Thread: Proof that the universe isn't infinate?

Because it can think right?

Well what about a watermelon, does that think?
Mind you, it's probably better off not being able to think. No worries and no need to have/find a sense of self worth...
which is something us humans suffer from most profoundly...

Prove to me that his dog exists. Do you have pictures? No!

Am I his dog? No!

Gawd... it's not supposed to be particularly complex philosophy.

I know I exist because I am thinking.

Free will and hypothetical dogs are irrelevant.

Originally Posted by Xei

Am I his dog? No!

Gawd... it's not supposed to be particularly complex philosophy.

I know I exist because I am thinking.

Free will and hypothetical dogs are irrelevant.

This is funny Xei.


Heh.


But I genuinely feel sorry for you.


I've had this problem with people hundreds of times. It's cus Descartes phrased the cogito totally wrong.



The better version is in the discourse; "I think, I exist".

Also he shouldn't have put "i". Because what he means is

"there is thought occuring of some form at this particular moment right now, therefore that thought exists."

I think therefore I am implies some kind of causality, which is the mistake everyone makes


What in fact it means is that The act of thinking itself is a form of existence, so in doing the act of thinking, there is an existence occuring. If I decide to doubt this, I am proving it, because there is a thought occuring. Even if nothing is real and i don't exist, one thing we can be sure of is that for this single moment there is a certain existence of thought occuring. From this we deduce that there is some form of existence, and this is proof of it, because in the act of doubting the claim, we are proving it.

Hey! Thanks for clearing that up. I always thought that he meant "I think, that's why I must exist".

Originally Posted by Omicron

This is funny Xei.


Heh.


But I genuinely feel sorry for you.


I've had this problem with people hundreds of times. It's cus Descartes phrased the cogito totally wrong.



The better version is in the discourse; "I think, I exist".

Also he shouldn't have put "i". Because what he means is

"there is thought occuring of some form at this particular moment right now, therefore that thought exists."

I think therefore I am implies some kind of causality, which is the mistake everyone makes


What in fact it means is that The act of thinking itself is a form of existence, so in doing the act of thinking, there is an existence occuring. If I decide to doubt this, I am proving it, because there is a thought occuring. Even if nothing is real and i don't exist, one thing we can be sure of is that for this single moment there is a certain existence of thought occuring. From this we deduce that there is some form of existence, and this is proof of it, because in the act of doubting the claim, we are proving it.

Well that's sort of what it does mean.

What people think it means is that only things which think exist. Which isn't what it says. Rocks are a blatant counterexample to that misinterpretation. :\

Ahh, so basically...

having the ability to think, means that one MUST exist, because of the impossibilities of thinking and NOT existing...

I get you now

The only thing that you can truly be proven to exist are your own thoughts.

Hmm, so maby I'm in some sort of perma-dream and this is all in my head?
Possible...

Originally Posted by capoopy

The only thing that you can truly be proven to exist are your own thoughts.

Yes. Hence 'I am'?

Descartes was actually talking about what you can't prove, which he said was virtually everything except your own existence.

Originally Posted by Xei

Descartes was actually talking about what you can't prove, which he said was virtually everything except your own existence.

I think that's good to keep in mind.

Philosophy can be fun =)

The problem with the argument is it's locked into a possible/impossible dichotomy. It's like something has to be possible, and if it's not, then it has to be impossible. Flawed logic.

Existence according to Webster's dictionary:

Originally Posted by Existence

1. The state of existing or being; actual possession of being; continuance in being; as, the existence of body and of soul in union; the separate existence of the soul; immortal existence.

The main object of our existence. --Lubbock.

Being according to dictionary.com:

Originally Posted by Being

8. Philosophy.
a. that which has actuality either materially or in idea.
b. absolute existence in a complete or perfect state, lacking no essential characteristic; essence.

Therefore, everything exists.

Originally Posted by Omnius Deus

The problem with the argument is it's locked into a possible/impossible dichotomy. It's like something has to be possible, and if it's not, then it has to be impossible. Flawed logic.

Explain further how this applies.

Can't be known.

What else but infinite?

The problem with the argument is it's locked into a possible/impossible dichotomy. It's like something has to be possible, and if it's not, then it has to be impossible. Flawed logic.

Was the last sentence supposed to be descriptive of the rest of your post?

Either way; it is.

Give me an example of something which is simultaneously possible and impossible.

I wish people would think before posting nonsensehippybollockwords.

Originally Posted by Omnius Deus

The problem with the argument is it's locked into a possible/impossible dichotomy. It's like something has to be possible, and if it's not, then it has to be impossible. Flawed logic.

The way I read that, it looks like something is either possible, or impossible. I don't know of any other options besides possible or not possible. I thought that covered everything. Can you point out the flaw in the logic to me? I don't see it

For something that is both possible and impossible, you'd have to look into the wording of how it would be possible or impossible. I could say it is possible for me to get a large group of people together, and pick up a small house. At the same time, it would be impossible for me to pick up a small house without help. But technically that isn't the same thing, the addition of the help changes the action, so I guess nothing can be simultaneously possible and impossible.

Well, somethings can be both. take the following example:

A person cannot fly unaided through the atmosphere, i.e impossible

BUT, a person can "fly" in their dreams, through lucidity or just through normal dreaming.

But this depends on your definition of reality. And on the boundries that you put up around the terms "Impossible" & "Possible"

On a side note... My post was originally concerning a theory using possibility as a way of proving the universe is a finite being. But now with the possibilities of them both co-existing, I may need to rethink it!

Originally Posted by Splitter

Well, somethings can be both. take the following example:

A person cannot fly unaided through the atmosphere, i.e impossible

BUT, a person can "fly" in their dreams, through lucidity or just through normal dreaming.

But this depends on your definition of reality. And on the boundries that you put up around the terms "Impossible" & "Possible"

On a side note... My post was originally concerning a theory using possibility as a way of proving the universe is a finite being. But now with the possibilities of them both co-existing, I may need to rethink it!

In the case of people flying through the atmosphere time is an important factor. People can't use telekinesis NOW, so NOW it's impossible. But what in about 100 years?
Impossible or not is not a "yes" "no" question.

It is if you're specific instead of stupidly vague.

Is it possible to exist on a Monday? Well, it's not monday now, but it will be Monday in the future. So I guess it's simultaneously possible and impossible to exist on a Monday.

i r big clevar phlisphloser amirite?

Originally Posted by Xei

It is if you're specific instead of stupidly vague.

Is it possible to exist on a Monday? Well, it's not monday now, but it will be Monday in the future. So I guess it's simultaneously possible and impossible to exist on a Monday.

i r big clevar phlisphloser amirite?

Yeah you do have a valid point, but the douche-baggery wasn't REALLY nessacery was it?

Or does it augment your ablility to reach everyone and communicate your ideas with lots of people?

Originally Posted by Xei

It is if you're specific instead of stupidly vague.

Is it possible to exist on a Monday? Well, it's not monday now, but it will be Monday in the future. So I guess it's simultaneously possible and impossible to exist on a Monday.

i r big clevar phlisphloser amirite?

Every week has a monday. It would be the first time in recorded history that a human learned how to do TK.

There is a big difference there.

Originally Posted by Timothy Paradox

Every week has a monday. It would be the first time in recorded history that a human learned how to do TK.

There is a big difference there.

Ahh but now we're getting into the 'cat in a box' (schloerinders? lol at spelling)
Because for something to no longer be impossible, it would have to be witnessed. A human could be able to do TK, but may die afterwards. With no-one witnessing this, and his concious mind (as we know it) vanished, it isn't impossible. It's just that people still think it's impossible.
SO, there's nothing stopping there being humans elsewhere in the universe with the ability to do TK, But because we haven't seen them, and haven't witnessed it, it's "impossible"

Catch my drift?

Originally Posted by Splitter

Ahh but now we're getting into the 'cat in a box' (schloerinders? lol at spelling)
Because for something to no longer be impossible, it would have to be witnessed. A human could be able to do TK, but may die afterwards. With no-one witnessing this, and his concious mind (as we know it) vanished, it isn't impossible. It's just that people still think it's impossible.
SO, there's nothing stopping there being humans elsewhere in the universe with the ability to do TK, But because we haven't seen them, and haven't witnessed it, it's "impossible"

Catch my drift?

I think nothing is impossible. But that's just me