Looking Backward, into the Future

[Abecedarian]

Could you tell me why you consider it to be a flase dichotomy without using a super computer hypothesis to explain it? And you chastise ydoaPs for using science fiction?

 

I would have thought the definition of false dichotomy is enough, without the need for a super computer hypothesis. Or any hypothesis for that matter.

 

A false dichotomy is where you declare an "all or nothing" state of affairs for the unknown, while ignoring all and any possibilities in between. How is declaring:

"E

ither everything we can see, touch and feel is real or nothing is

"

not a false dichotomy?

 

 

I didn't chastise him. I merely expressed slight disappointment. I appreciate what he meant but accepting that as an argument means we would have to assume The Matrix is real.

Edited July 6, 2012 by Abecedarian

[rigney]

I would have thought the definition of false dichotomy is enough, without the need for a super computer hypothesis. Or any hypothesis for that matter.

 

A false dichotomy is where you declare an "all or nothing" state of affairs for the unknown, while ignoring all and any possibilities in between. How is declaring:

"E

ither everything we can see, touch and feel is real or nothing is

"

not a false dichotomy?

 

 

I didn't chastise him. I merely expressed slight disappointment. I appreciate what he meant but accepting that as an argument means we would have to assume The Matrix is real.

What you seem to not understand is, the context of: see, touch or feel didn't come frome me and had no bearing on my statement at all. joatmon injected it and had you actually been reading instead if scanning my meaning, you would have not intermingled the two. And the super computer thing, that was your idea. Edited July 6, 2012 by rigney

[ydoaPs]

Please explain how 'the universe is eternal' is a 'fact'.

 

There is no time past, present, or future at which it does not exist.

[rigney]

There is no time past, present, or future at which it does not exist.

I agree! But other than surreptitiouely, can you you provide me with where I can find some hard facts since mine are only ideas? Edited July 6, 2012 by rigney

[zapatos]

There is no time past, present, or future at which it does not exist.

I know what 'eternal' means. Can you provide your evidence that this applies to the universe?

[ydoaPs]

I know what 'eternal' means. Can you provide your evidence that this applies to the universe?

 

It is true by definition. Can you point to a time at which the universe did not exist?

[zapatos]

It is true by definition.

Whose definition? Agreed by all? Can you point me to that definition?

 

Can you point to a time at which the universe did not exist?

If I can't, does that mean you are right?

 

But I'll give it a try. There was a different universe which came and went, and during its existence our universe did not exist. That different universe also had time. So during the existence of that other universe there was a time when our universe did not exist.

 

Of course I have no evidence so I am just wildly guessing. But then aren't you also widely guessing about what happened before the big bang?

[rigney]

zapatos, on 5 July 2012 - 10:38 PM, said:

Please explain how 'the universe is eternal' is a 'fact'.

yadoPs:There was a different universe which came and went, and during its existence our universe did not exist. That different universe also had time. So during the existence of that other universe there was a time when our universe did not exist.

ydoaPs Posted Yesterday, 09:08 AM

There is no time past, present, or future at which it does not exist.

Again, I agree with a part of what you say because I believe the universe is cyclical. But then, can the the BB be explained as more than a myth that scientists concocted and have been playing "musical chairs" with the standard model for the past 100 years?

Edited July 7, 2012 by rigney