@mark noble,
mark noble wrote:
Hi Ken!
I didn't forget what the thread is about, I never knew in the first place - I clicked my e-mail and here I was. Mostly I can tell from the posts what thread I'm at, but the all-leafy omniverse could be related to 20 threads of mine, or so.
The universe is one of the components of everywhere, Yes. So are you and I. Everywhere=omniverse!
The sum total of this universe is not relevant to the omniverse at large - The omniverse has no boundaries and is therefore everywhere - The omniverse is everywhere and everywhere is the omniverse.
Everywhere is everywhere Ken.
Nothing is Nothing Ken.
A combine-harvester is a combine-harvester.
Everyone is everyone.
A wigwam is a wigwam.
Nowhere is nowhere.
Are you beginning to see a pattern forming?
Thank you Ken!
Kind regards!
Mark...
Since "nowhere" is not the name of a place, no one can ask "where is nowhere" in the way they can ask, where is Cardiff? For "Cardiff" is the name of a place, so we can say (if we know) where it is. But since "nowhere" is not the name of a place, it makes no sense to ask where nowhere is. See the logic? The argument, put plainly is the following:
1. Only if "nowhere" is the name of a place, does it make sense to ask where nowhere is.
2. But, "nowhere" is not the name of a place.
Therefore, 3. It makes no sense to ask where nowhere is.
Now, both premises are true. The argument is valid. (Modus tollens) And so, the argument is sound. But, since all sound arguments have true conclusions, the conclusion, 3. is true. Therefore, it is true that is makes no sense to ask where nowhere is. QED.
"Logic is logic, that's all I can say". Oliver Wendall Holmes. "The Wonderful One-Horse Shay".
Trying to philosophize without knowing logic is like trying to row a boat without having any oars.
