Eternity is a Paradox

Wouldn't a 3-sided octagon have 3 sides?

Perhaps there is a way to view an octagon that made it look like it had three sides?  That the two-dimensional representation of the aforementioned view would have three sides?

Do you rule these options out?

Okay, BOG, now everybody knows that you're not being honest with yourself on this matter.  Here are some other examples for you:

It is impossible for the statements "one plus one equals two" and "one plus one does not equal two" to both be right at the same time and in the same respect.

It is impossible, by definition, to meet a married bachelor (so long as we mean the same thing by 'married' and 'bachelor').

These a priori things (and many others--such as the three-sided-octagon already mentioned) are things that are impossible.

Okay, BOG, now everybody knows that you're not being honest with yourself on this matter.

I'm sorry to tell you that statement is relative to position.

Here are some other examples for you:

It is impossible for the statements "one plus one equals two" and "one plus one does not equal two" to both be right at the same time and in the same respect.

It is impossible, by definition, to meet a married bachelor (so long as we mean the same thing by 'married' and 'bachelor').

These a priori things (and many others--such as the three-sided-octagon already mentioned) are things that are impossible.

...

Just because you can't think of the process/way doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

So, yes, among the many possible scenarios, there is at least one scenario for each example where those are possible.

So, yes, among the many possible scenarios, there is at least one scenario for each example where those are possible.

You're wrong.  There is no possible scenario in which somebody can make the claim "one plus one equals two and one plus one does not equal two" and make any sense whatsoever (so long as they are making both claims in the same respect).  That's a logical impossibility.  A logical impossibility is actually impossible, no matter how much you don't want to believe it.

Quote

So, yes, among the many possible scenarios, there is at least one scenario for each example where those are possible.

You're wrong.  There is no possible scenario in which somebody can make the claim "one plus one equals two and one plus one does not equal two" and make any sense whatsoever (so long as they are making both claims in the same respect).  That's a logical impossibility.  A logical impossibility is actually impossible, no matter how much you don't want to believe it.

You and I don't equal a number, yet the number one added to the number one is equal to the number two.

Okay... then so long as we know what we mean by 'one', 'plus', and 'equals' we can conclude that it is impossible for the statement "1 + 1 = 37" to be true.

Well, this threat was threatening to veer away from bullshit mathematics and towards bullshit physics and philosophy for a bit there, but luckily Astantia has put us right back on track...

 :roll:

Well, this threat was threatening to veer away from bullshit mathematics and towards bullshit physics and philosophy for a bit there, but luckily Astantia has put us right back on track...

 :roll:

You know, as the next poster, it was your opportunity to veer said thread away from what you call bullshit (because you don't see it to be logical), but instead you'd rather complain about it.

Way to go. :roll:

Quote from: "skeptical scientist"

Well, this threat was threatening to veer away from bullshit mathematics and towards bullshit physics and philosophy for a bit there, but luckily Astantia has put us right back on track...

 :roll:

You know, as the next poster, it was your opportunity to veer said thread away from what you call bullshit (because you don't see it to be logical), but instead you'd rather complain about it.

Way to go. :roll:

I was actually just trying to be funny.  My post wasn't supposed to launch this debate.  Sorry Bog, but there are impossibilities.  Nothing can be something and it's opposite at the same time.

Quote from: "BOGWarrior89"

Quote from: "skeptical scientist"

Well, this threat was threatening to veer away from bullshit mathematics and towards bullshit physics and philosophy for a bit there, but luckily Astantia has put us right back on track...

 :roll:

You know, as the next poster, it was your opportunity to veer said thread away from what you call bullshit (because you don't see it to be logical), but instead you'd rather complain about it.

Way to go. :roll:

I was actually just trying to be funny.  My post wasn't supposed to launch this debate.  Sorry Bog, but there are impossibilities.  Nothing can be something and it's opposite at the same time.

Quantum superposition of states says you're wrong.

Quote from: "Astantia"

Quote from: "BOGWarrior89"

Quote from: "skeptical scientist"

Well, this threat was threatening to veer away from bullshit mathematics and towards bullshit physics and philosophy for a bit there, but luckily Astantia has put us right back on track...

 :roll:

You know, as the next poster, it was your opportunity to veer said thread away from what you call bullshit (because you don't see it to be logical), but instead you'd rather complain about it.

Way to go. :roll:

I was actually just trying to be funny.  My post wasn't supposed to launch this debate.  Sorry Bog, but there are impossibilities.  Nothing can be something and it's opposite at the same time.

Quantum superposition of states says you're wrong.

I'll admit that I had to look this up.  But I still don't understand how it makes 1 + 1 = 3

Yes BOG, something a priori like "1 + 1 = 3" has no solution in the quantum world, no matter how weird the quantum world is.  Numbers and mathematics are an abstract concept.

Quote from: "BOGWarrior89"

Quote from: "Astantia"

Quote from: "BOGWarrior89"

Quote from: "skeptical scientist"

Well, this threat was threatening to veer away from bullshit mathematics and towards bullshit physics and philosophy for a bit there, but luckily Astantia has put us right back on track...

 :roll:

You know, as the next poster, it was your opportunity to veer said thread away from what you call bullshit (because you don't see it to be logical), but instead you'd rather complain about it.

Way to go. :roll:

I was actually just trying to be funny.  My post wasn't supposed to launch this debate.  Sorry Bog, but there are impossibilities.  Nothing can be something and it's opposite at the same time.

Quantum superposition of states says you're wrong.

I'll admit that I had to look this up.  But I still don't understand how it makes 1 + 1 = 3

It doesn't; it just says that something can be everywhere at once; also, during experiments, it can carry out two options - something, and it's oppisite at the same time.  You said that couldn't be done.

Quote from: "Astantia"

Quote from: "BOGWarrior89"

Quote from: "Astantia"

Quote from: "BOGWarrior89"

Quote from: "skeptical scientist"

Well, this threat was threatening to veer away from bullshit mathematics and towards bullshit physics and philosophy for a bit there, but luckily Astantia has put us right back on track...

 :roll:

You know, as the next poster, it was your opportunity to veer said thread away from what you call bullshit (because you don't see it to be logical), but instead you'd rather complain about it.

Way to go. :roll:

I was actually just trying to be funny.  My post wasn't supposed to launch this debate.  Sorry Bog, but there are impossibilities.  Nothing can be something and it's opposite at the same time.

Quantum superposition of states says you're wrong.

I'll admit that I had to look this up.  But I still don't understand how it makes 1 + 1 = 3

It doesn't; it just says that something can be everywhere at once; also, during experiments, it can carry out two options - something, and it's oppisite at the same time.  You said that couldn't be done.

No.  It has the potential to do both things.  In the 5th (or 6th) dimension, it is both things, but in our normally observeable 4 dimensional world, you cannot be in two places at once, nor can something be it's opposite.

No.  It has the potential to do both things.  In the 5th (or 6th) dimension, it is both things, but in our normally observeable 4 dimensional world, you cannot be in two places at once, nor can something be it's opposite.

Oh good, we've gotten back to BS physics. Quantum Mechanics has nothing to do with a 5th or 6th dimension, and everything to do with our world. If when you say "observable" you mean what's the case after something has been observed, then yes, you're right, but that's only because the act of observation "collapses the wave-function" so that the superposition of states becomes one individual state. But before the wave function is collapsed, a particle really is in two places (or infinitely many places) at once. We know that this (or something like it) is really going on because in two slit experiments, particles interfere with themselves, which means on some fundamental level, they are really going through both slits at once.

Quote from: "Astantia"

No.  It has the potential to do both things.  In the 5th (or 6th) dimension, it is both things, but in our normally observeable 4 dimensional world, you cannot be in two places at once, nor can something be it's opposite.

Oh good, we've gotten back to BS physics. Quantum Mechanics has nothing to do with a 5th or 6th dimension, and everything to do with our world. If when you say "observable" you mean what's the case after something has been observed, then yes, you're right, but that's only because the act of observation "collapses the wave-function" so that the superposition of states becomes one individual state. But before the wave function is collapsed, a particle really is in two places (or infinitely many places) at once. We know that this (or something like it) is really going on because in two slit experiments, particles interfere with themselves, which means on some fundamental level, they are really going through both slits at once.

Ah, the dual slit experiment.

You forgot to mention that, when a recording device was placed by the two slits to measure where the electron was going, the electrons went back to behaving like particles; two bands were seen, rather than the previously-observed interference pattern.

Skeptical, I've seen what people claim to be photographs of things undergoing superposition; unfortunately, it was in the movie What the Bleep!? - Down the Rabbit Hole, which I'm not sure whether or not it is a credible source.

Here's a site that includes a clip about the DSE from the movie.

Skeptical, I've seen what people claim to be photographs of things undergoing superposition; unfortunately, it was in the movie What the Bleep!? - Down the Rabbit Hole, which I'm not sure whether or not it is a credible source.[/url]

I have not seen the movie myself, but from what I've heard, it is definitely not a credible source. This is very definitely true if they claim to have photos of things undergoing superposition - a photograph entails capturing photons bouncing off an object, and photons are essentially observers, so that when they bounce off the object, even if that object were in a superposition of states, its wave-function collapses and it ends up in a single state.

Quote from: "BOGWarrior89"

Skeptical, I've seen what people claim to be photographs of things undergoing superposition; unfortunately, it was in the movie What the Bleep!? - Down the Rabbit Hole, which I'm not sure whether or not it is a credible source.[/url]

I have not seen the movie myself, but from what I've heard, it is definitely not a credible source.  This is very definitely true if they claim to have photos of things undergoing superposition - a photograph entails capturing photons bouncing off an object, and photons are essentially observers, so that when they bounce off the object, even if that object were in a superposition of states, its wave-function collapses and it ends up in a single state.

Well, the pictures were a bunch of lights; they didn't necessarily say what was undergoing superposition, but they said physicists have gotten large (in comparison to sub-atomic particles) objects into superposition.

what of the 3 spatial directions?  Why must they be finite?

One reason is Olber's paradox, a.k.a. Why is the night sky dark?

Quote from: "Astantia"

what of the 3 spatial directions?  Why must they be finite?

One reason is Olber's paradox, a.k.a. Why is the night sky dark?

Oh, the "if the universe is infinite, every line of sight would land on the surface of star" argument.

Everything's possible.  Just because you can't think of the process/way doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

Hubert: Nothing's impossible, not if you can imagine it!  That's what being a scientist is all about!

Cubert: No, that's what being a magical elf is all about.

Quote from: "BOGWarrior89"

Everything's possible.  Just because you can't think of the process/way doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

Hubert: Nothing's impossible, not if you can imagine it!  That's what being a scientist is all about!

Cubert: No, that's what being a magical elf is all about.

Ouch, Erasmus.  Although, predicted.

I highly doubt anyone is going to defend me on this, but, hey, anything's possible.

Anything in the physical world might be possible, but nothing that breaks Aristotle's law of non-contradiction can be possible.  I'm getting of tired arguing this with you so I'll just suggest that you take an Intro to Philosophy course sometime and you'll 'see the light,' so to speak.

Something cannot be 'A' and '~A' (that is, 'not A') at the same time and in the same respect.

Anything in the physical world might be possible, but nothing that breaks Aristotle's law of non-contradiction can be possible.  I'm getting of tired arguing this with you so I'll just suggest that you take an Intro to Philosophy course sometime and you'll 'see the light,' so to speak.

Something cannot be 'A' and '~A' (that is, 'not A') at the same time and in the same respect.

God can exist and cannot exist at the same time.  He exists to some, but not to others.

You lose.

I'm getting of tired arguing this with you so I'll just suggest that you take an Intro to Philosophy course sometime and you'll 'see the light,' so to speak.

I suspect that, were he to actually take such a course, he would discover that many philosophers (constructivists) deny this principle, known as the Law of Excluded Middle, and that, in fact, this "law" is an a-priori assumption of everybody who accepts it.

God can exist and cannot exist at the same time. He exists to some, but not to others.

"Smith believes that God exists, but Alice disbelieves it" is different from "God both exists and does not exist."  Don't be intentionally obtuse.

I believe that there exists a frog with the property 'X' and with the property '~X.'

So, as soon as you observe something, it ceases to be superpositioned?

Then:

in our normally observeable 4 dimensional world, you cannot be in two places at once, nor can something be it's opposite.

Guys, you aren't going to win (at least, not in my eyes), because I always have this to fall back on:

Just because you can't think of the process/way doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

Just because something seems impossible doesn't automatically make it so.

God can exist and cannot exist at the same time.  He exists to some, but not to others.

So God is your imaginary friend? :lol:

If something only exists in your head, it doesn't really exist.

Quote from: "BOGWarrior89"

God can exist and cannot exist at the same time.  He exists to some, but not to others.

So God is your imaginary friend? :lol:

If something only exists in your head, it doesn't really exist.

If God either did exist or did not exist, then why are people arguing about it?

As a more personal note, I'm agnostic, Masterchief2219.