you tell me why you think that 2. is true? I don't see why.

If every predication applies to X, then both "X is taller than 10 inch", and "X is shorter than 10 inch" is true. This is logically impossible.

kennethamy;155871 wrote:

TuringEquivalent;155863 wrote:

You win. Your game. You make the rules.

---------- Post added 04-23-2010 at 08:23 PM ----------




If every predication applies to X, then both "X is taller than 10 inch", and "X is shorter than 10 inch" is true. This is logically impossible.

That may well be true. But that has noting to do with premise 2. so far as I can see.

TuringEquivalent;155917 wrote:

kennethamy;155871 wrote:

That may well be true. But that has noting to do with premise 2. so far as I can see.

Perhaps, in addition:

3. Anything that is logically impossible cannot exist.

What is logically impossible and who decides?

Tiger Woods is a married bachelor.

A logic that excludes the possibility of humor doesn't represent reality.