

| yrope; erections | |
|---|---|
| Tweet Topic Started: Apr 30 2014, 06:39 AM (3,462 Views) | |
| gs | May 13 2014, 05:27 PM Post #91 |
![]()
Slow down
|
isn't it? i just don't know how to respond to this other than by saying you're just simply talking poop. you're telling me that in this theoretical example a gun is going off spontaneously. without a trigger being pulled or energy being added to the weapon in any other way, it still is going off? 2 statements that we know are true: 1. for a gun to go off, gunpowder needs to change state 2. for gunpowder to change state, energy needs to be added to it therefore 3. energy needs to be added for a gun to go off which part do you disagree with? yeah but you're saying they COULD, right? or you're saying that you can imagine it happening, so then you must see some kind of flaw in one of the 3 statements above. which one? what you've shown me is that you can imagine it happening and i hope for humanity's sake that you're one of the few. i can't imagine this happening at all, it's just not how energy works. you obviously are suggesting that. if you aren't, then why are you talking about a situation where a gun is going off without energy being added to it? and if the law of conservation of energy doesn't always apply then the law is wrong because an important part of any law of nature is that it does always apply. ie you are contradicting the law of conservation of energy.
oh yay, the objective truth argument. i refer you to my last post and for the record i agree that nothing is certain. but come on...
|
![]() |
|
| gs | May 13 2014, 05:46 PM Post #92 |
![]()
Slow down
|
i remember being so mind blown when i realised that what we think are the smallest particles could still be relatively enormous compared to the actual smallest particles. it's just that from our perspective they are so tiny that it makes sense for us to believe that they would be (close to) the smallest, but when you think about it what is our perspective really worth in this case? protons for example may seem tiny but they could contain an entire "universe" of smaller particles within them imagine one of the first humans picking up a bit of sand or whatever and thinking "hmm, these must be the smallest particles in existence!" and realise how much we now know about the shit that actually goes on within a grain of sand. we probably have barely scratched the surface of how deep this shit goes, because we can observe bigger particles but the smaller they get the harder it gets for us to see them. then imagine how special it really is for all these tiny particles that we don't even know of yet to combine in such a way that made a being that is aware of what it's made out of. it is almost too mindblowing to believe that this could ever have happened and it makes me understand why people are so inclined to turn to religion even though it doesn't actually explain any of it. the universe is amazing (i'm not even high) |
![]() |
|
| Incog | May 13 2014, 06:05 PM Post #93 |
|
CHEERIO!
![]()
|
So in the opposite direction, we could be a part of some bigger particle. holy shit |
|
Black tulip Tribute to the the greatest of the great. | |
![]() |
|
| Jam | May 13 2014, 06:14 PM Post #94 |
![]()
Fruit Based Jam
|
I once knocked a glass off the table and it didn't break. Take that science. |
| Long live Carolus | |
![]() |
|
| Incog | May 13 2014, 06:16 PM Post #95 |
|
CHEERIO!
![]()
|
ohshjit nobel prize right here? you missed your chance E: we're going to get a lot more faulty reports that were supposed to be quotes q_q |
|
Black tulip Tribute to the the greatest of the great. | |
![]() |
|
| The_Fry_Cook_of_Doom | May 13 2014, 06:31 PM Post #96 |
|
:OOOOOOOOOOOOMAAANN
|
I'm asking you imagine a situation where all the potential energy stored inside the gunpowder is spontaneously converted into kinetic energy in the bullet. The total energy before and after the conversion is equal, and hence energy is conserved. What's the problem? I'm not even sure why we're getting involved in a dispute about conservation of energy, when my original argument was about causes.
In a totally different universe, yes. That doesn't mean I expect to see it happen tomorrow.
There are all sorts of things that I can imagine which would contradict the laws of physics. I could imagine a world where free-falling bodies accelerate upwards instead of downwards, or a world were trees talk to animals, or one where solid bodies pass straight through each other without interacting. I'd be very surprised if you couldn't do the same.
I repeat that I'm not trying to prove that there is no law of conservation of energy. What I have been trying to show is that there is nothing logically absurd about isolated events, so we shouldn't rule off the possibility that they may exist in our universe in some form. |
| |
![]() |
|
| ryker | May 13 2014, 07:28 PM Post #97 |
|
General
|
Saying nothing is random is not saying that the future is already set. It simply means that there was a reason that things happen the way they do. It may or may not have an effect on following actions but the event itself can be isolated to itself independent of other things. Take nuclear decay for example since we have used it already. The particular radioactive atom that decays happens for a reason, even if we don’t yet know that reason. It wouldn’t be because it was “next in line” but rather that the conditions relative to that particular atom to decay were reached at that particular time. It may happen to be at the same time as the one next to it, it may not. It is an event in itself but not random in the sense that it didn’t just to happen for no reason. Ultra, I get what you are saying but you are still leaving out different understanding of physics. Yes the energy of the gunpowder in potential energy is equal to the released energy from the ignition, but the ignition of the gunpowder cannot happen as the gunpowder is stable in that state. It requires another force to add energy to it in order for it to meet the condition required for combustion. This I the cause and effect I speak of. The cause can be thought of as two things, for simplicity reasons we will say yes or no. That being said, here are the context which yes and no are applicable. 1.Are the conditions for ignition met at this moment in time = yes = combustion 2.Are the conditions for ignition met at this moment in time = no = no combustion If the gunpowder is stable it can’t spontaneously combust without force acting on it as it takes another force to put it into a condition favorable to ignition. If no other fore is applied, the condition for ignition is never achieved and there is no ignition. It is a simple is/is not problem. To say that just because the potential energy is equal to the energy output means that it is possible for it to “simply happen” is not logical. You are completely ignoring the physics you just mentioned a few posts ago must be relied on. Edited by ryker, May 13 2014, 07:30 PM.
|
| my name is ryker | |
![]() |
|
| ryker | May 13 2014, 07:35 PM Post #98 |
|
General
|
And do you guys know how enjoyable it is to be able to come here and debate this kind of stuff without having my bible humping mother in law or mother tell me about how everything I say is not true because it was done through god, or have some new world creationist idiot tell me about how science as we know it isn’t observational science and how all scientific principals are wrong and the world has been around for only 6,000 years? I appreciate it! Thanks guys! |
| my name is ryker | |
![]() |
|
| gs | May 13 2014, 08:32 PM Post #99 |
![]()
Slow down
|
because for something to happen randomly there can't be a cause and for something to happen without a cause, energy has to be created from nothing (otherwise the energy was the cause). ugh alright, now tell me something that is logically impossible. i will then tell you that i can imagine that very thing. we are truly falling now, into that bottomless pit called the lack of objective truth. yes, anything one can imagine could possibly come true because what do we know, really? but is there an actual point here or is that really all you've been trying to say this entire time? because for the love of god you could've just said so. either way it's irrelevant in a discussion about randomness existing or not. sure, it could exist. so could an omnipotent flying spaghetti monster. is that really where we are at? let me put it this way: is there any particular reason that you are saying true randomness could exist, or are you saying it could exist for the same reason that flying spaghetti monster could, that reason being our religious friends' all time favourite "you can't prove that it doesn't!" |
![]() |
|
| Jam | May 14 2014, 03:37 AM Post #100 |
![]()
Fruit Based Jam
|
I could easily imagine you agreeing with Ultra. |
| Long live Carolus | |
![]() |
|
| The_Fry_Cook_of_Doom | May 14 2014, 04:22 AM Post #101 |
|
:OOOOOOOOOOOOMAAANN
|
Yes yes, I know that gunpowder doesn't actually spontaneously combust, and I've already said that I haven't been trying to prove that it does.
I don't think so. Have you seen the example I gave earlier about the gun going off all by itself?
A world where (flat) triangles have angles that don't add up to 180 degrees, or a world where the statement 'Goodspeed is mortal. All men are mortal. Hence Goodspeed is a man' makes perfect sense. In each case the universe would be difficult to grasp and appear logically incoherent. Resorting to imagination seems cheap, but it's the easiest way to distinguish between logical and non-logical relations without any formal knowledge of logic. |
| |
![]() |
|
| ryker | May 14 2014, 04:49 AM Post #102 |
|
General
|
GS he has to be tolling now or are we going insane? |
| my name is ryker | |
![]() |
|
| The_Fry_Cook_of_Doom | May 14 2014, 05:18 AM Post #103 |
|
:OOOOOOOOOOOOMAAANN
|
ryker pls |
| |
![]() |
|
| gs | May 14 2014, 08:48 AM Post #104 |
![]()
Slow down
|
i have. have you seen mine and ryker's arguments about that example not fitting within our current laws of physics? do you realise that it contradicts the law of conservation of energy? because you really don't seem to be accepting this fact. when i said that it made no logical sense i only meant that (to me) it doesn't make sense for something to happen for no reason. that doesn't mean i can't picture a gun going off by itself, but it does mean i can't imagine how that could ever happen. i am actually closer to imagining a world where a triangle's angles don't add up to 180 degrees (something along the lines of an inconsistent spacetime continuum where a line that appears to be straight isn't actually straight) anyway, now you're saying you "don't think so". which part of the text you quoted is that referring to? you're just sprouting all kinds of shit that can be interpreted in different ways and i still don't know what your actual point is: do you actually think randomness exists (and fits within our laws of nature), or do you realise that it can't fit within our current laws of nature but think these laws might be wrong and randomness might (or may? this is one of these things in english grammar i never bothered to learn) exist? just pick one. hard to grasp, appear logically incoherent, sure sure, but logically impossible? i don't see how we can be certain about that. what does the word "logically" even mean in this context? in any case, your universe where (some?) events happen for no reason is to me equally if not more hard to grasp. your second example is just about language. can i imagine a world where language works differently? sure. |
![]() |
|
| The_Fry_Cook_of_Doom | May 14 2014, 03:01 PM Post #105 |
|
:OOOOOOOOOOOOMAAANN
|
I've already explained that it doesn't. I'd rather that you told me why you think my explanation is wrong instead of ignoring it completely.
Alright, so you agree that events without cause are counter-intuitive. That's progress at least.
I was trying to remove the complication of curved space from my example by mentioning that the triangle would be 'flat'. Having angles adding up to 180 degrees is part of the essence of triangles. Something that is a triangle while not having that property would be a contradiction. It follows that a universe containing triangles whose angles do not add up to 180 degrees is logically impossible. Our trials aren't limited to these examples. We could try imagining worlds with round squares, or where the statement '2+2=5' is true. In each case, these worlds contain logical contradictions, making them logically impossible. We know that these statements are logical contradictions because we struggle to imagine them being at all true in reality. In contrast, most people (I'm not sure about you) would be able to imagine quite vividly a world where balloons appear out of nowhere. Sure, we wouldn't be able to explain these worlds, but that's not the point. Maybe these worlds operate according to a different set of physical laws, whatever those might be. But the fact that we can clearly imagine such worlds indicates that there are no logical contradictions implied by their existence. When it comes to my point, I've already made it several times throughout this thread:
I'd be happy if you were willing to address it directly, instead of insisting that causal relations are inextricably linked with the law of conservation of energy. As for what I mean by 'logic', I mean what we use to infer things through the use of valid reasoning. Just because something disagrees with your intuitions doesn't mean it's illogical.
How is it a problem of language? I honestly can't see how the proposition 'A is B, all C are B, therefore A is C' can be reduced to a problem of language. The conclusion is invalid; it doesn't follow from the premises. I admit, though, that the second problem illustrates logical incoherence, not impossibility. |
| |
![]() |
|
| ryker | May 14 2014, 04:12 PM Post #106 |
|
General
|
It is possible to imagine a world with different laws, math, and physics. You are right; there might be a universe with the laws of physics to allow a gun to randomly fire without cause. We don’t live in that universe however. Not saying you can't say "what if" but why attempt to argue another world which may or may not exist (should and would exist if you are a string theorist). That argument should be for that possible universe however, not in an argument to state it is possible in this one because it is possible in that one. The world we live in has rules, governed by cause and effect. We follow these rules whether we like it or not. We get better understanding of these rules through constant questioning and testing of the rules. Sometimes we verify what we thought to be true, and sometimes we verify a new currently accepted truth. That is the beauty with science. We assume things are right, yes that is true, but only until it is proven otherwise. Until cause and affect are proven false in this universe however, it is pointless to speculate that a gun could go off without cause unless you are testing it to prove it otherwise. |
| my name is ryker | |
![]() |
|
| gs | May 14 2014, 05:24 PM Post #107 |
![]()
Slow down
|
first of all ^ thathave you, really? because your explanation may be sufficient for you, but i am utterly unimpressed by it. in other words it's just straight up wrong. i (and ryker) have told you multiple times what's wrong with it. i feel like this is the core point that we disagree on and yet this is the only point on which 0 progress has been made since the start of the discussion. let's take some steps back. when i say a gun can't go off without energy being added, i'm not talking about the conversion from the potential energy in the gunpowder to kinetic energy. you are correct in that this potential energy is already there. however, the energy in the gunpowder is just that, potential. in order for that conversion to start, energy has to be added to the gunpowder. this energy could be called "activation energy". this energy is absolutely necessary for the gunpowder to change state. the state it changes to makes it explode, which then makes the bullet fly out (conversion to kinetic energy). note that after the activation energy, no more energy needs to be added so you are correct in that the potential energy in the gunpowder is converted into kinetic energy. you are however completely ignoring the requirement of activation energy. ryker and i have tried multiple different ways of getting this point across but you either don't understand it (surely you do, by now) or refuse to acknowledge it. anyway, moving on. let me put it yet another way: we have a static object (the gun) in an entirely static environment (meaning nothing is changing). the object has been static for an X amount of time. somewhere in the past (X ago), this object came into existence (the parts that it's made out of came together to create it). so when it came into existence it was in the exact same state that it's in now, which means the conditions for it to go off were already met at that point. answer me this: why then didn't it go off immediately when the conditions were met? why did it remain static for an X amount of time before spontaneously changing states? a triangle is by definition flat so i left that part out. by curved space i mean ( instead of |. anyway we digress. A = B. logically impossible, right? but your gun is both A and B, since nothing is being added to A (gun with bullet) in order to make B (gun without bullet). normally it would be A + x (whatever caused A to change into B) = B, but in your example A = B. i'm insisting the 2 are linked because they are. in above example, x is the energy necessary for A to change into B. i have been addressing your point directly, you just don't seem to realise it. |
![]() |
|
| The_Fry_Cook_of_Doom | May 14 2014, 05:40 PM Post #108 |
|
:OOOOOOOOOOOOMAAANN
|
So in other words what you're saying is... my example involves an event without cause? Well whaddaya know. |
| |
![]() |
|
| gs | May 14 2014, 06:46 PM Post #109 |
![]()
Slow down
|
is that how you're playing it? quoting a single sentence and not even really replying to the point of that just so it seems like you've replied? you're not fooling anyone. yes your example involves an event without cause, i think that was the point? you tell me, it's your example. my point is that your example is inconsistent with physics which you somehow manage to deny. anyway i interpret your post as "the gun doesn't need activation energy to go off". ok great. so how then is the gunpowder getting hot enough to explode? (repeating myself, but you really are forcing me to). |
![]() |
|
| The_Fry_Cook_of_Doom | May 14 2014, 06:50 PM Post #110 |
|
:OOOOOOOOOOOOMAAANN
|
Yes I completely agree that my example is inconsistent with the laws of physics. What I've been trying to argue with you about all along, though, is that it's not inconsistent with the law of conservation of energy in particular. I'll get round to responding to the rest of your post, as well as ryker's post, tomorrow. I have an exam in the morning so I have to sleep. |
| |
![]() |
|
| gs | May 14 2014, 07:18 PM Post #111 |
![]()
Slow down
|
alright i'm just gonna break it down. >I can easily imagine a gun going off without the trigger being pulled with this, you are implying that energy is being created out of the blue (because usually there would be something transferring that energy to the gun but since there is no cause the energy for this reaction to happen is being created, not transferred from somewhere else). hence you were, at least implying, that the law of conservation of energy could be wrong. i reply by explaining that activation energy is necessary, which has to come from somewhere: <the energy necessary for a certain object to go from 1 state to another has to come from somewhere. this energy just appearing out of the blue actually does contradict our laws of physics. a gun can go off without someone pulling the trigger, but the energy for that gun to go off did have to come from somewhere else if not from the trigger. your reply: >The image still fits. The potential energy in the gunpowder is converted into kinetic energy in the bullet, and I'm saying that there doesn't need to be something which causes this event to take place. this implies that the activation energy is not necessary for this gun to go off, so there is energy missing from this otherwise balanced reaction. hence, energy must be created out of nothing in order for this reaction to still happen. this is contradicting the law of conservation of energy, which states energy can't be created. and if it isn't being created, then you're still contradicting this law because the amount of energy your system started with is lower than the energy it ended with. you go on saying the total energy isn't changing at all, after which i ask you how the gunpowder is being heated (since the energy for this to happen is apparently absent in your example). you then "give up" instead of answering my question. |
![]() |
|
| ryker | May 14 2014, 08:48 PM Post #112 |
|
General
|
I don’t understand why you’re arguing it being inconsistent with the law of conservation of energy. We have answered all of your questions with ample information. We have explained it through activation energy, potential energy, is/is not equation explanation, cause and effect reasoning, programming way of thinking, everything. Yes it is quite easy to imagine a firearm going off with no cause. No one is arguing you there. The question I guess I have for you is why are you asking us to visualize it? Maybe if you can answer that question we can answer yours in a way acceptable to you. Maybe it isn’t us answering the question wrong, maybe you are asking the wrong question? To put this into perspective, what you are saying with the gun going off, is like saying imagine ice (pure H20 at 1 atm) melting at a temperature of -20C or freezing at 100C. in order for this to happen, some type of other force must be applied to it. Is it possible to imagine? Yes. Is it logical to accept? Not without some type of proof or evidence that it is possible. When gunpowder ignites, it is because the conditions it is currently in have made it unstable which triggers combustion. If it is in conditions constituent with stability of the molecule, and nothing else acts on it, it is completely illogical to believe that it will act in the same way that requires another force be applied to it. |
| my name is ryker | |
![]() |
|
| The_Fry_Cook_of_Doom | May 15 2014, 05:23 AM Post #113 |
|
:OOOOOOOOOOOOMAAANN
|
Who knows. The question 'why' becomes unanswerable when causal relations are removed.
In a closed system including the gunpower, bullet, and the gun, the gun and the bullet remain part of the same system even after the bullet has left the barrel. The amount of energy in the system doesn't change either.
It doesn't need to get hot enough to explode; the explosion happens all by itself, for no reason. The concept of activation energy is meaningless here. That's what the example is trying to illustrate. But you keep introducing cause and effect to an example which excludes causal relations as its premise. Okay, fine, that means we can't explain why the gunpowder explodes, but this isn't a logical contradiction; there's no reason to disbelieve that it can't possibly happen under any circumstances.
because goodspeed keeps bringing it up
You're right, and I don't expect anyone to be willing to accept that guns actually go off spontaneously. And until we have convincing proof that spontaneous, random events actually occur, we shouldn't conclude that the universe is non-deterministic. But the fact that we can imagine worlds where there are no causal relations suggests that there is no reason to suppose that such worlds are logically impossible. This is why I've asked you to visualise the example I've given you. I've been trying to convince you that we should at least be willing to keep our minds open to the possibility that the universe may lack causal relations, if only in some instances on a microscopic level.
I'm not trying to prove that spontaneous events might be possible in another universe, but that they might actually be real in another universe. The possibility we are considering is whether our universe could or couldn't be such a universe where spontaneous, random events actually take place. Edited by The_Fry_Cook_of_Doom, May 15 2014, 06:06 AM.
|
| |
![]() |
|
| gs | May 15 2014, 01:49 PM Post #114 |
![]()
Slow down
|
ok, besides the whole 'gunpowder exploding in its stable state' thing which i'll leave alone, let me throw this one out there: whatever caused the last of these conditions to be met is the cause of the event. i'm getting a schrodinger's cat vibe here. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_entanglement yes, they're part of the same system but the system has changed. A is one state of the system, and B is another. "It doesn't need to get hot enough to explode". if you'd just told me that instead of "i give up" when i asked you how the gunpowder is being heated we could've avoided a lot of bs. anyway i believe that it is a logical contradiction for reasons mentioned in this post. like i said, i can't imagine a world where things happen for no reason. i can visualize a gun going off but that is in no way an indication that i can imagine a world where things happen randomly, and it also doesn't make your example logically correct, which it is far from. |
![]() |
|
| The_Fry_Cook_of_Doom | May 15 2014, 02:42 PM Post #115 |
|
:OOOOOOOOOOOOMAAANN
|
Correct me if I'm wrong, but you seem to think that for the energy distribution inside a system to change, it has to be exposed to external influences. I don't think this is true. Suppose you have a planet orbiting a star; the system is continuously changing, but nothing external needs to be 'added' to the system for it to do so. It's not necessary in all cases to add extra energy in order for a system to transition from a state A to a state B; in other words, there's nothing logically absurd about it. Why does this have to happen for the gun? What makes guns so special? It would probably be easier for us to make progress if we made a few adjustments to the example. We'll keep the gun, but this time place it somewhere where the temperature is scorching hot. Now imagine that the presence of activation energy due to the high temperature causes the bullet itself to explode instead of the gunpowder (Let's just assume that, in this case, the gunpowder is very stable in relation to the bullet). Is this at least something you can clearly picture happening?
I must repeat that acausal events are not formal contradictions. It might feel uncomfortable for you to imagine them, but just because they disagree with your intuitions doesn't mean that they defy the boundaries of logic. I challenge you to explain how exploding gunpowder is as impossible to imagine as a circle with straight edges.
You're being stubborn. If you can visualize a firing gun, then what stops you from visualizing a universe consisting of only a firing gun? |
| |
![]() |
|
| gs | May 15 2014, 04:36 PM Post #116 |
![]()
Slow down
|
the energy for that planet to orbit the star also had to have come from somewhere. in your system the planet is orbiting the star already, so then that energy had been added to the system previously. you are saying that this is also the case for the gun, that the energy was already there when the system "started", but then (if we keep the comparison between these 2 systems) the gun should already have been "going off" when the system started. or, the other way around, if we edit the star system to be like the gun one: the energy for the planet to move is already there, yet it's not orbiting the star and then suddenly it starts doing so. both are logical fallacies because the conditions for the system to assume a certain state were already there and yet the system did not assume that state. static gun + energy = firing gun static planet + energy = orbiting planet all nice and dandy in logic land but in your system, it starts out like this: static gun + energy = !firing gun (! means not) static gun + energy = !orbiting planet and then, while nothing changed: static gun + energy = firing gun static planet + energy = orbiting planet so a static gun with the energy for it to go off already there, is 2 things. firing gun, and !firing gun. then follows that firing gun = !firing gun, comparable to 1 = -1. is it a static system? because if it is then the bullet was hot enough to explode from the start and didn't. still a logical fallacy. that's what i am imagining. the gun is firing but not for no reason. it's firing because of an event that happened before the time period in which i am imagining the system. |
![]() |
|
| The_Fry_Cook_of_Doom | May 15 2014, 06:02 PM Post #117 |
|
:OOOOOOOOOOOOMAAANN
|
Alright then, to absolutely satisfy you, imagine instead that the star and planet start off completely stationary; hence, in the instant before they begin accelerating towards each other, the system is static. The energy needed for the planet to move towards the star is already there in the form of potential energy. A few moments later, part of this energy has been converted into kinetic energy in the planet and the star. The system has transitioned from a static state to a dynamic state without external intervention. The system 'started' static and then began 'going off' of its own accord. I hope this illustrates my point more clearly; that it isn't necessary to 'add' something to a system for it to achieve a different state of affairs. It's perfectly conceivable that such a thing may happen, although this does not mean that it happens always. Just to clear things up a bit, to my knowledge a static system is one where all the objects inside the system are stationary; a dynamic system is one where at least one object is moving. If you've been talking about different types of static and dynamic system, please say so.
Your reasoning here is extremely muddle-headed. The two systems Firing Gun and !Firing Gun are indeed the same if they encompass they same quantities; in this case they do since, as I have endlessly stated, energy isn't being created to make the gun fire. The energy distribution in the system changes, but the overall amount of energy present in the system does not. Looking at it more closely, I'm saying that there is a system Firing Gun, which consists of a gun, gunpowder, bullet, and X amount of energy, and a system !Firing Gun, which also consists of a gun, gunpowder, bullet, and X amount of energy. The fundamental quantities between the two systems are unchanged. Does this mean the two states of affairs are exactly the same? Of course not, as the distribution of energy in Firing Gun is different to that in !Firing Gun. But for all intents in purposes the two systems are the same system, as they consist of the same objects, the same quantities, and the relations between the objects and quantities hasn't changed substantially. You seem to think that my reasoning implies that the gun is both firing and not firing at the same time, which would indeed be a contradiction. However, this is not the case as Firing Gun succeeds !Firing Gun by an instant. Overall, Firing Gun = !Firing Gun isn't comparable to 1 = -1 if the two systems are made to represent quantities, and both represent exactly the same quantities.
No, in this example we'll assume that causal relations exist, just as they most likely do in the real world. So when the bullet gets hot enough to explode, it does. Can I just confirm that you're willing to accept this example before I go on with it? I don't want to type something out if you're just going to cry about fallacies. |
| |
![]() |
|
| gs | May 15 2014, 07:10 PM Post #118 |
![]()
Slow down
|
gravity feels tricky to me in this context but i can't put my finger on why, i guess i'm too dumb :(. anyway i'm just gonna stop you right there because an important property of a static system is that it doesn't change. this system immediately begins to change. i guess that also answers your question about what i mean by static. and that makes them the same system? having the same quantity of stuff than each other? let me get this straight: you are now saying that a static gun is exactly the same as a firing gun? this is just pure bs. the way these objects are arranged and the way they relate to each other has definitely changed (did you really just say "hasn't changed substantially" as if them not changing substantially is relevant in any way?) are you really trying to tell me a firing gun is in every way equal to a static gun? and let's say they are the same thing, let's just say that even though it's absolutely ridiculous. that means nothing changed, right? the system didn't change. this entire argument is about whether every change has a cause. if nothing changed then what are you even trying to prove with this? quantities this, quantities that. if it's a closed system then it's actually a given that quantities stay the same the entire time, so why are you telling me this? the change i'm interested in is the bullet firing out of the gun. i probably am going to cry about fallacies because for you to argue your point, you have to come up with them. this because your point is false anyway, sure, i'll take the bait. but do inform me as to where all the heat in this system resides (where it starts).
|
![]() |
|
| The_Fry_Cook_of_Doom | May 15 2014, 07:58 PM Post #119 |
|
:OOOOOOOOOOOOMAAANN
|
The point I was trying to make is that a firing gun and a static gun are the same system.
I'm saying that a firing gun and a static gun are the same system for all practical purposes. As far as I'm aware, a system is just a collection of things that interact with each other; they don't change unless objects are physically added or removed from them. If an object in a system starts moving, then it's certainly true that the state of affairs has changed, but the system itself is the same as before, since it encompasses all the same objects. I wouldn't say that, in a system where a planet orbits a star, the system upon the whole has changed simply because the planet is now slightly closer to the star than it was in a previous instant; the system still accounts for the same two bodies, who bear the same relation towards one another. It would be impractical to say that the system changes with every single passing moment as the position of the planet changes relative to that of the star.
Really? In the system Firing Gun the gunpowder explodes and produces a certain force on the bullet. In system !Firing Gun it does the same. How are the relations any different? They're the same system; you're just observing them at two different points in time; in the case of Firing Gun, it's before the gunpowder explodes, and in the case of !Firing Gun, it's after.
Read this part of my previous post:
Obviously a change has been produced, but not in the designation of the system. Nothing has been added or removed to the system to make it achieve a different state; although the state of affairs is constantly evolving, the system itself comprises the same set of objects and relations.
The origin of the heat is kind of irrelevant. I guess we could just say the gun is inside a big furnace or something like that, which should be enough. If you like, we could keep going and say that the furnace is being powered by coal, which was in turn dug up by miners, and so on, but I don't think that's needed. Anyway, in this example a high temperature provides the conditions for the bullet to explode, which causes the gunpowder to fly off in a whole bunch of directions. In our world this would be the other way around; under the same conditions, the gunpowder would explode and the bullet would fly off. I think this serves to show that there's no necessary connection - at least not by logical necessity - between high temperature and gunpowder exploding. If you can imagine a universe where, under a certain set of conditions, things don't happen as they would in this universe, this suggests that there are no necessary relations between events. Hence it's not necessary for event B to always follow event A, even if this has always happened in our experience, since we can clearly imagine a world where this is not the case. This casts doubts on the necessity of causal relations. |
| |
![]() |
|
| gs | May 15 2014, 09:39 PM Post #120 |
![]()
Slow down
|
i was mixing stuff up. they are indeed the same system but in different states firing gun and !firing gun are 2 states of the same system. what i was saying with the whole firing gun = !firing gun thing is that, following from the fact that nothing (no energy, matter, etc) is added to or removed from a static state (!firing gun), both states must equal each other while they in fact do not, which is the logical fallacy in the example. it doesn't, not in my books. this argument you just presented is just ridiculous to me, but i can't really be bothered to argue against it since we are most definitely going to land on the all too familiar "you can't know for sure". i am following logic and the laws of nature that we have created after careful observation. we've established that your theoretical universe is not following the same laws of nature, but you are still claiming it is logical. that is the disagreement. |
![]() |
|
| 1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous) | |
| Go to Next Page | |
| « Previous Topic · General chat · Next Topic » |
| Track Topic · E-mail Topic |
4:41 PM Jul 13
|




oh yay, the objective truth argument. i refer you to my last post and for the record i agree that nothing is certain. but come on...





anyway, sure, i'll take the bait. but do inform me as to where all the heat in this system resides (where it starts).

4:41 PM Jul 13