|
Mormons on TA.? (pg. 17)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| Sunsnail |
| well nothing wouldnt be in it. There would be air... probably fungus spores... etc |
|
|
| Psy-T |
| quote: | Originally posted by venomX
Dude define nothing. Nothing requires that there not be something. Nothing is not without requirements. Nothing is only without requirements in a world where there is nothing. And since that world doesnt exist, nothing will require that there not be something. |
there's no need for those special circumstances :p
nothing alawys requires a lack of something, |
|
|
| Subey |
| quote: | Originally posted by Psy-T
even if i conceeded that point (which i do not), what is infinity minus 1? |
When I think about infinity its a vanishing point beyond my sight. I can't place a -1 beside a point I can't see. |
|
|
| Sunsnail |
| quote: | Originally posted by venomX
Dude define nothing. Nothing requires that there not be something. Nothing is not without requirements. Nothing is only without requirements in a world where there is nothing. And since that world doesnt exist, nothing will require that there not be something. |
The only time you could define nothing is with something. |
|
|
| Ibizadreamer AG |
| nothing requires lots of butth4x to be present |
|
|
| Subey |
| quote: | Originally posted by Psy-T
there's no need for those special circumstances :p
nothing alawys requires a lack of something, |
I'll attack this a little cause it seems like a pretty bizarre point of logic to be hooked on.
Why would a 2 dimensional square require a 4 dimensional tesseract? |
|
|
| venomX |
| quote: | Originally posted by Subey
When I think about infinity its a vanishing point beyond my sight. I can't place a -1 beside a point I can't see. |
I came up with a better argument because i have nothing to do. In your safe example, statiscally anything is as likely then nothing. Why? If its sealed, and has no outside acces, you have no clues as to what is inside. It follows then that anything you can concieve of could be inside the safe, including nothing. Hence, nothing is bound to happen as often as anything :p |
|
|
| Psy-T |
| quote: | Originally posted by Subey
Aacck! The safe is just a symbol of a place that is sealed from outside access.
If you bought a 100% normal safe. And it was empty, and you closed it. And I said i'll give you a million dollars if you correctly guess what is inside the safe when you open in 2 minutes later are you going to guess "nothing" or a "dog", a "rock", a "roll of toilet paper" etc.
Of course you are going to say nothing because it's the logical contents of the safe.
Nothing is the logical contents of reality. |
when 'nothing' is the default, it might be the logical contents of reality.
what suggests 'nothing' is the default?
edit: to be a bit verbose, and to support the opposite of your argument:
nothing has a probability of 1/infinity to be the default.
anything has a probability of infinity-1/infinity to be the default. |
|
|
| Subey |
| quote: | Originally posted by venomX
I came up with a better argument because i have nothing to do. In your safe example, statiscally anything is as likely then nothing. Why? If its sealed, and has no outside acces, you have no clues as to what is inside. It follows then that anything you can concieve of could be inside the safe, including nothing. Hence, nothing is bound to happen as often as anything :p |
The scenario I provided is meant to be followed in spirit, not broken by loopholes...
I'll restate the scenario. You are standing in 5 feet in front of me. You check your pockets they are empty. The second you say they are empty I say "if you guess what is in your pockets correctly then I will give you a million dollars."
What's your guess? |
|
|
| Subey |
| quote: | Originally posted by Psy-T
what suggests 'nothing' is the default? |
That would return us to the point you didn't concede. |
|
|
| Psy-T |
| quote: | Originally posted by Subey
That would return us to the point you didn't concede. |
read the edit. |
|
|
| Psy-T |
| quote: | Originally posted by Subey
Why would a 2 dimensional square require a 4 dimensional tesseract? |
i don't think it would, which should lead me to what conclusion? |
|
|
|
|
