Philosophy Discussion Forums | A Humans-Only Club for Open-Minded Discussion & Debate

[RJG]

No, alas, you're still not understanding. You need to get the physics right. Until you do, your logic will be faulty.

Sorry Laga, but Logic always trumps Science (physics). The physics that claims that the universe has a "boundary-less boundary" is Bad Physics.

If a "boundary-less boundary" (aka "finite but unbounded") is logically impossible, then no amount of physics could ever make the impossible suddenly possible.

[Lagayascienza]

But logic only works if the facts in the premises are right. Your facts are not right. Logic no more trumps mathematics and physics than vanilla trumps chocolate.

Again, you need to get the physical facts right. Until you do, your logic will be faulty. You need to somehow get your mind around curvature in a 4D universe and non-Euclidian geometry. You don't need to understand these in mathematical detail. You could understand it by simple analogy with curved 2D surfaces but you won't go there.

[Lagayascienza]

But logic only works if the facts you are using are right. Your facts are not right. and logic no more trumps mathematics and physics than vanilla trumps chocolate.

Again, you need to get the physical facts right. Until you do, your logic will be faulty. You need to somehow get your mind around curvature in a 4D universe and non-Euclidian geometry. You don't need to understand these in mathematical detail. You could understand it by simple analogy with curved 2D surfaces but you won't go there.

[Lagayascienza]

Sorry about the double post. Gremlins.

[RJG]

Laga, if you believe my logic is in error, then don't be shy or vague, point directly at the error, and show why it is faulty.

BUT, the catch is, that you gotta use logic (not more bad science) to show a logic error. Much like in mathematics, if you believe there is an error, then you gotta use math to show the error.

[Sculptor1]

Laga, if you believe my logic is in error, then don't be shy or vague, point directly at the error, and show why it is faulty.

BUT, the catch is, that you gotta use logic (not more bad science) to show a logic error. Much like in mathematics, if you believe there is an error, then you gotta use math to show the error.

That is disengenuos - he made it very clear what is wrong with what you are saying.

You are accused of GIGO.

All bananas are cars
All cars are vehicles
THerefore my banana is a vehicle

you can derive a truth from a nonsense.
Logic does not guarentee correct results, though it might.
Logic just has to be consistent.
Laga is saying that your premises are not correct. That being the case the logic might be perfect but the conclusion gargage.

[RJG]

Laga, if you believe my logic is in error, then don't be shy or vague, point directly at the error, and show why it is faulty.

BUT, the catch is, that you gotta use logic (not more bad science) to show a logic error. Much like in mathematics, if you believe there is an error, then you gotta use math to show the error.

Laga is saying that your premises are not correct.

This is just more vaguery! Be specific! Quote my exact words (premise/logic), not your strawman's words. And please don't forget to use logic to show the error my logic. I'll wait.

[Sculptor1]

Laga, if you believe my logic is in error, then don't be shy or vague, point directly at the error, and show why it is faulty.

BUT, the catch is, that you gotta use logic (not more bad science) to show a logic error. Much like in mathematics, if you believe there is an error, then you gotta use math to show the error.

Laga is saying that your premises are not correct.

This is just more vaguery! Be specific. Which premise is not correct. And don't forget to show the logic that shows the error. I'll wait.

I am telling you what Laga says. And pointing out that you are changing the goal posts.
My own post has already shown you where you are going wrong.
Sadly you failed to address my objections also.

[RJG]

More vaguery. As my good friend night912 would say "asserting something as wrong doesn't make it so". You gotta show your logic, not your indoctrinated beliefs in a logical impossibility.

[amorphos_ii]

I think that the terms finite/infinite/infinitesimal are untrue, there are no divisions in nature and so one cannot arrive at exact cardinality et al.

Equally so the act of observing changes the observed, ergo there is no way to truly see what’s out there.

I will laugh my gonads off if the new space telescope just finds more galaxies instead of seeing before star formation. It will mean that the universe is older than they thought [oh dear, all those physics nazi's who think they are always so right lol].

[Sculptor1]

Science shows that it is logically and physically possible to have a finite but unbounded universe.

Laga, I think you have blind faith in Bad Science (science that disregards/contradicts logic). Great scientists are sometimes very poor logicians.

I would love to see the so-called logic that defies the logical impossibility of a "boundary-less finite universe". Please show me that logic.

Here is my logic:

• P1. Finite objects have boundaries.
  P2. Boundary-less objects have no boundaries.
  C1. Therefore, a "boundary-less finite" universe is as oxymoronish (logically impossible) as are "married bachelors".

You are confusing "infinite" with non bounded.
A finite universe has limits; not boundaries.
THe magnitude of the universe is limited but there is nothing beyond its limits

[Lagayascienza]

P1. Finite objects have boundaries.
This will not always be true. It will not be true if we are talking about a whole universe with a particular curvature. All objects within any 4D universe will indeed have boundaries. But a 4D universe with closed curvature would not itself have boundaries. 3D objects like a Klein bottle are analogous – they are finite but have no boundary on their curved surface. Now try to imagine the the space of a 4D universe with closed curvature. (If you don't know what a Klein bottle looks like just do a web search using the term "Klein bottle". I am not permitted to post images here. Keep in mind that 4D space is almost impossible to imagine and it is impossible to draw the geometry of the Universe on a piece of paper, it can only be described mathematically. But the boundaryless surface of a 3D Klein bottle is analogous.

P2. Boundary-less objects have no boundaries.
Tautologously true

C1. Therefore, a "boundary-less finite" universe is as oxymoronish (logically impossible) as are "married bachelors". N
Not true if we are talking about a 4D universe which has closed curvature. There is a simple discussion of curved space at physics of the universe . com / topics_relativity_curved . html that may help you.

With my comments above in mind, here is my logic:

A 4D universe contains all of space.
A 4D universe can be flat or curved.
Curvature can be open or closed.
If a 4D universe has closed curvature it will be finite in extent.
If a 4D universe has closed curvature it will have no boundaries.
Therefore a 4D universe with closed curvature will be finite in extent and will have no boundaries.

[Sculptor1]

More vaguery. As my good friend night912 would say "asserting something as wrong doesn't make it so". You gotta show your logic, not your indoctrinated beliefs in a logical impossibility.

You are supposed to quote the person you are addressing.
It seems you tend to fail to do this when you have nothing to offer except cheap ad hominems.

[RJG]

P1. Finite objects have boundaries.

This will not always be true. It will not be true if we are talking about a whole universe with a particular curvature. All objects within any 4D universe will indeed have boundaries. But a 4D universe with closed curvature would not itself have boundaries.

Not so. If the 4D universe has closed “curvature”, then it will logically have a boundary, that defines its shape. A shape without a boundary is an oxymoron.

3D objects like a Klein bottle are analogous – they are finite but have no boundary on their curved surface.

If they have a curved surface, then they have shape. If they have shape, then they have boundaries. A curve without a boundary is an oxymoron.

Now try to imagine the the space of a 4D universe with closed curvature. (If you don't know what a Klein bottle looks like just do a web search using the term "Klein bottle". I am not permitted to post images here. Keep in mind that 4D space is almost impossible to imagine and it is impossible to draw the geometry of the Universe on a piece of paper, it can only be described mathematically. But the boundaryless surface of a 3D Klein bottle is analogous.

The surface of the Klein bottle is not “boundaryless” in the sense that the Klein bottle has no boundaries. It is only “boundaryless” in the sense of endless travel within the Klein bottle. Endless travel and no boundaries are two different animals.

Falsely conflating one sense (meaning) of the word “boundaryless” (or “unbounded”) to imply another sense of the word is the trickery (equivocation fallacy) being played on all of us with the deceptive phrase “finite but unbounded”.

With my comments above in mind, here is my logic:

A 4D universe contains all of space.

Logically, only an 'infinite' universe can contain ALL of space. A finite universe cannot logically contain all space; it cannot contain the space that contains its boundaries.

[Lagayascienza]

It is likely that nothing more can be done here. In discussions of physics and cosmology where the curvature of space-time becomes important, there are two possible explanations for this happening. Either a person's mind is unequal to the concept of a 4D space with closed curvature, or they are unwilling to do the intellectual work to understand it. In either case, their logic will be wrong because their physical facts will wrong.

It is like arguing with someone who believes the earth is flat because, from the limited area that they can survey, it looks flat. And, because it looks flat, they refuse to entertain the possibility, or are unable to entertain the possibility, that things are not as they seem. To such a person, their logic will seem as unimpeachable as the seeming flatness of the earth. But seeming so doesn't make it so.