I Can Prove God

[MySiddhi]

Originally Posted by iconoclast

You cannot say 'nothing implies nothing...' it's false, as I told you in another forum. You didn't reply - but went right ahead and posted it here without addressing the issue. Typical religionist.

iconoclast.

Why exactly is Reflexivity of Implication false? Were you equally vague and devoid of a real argument in the other forum as well?

[iconoclast]

No, just didn't want to waste my time explaining if you were going to run-away agian.

The logic of first cause is false because cause and effect is shown to be inapplicable under certain circumstances with reference to quantum phenomena that routinely obviate cause and effect.

Cause and effect applies to the existing classical scale universe - where there is energy, matter and a temopral sequence of events.

Thus, the primordial universe - crushed into a quantum singulalrity is exempt on two counts - firstly, that it is on quantum scale, and secondly, there is no matter, energy or time - and thus no cause and effect.

[MySiddhi]

Originally Posted by iconoclast

No, just didn't want to waste my time explaining if you were going to run-away agian.

The logic of first cause is false because cause and effect is shown to be inapplicable under certain circumstances with reference to quantum phenomena that routinely obviate cause and effect.

Cause and effect applies to the existing classical scale universe - where there is energy, matter and a temopral sequence of events.

Thus, the primordial universe - crushed into a quantum singulalrity is exempt on two counts - firstly, that it is on quantum scale, and secondly, there is no matter, energy or time - and thus no cause and effect.

Don't let the word "causation" confuse you. What is being argued here is interaction, entanglement, participation, involvement, or perturbation.

If Quantum Mechanics is easier for you to understand over logic feel free to review what is called quantum self-interaction... to validate my claim that "something is self-causal".

[iconoclast]

(T1) Nothing is nothing. (Victor Hugo)
(A ≡ A)∧(A → A)∧(idA: A → A)∧(∃Ax)(A = x) (Mars Turner)
Four senses of “is” are meant here; of identity, of implication, of predication, and of existence;
A ≡ A “nothing equals nothing” Law of Identity
A → A “nothing implies nothing” Reflexivity of Implication
idA: A → A “nothing has the property of nothing” Identity Morphism
(∃Ax)(A = x) “nothing exists as nothing” Reflexivity of Existence


(T2) Nothing is uninvolved. - Something is self-causal. (Mars Turner)
(A ≡ A)∧(A → A) [consciousness]
nothing equals nothing AND nothing implies nothing
ergo nothing is not implicated with something
ergo everything is implicated with something
ergo something is self-implicated
Note; Implication suggests causation and is correlation. When it is impossible for there to be missing variables correlation necessarily is causation, as the only reason correlation would not be causation is the possibility of missing variables.
ergo nothing is not causal with something Q.E.D.
ergo everything is causal with something
ergo something is self-causal Q.E.D.


I have highlighted in the text of your argument the difference between your statements 'nothing implies nothing' and 'something is self causal.'

Clearly you have now shifted the basis of your argument forward to a point you think you may be able to support given my arguments - that while you suggest are confused, have removed the fundamental basis of your argument, leaving the latter a free floating assertion.

...or what we round here call faith.

[MySiddhi]

Originally Posted by iconoclast

(T1) Nothing is nothing. (Victor Hugo)
(A ≡ A)∧(A → A)∧(idA: A → A)∧(∃Ax)(A = x) (Mars Turner)
Four senses of “is” are meant here; of identity, of implication, of predication, and of existence;
A ≡ A “nothing equals nothing” Law of Identity
A → A “nothing implies nothing” Reflexivity of Implication
idA: A → A “nothing has the property of nothing” Identity Morphism
(∃Ax)(A = x) “nothing exists as nothing” Reflexivity of Existence


(T2) Nothing is uninvolved. - Something is self-causal. (Mars Turner)
(A ≡ A)∧(A → A) [consciousness]
nothing equals nothing AND nothing implies nothing
ergo nothing is not implicated with something
ergo everything is implicated with something
ergo something is self-implicated
Note; Implication suggests causation and is correlation. When it is impossible for there to be missing variables correlation necessarily is causation, as the only reason correlation would not be causation is the possibility of missing variables.
ergo nothing is not causal with something Q.E.D.
ergo everything is causal with something
ergo something is self-causal Q.E.D.


I have highlighted in the text of your argument the difference between your statements 'nothing implies nothing' and 'something is self causal.'

Clearly you have now shifted the basis of your argument forward to a point you think you may be able to support given my arguments - that while you suggest are confused, have removed the fundamental basis of your argument, leaving it a free floating assertion.

...or what we round here call faith.

I underline for you that which points out that "something is self-causal" is not a free floating assertion.

Further I always had this claim including in our original discussion. But I did come to realize you would need to be a genius to comprehend it from (A ≡ A)∧(A → A).

This is why I added the underlined part so that anyone that is educated could comprehend it. Also... I was not provoked into expounding on this issue because of your arguments... but rather from someone else's who claimed I cannot arrive at causation from implication.


We both know that logic is not your favored ground... so please review and concede quantum self-interaction for me.

[iconoclast]

We both know that logic is not your favored ground...

Get stuffed you snotty prick!

[MySiddhi]

Originally Posted by iconoclast

We both know that logic is not your favored ground...

Get stuffed you snotty prick!

Didn't mean to hurt your feelings there.

It just seems every time you want to make an argument against logical necessity you appeal to quantum physics... as if you actually understood it.

[iconoclast]

If you don't like personal abuse, don't engage in it. I'm easy - feel free, but be warned, I'm good at it and will reciprocate to the full extent of my talent.

I haven't used the term 'Big Bang' yet as I wanted you to arrive at the other logical explanation for all that exists without direction.

The logic you apply is the logic of the existing universe - but if you would begin your argument with 'nothing' then these rules do not apply.

Where the Big Bang is concerned, causality, and therefore reflexivity of implication does not apply. Nothing did come from nothing.

Thus, the nothing you refer to, that cannot even be spoken of as existing, nor of existing before the big bang - because time did not exist, implies everything. I think of it in a binary sense - 0 - nothing - 1 everything.

If you care to respond directly to the point raised without shifting the argument or engaging in personal abuse - I will be happy to engage constructively with you, but if you want this to descend into a round of name calling I will be only too happy to verbally abuse you.

[MySiddhi]

Originally Posted by iconoclast

I haven't used the term 'Big Bang' yet as I wanted you to arrive at the other logical explanation for all that exists without direction.

The logic you apply is the logic of the existing universe - but if you would begin your argument with 'nothing' then these rules do not apply.

Where the Big Bang is concerned, causality, and therefore reflexivity of implication does not apply. Nothing did come from nothing.

Thus, the nothing you refer to, that cannot even be spoken of as existing, nor of existing before the big bang - because time did not exist, implies everything. I think of it in a binary sense - 0 - nothing - 1 everything.

Did you mean something came from nothing?

Necessary involvement (causal relation) only comes about from the reflexivity of implication of the negation of the zero arity predicate "thing".

All other forms of reflexivity of implication cannot achieve necessary involvement.

Cause is a synonym for REASON.

I can only guess that you think there is no reason for the big bang?

[iconoclast]

thank you for the correction - i did indeed mean something, indeed, everything came from nothing.

it is not necessary that the big bang had a cause.

p.s. please don't reproduce this post.