the universe and space....?

USAFHokie wrote:

Our definition of time can be slowed with an increase in gravitational fields. Prior to the big bang, all space and all matter existed in a 1-dimensional point, a singularity of sheer unimaginable density. Consequently, the gravitational force within this singularity was such that it halted "time." Once the singularity errupted, time began.

Sounds quite plausible to me!

USAF ??? Hmmm. Did you figure that out at altitude or on the ground?

0 Replies

Ground level. ha. Actually, I've been reading a lot lately about special relativity, general relativity, quantum physics, partical physics and string theory. There are some really really neat examples and experiments to show that it all works. Very cool.

0 Replies

USAFHokie wrote:

Quote:

I've been reading a lot lately about special relativity, general relativity, quantum physics, partical physics and string theory. There are some really really neat examples and experiments to show that it all works. Very cool.

Earlier, he had written:

Quote:

Matter did exist before "time." Our definition of time can be slowed with an increase in gravitational fields. Prior to the big bang, all space and all matter existed in a 1-dimensional point, a singularity of sheer unimaginable density. Consequently, the gravitational force within this singularity was such that it halted "time." Once the singularity errupted, time began.

Just so I know what we are dealing with here...

...did anyone in any of those books on all those subjects ever say he or she KNEW this to be the case -- or are they positing these "facts" more along the lines of hypotheses?

0 Replies

Frank Apisa wrote:

Just so I know what we are dealing with here...

...did anyone in any of those books on all those subjects ever say he or she KNEW this to be the case -- or are they positing these "facts" more along the lines of hypotheses?

Some of it, yes. There is a vast amount of experimental data that proves, among other things, time dialation. Using these few *proven* fundamental pieces, the larger theory flows smoothly and logically. The Big Bang and of course, the all-encompassing singularity cannot be proven. Though, data very storngly suggests this is correct.

0 Replies

Mech,
I've decided to post here the link you provided me in one of my Abuzz threads.
[[==========================
To our ongoing conversation vis a vis red shift.
http://www.cs.unc.edu/~plaisted/ce/redshift.html
==========================]]
I'll write some posts about it later.

Bogowo,
Maybe this life is but a very tough boot camp for the next one.

USAFHokie,
The reason I asked about <at altitude or on the ground> is because I'm a non-military pilot, and what I perceive to be some of my better ideas have occurred to me at altitude.

Your studies and data are like my own.

0 Replies

USAFHokie wrote:

Frank Apisa wrote:
Just so I know what we are dealing with here...

...did anyone in any of those books on all those subjects ever say he or she KNEW this to be the case -- or are they positing these "facts" more along the lines of hypotheses?

Some of it, yes. There is a vast amount of experimental data that proves, among other things, time dialation. Using these few *proven* fundamental pieces, the larger theory flows smoothly and logically. The Big Bang and of course, the all-encompassing singularity cannot be proven. Though, data very storngly suggests this is correct.

Not tryin' to be a pain in the ass, here, Hokie, but I want to be as sure as I can of what is being said.

Since you said "some of it" is KNOWN -- I'd like to be sure of just what, among the items you mentioned, actaully is classified as KNOWN and which are HYPOTHESES.

Here is your list:

1) Matter did exist before "time."

2) Our definition of time can be slowed with an increase in gravitational fields. (The wording here is confusing. If any of it is known, could you re-phrase it more carefully.)

3) Prior to the big bang, all space and all matter existed in a 1-dimensional point, a singularity of sheer unimaginable density.

4) Consequently, the gravitational force within this singularity was such that it halted "time."

5) Once the singularity errupted, time began.

So, according to those books -- which of these are facts -- and which are conjecture?

0 Replies

Previously I wrote:
A troogol number of life evolving planets in OOU may make it probable for us to find at least two such planets in OOU: ours and one other. Surely the more such planets in OOU, the more likely we will find at least one other.

I should add:
A moogol number of life evolving planets in OOU may make it probable for us to find at least two such planets in OOU: ours and one other. Surely the more such planets in OOU, the more likely we will find at least one other.

0 Replies

Frank,
I would like to clear up something for myself that you have been saying from time to time.

Did you post here that if the universe is infinite anything is possible?
Do you believe that?
What data do you have to show that is true?

I don't think anyone has any data or logic that would encourage one to be certain that if the universe is infinite, then anything is possible.

If the universe were infinite, it may exist of nothing more than an infinite replication of the same thing, thereby ruling out anything other than that infinite replication of the same thing. That would make your statement that anything is possible in an infinite universe mythology, wouldn't it?

0 Replies

ican711nm wrote:

Frank,
I would like to clear up something for myself that you have been saying from time to time. Did you post here that if the universe is infinite anything is possible?

What I actually wrote is: "If the UNIVERSE is infinite as to space and time -- anything is possible. In fact, getting from point "a" to "where we are now" is almost a dead certainty whether there is INTELLIGENCE guiding the evolution or not. "

Actually, I think anything is possible whether the universe is finite or infinite.

However, in this particular instance, I would have thought you would realize I was specifically meaning, "anything is possible" with regard to your contentions about getting from point "a" to "where we are now" without INTELLIGENT guidance -- which is why the paragraph refers to that issue.

Quote:

Do you believe that?

I do not "believe" anything.

However, if it is important to where you are going with this Ican, I am certainly willing to add wording to the effect..."it is my impression or my guess that..." or "I think that" - if it is important. I feel, though, that my wording of "...is almost a dead certainty" pretty much establishes that sense of things.

Quote:

What data do you have to show that is true?

I don't need any data. It definitely is my guess - my sense - my thinking.

Quote:

I don't think anyone has any data or logic that would encourage one to be certain that if the universe is infinite, then anything is possible.

Well, rather than get into a general discussion of this (I disagree with parts of that) -- but since I have clarified that I was specifically aiming my comment at your "getting from point 'a' to 'where we are now'"-- I will wait to see if you still have reservations before further comment.

Quote:

If the universe were infinite, it may exist of nothing more than an infinite replication of the same thing, thereby ruling out anything other than that infinite replication of the same thing. That would make your statement that anything is possible in an infinite universe mythology, wouldn't it?

Not at all! You are not really thinking here, Ican. Your logic is sloppy. That is not like you.

We are talking about what it "possibly" could be.

What specifically are you saying that it cannot possibly be?

0 Replies

Just went to feed the fish -- and while out there, a thought occurred about my question -- What specifically are you saying it cannot be?

I can think of things it cannot possibly be. Things along the line of "Can God make a rock so big he can't lift it?'

I hope that is not where you go with this -- but....

0 Replies

From Mech's link,

"Red Shift Riddles

The fact that red shifts appear to be quantized has interesting implications for the study of the universe. This suggests that the red shift may be caused by something other than the expansion of the universe, at least in part. This could be a loss of energy of light rays as they travel, or a decrease in the speed of light through discrete levels. Maybe there is some other explanation.
The following quotation concerning this phenomenon is from "Quantized Galaxy Redshifts" by William G. Tifft & W. John Cocke, University of Arizona, Sky & Telescope Magazine, Jan., 1987, pgs. 19-21. I thank Mark Stewart for this material:

As the turn of the next century approaches, we again find an established science in trouble trying to explain the behavior of the natural world. This time the problem is in cosmology, the study of the structure and "evolution" of the universe as revealed by its largest physical systems, galaxies and clusters of galaxies. A growing body of observations suggests that one of the most fundamental assumptions of cosmology is wrong.

Most galaxies' spectral lines are shifted toward the red, or longer wavelength, end of the spectrum. Edwin Hubble showed in 1929 that the more distant the galaxy, the larger this "redshift". Astronomers traditionally have interpreted the redshift as a Doppler shift induced as the galaxies recede from us within an expanding universe. For that reason, the redshift is usually expressed as a velocity in kilometers per second.

One of the first indications that there might be a problem with this picture came in the early 1970's. William G. Tifft, University of Arizona noticed a curious and unexpected relationship between a galaxy's morphological classification (Hubble type), brightness, and red shift. The galaxies in the Coma Cluster, for example, seemed to arrange themselves along sloping bands in a redshift vs. brightness diagram. Moreover, the spirals tended to have higher redshifts than elliptical galaxies. Clusters other than Coma exhibited the same strange relationships.

By far the most intriguing result of these initial studies was the suggestion that galaxy redshifts take on preferred or "quantized" values. First revealed in the Coma Cluster redshift v.s. brightness diagram, it appeared as if redshifts were in some way analogous to the energy levels within atoms.

These discoveries led to the suspicion that a galaxy's redshift may not be related to its Hubble velocity alone. If the redshift is entirely or partially non-Doppler (that is, not due to cosmic expansion), then it could be an intrinsic property of a galaxy, as basic a characteristic as its mass or luminosity. If so, might it truly be quantized?"

There is much more worth reading!

I particularly want to emphasize two sentences in the above article:

"This suggests that the red shift may be caused by something other than the expansion of the universe, at least in part."

"These discoveries led to the suspicion that a galaxy's redshift may not be related to its Hubble velocity alone."

Currently the Hubble Constant, H, for OOU is estimated to be about 72,000 meters per second per a galactic distance equal to a Megaparsec (i.e., 3,260,000 light years). 1/H is approximately equal to the age of OOU = 13.6 Billion years.

But what if most of the redshift were caused not by the Dopler effect but by other effects?
Suppose H = only 7.2 meters per second. Then the age of OOU would be approximately 13.6 trillion years. That's still finite, isn't it? Whether OOU has been expanding from what has been computed to be an infinitessimal singularity or stuff about 1 meter in diameter, the size of OOU has to be finite as well. If it's size is finite than the amount of stuff it contains is also finite.

All of that is based on data supplied by scientific cosmologists. Is this data valid; is it sufficient? I don't know for certain? Based on science's past track record, science generally doesn't refute its past significant findings; rather it reveals that past significant findings are incomplete (e.g., transition from Newtonian to Einsteinian physics.

Which way would you bet: infinite OOU, or finite OOU?

0 Replies

Frank Apisa wrote:

Actually, I think anything is possible whether the universe is finite or infinite.

Ok! But you are not certain! Very Happy

Frank Apisa wrote:

However, in this particular instance, I would have thought you would realize I was specifically meaning, "anything is possible" with regard to your contentions about getting from point "a" to "where we are now" without INTELLIGENT guidance -- which is why the paragraph refers to that issue.

Ok! But again you are not certain! Very Happy

Frank Apisa wrote:

However, if it is important to where you are going with this Ican, I am certainly willing to add wording to the effect..."it is my impression or my guess that..." or "I think that" – if it is important. I feel, though, that my wording of "...is almost a dead certainty" pretty much establishes that sense of things.

"almost a dead certainty" Very Happy

Ok! But again you are not certain! Very Happy

Frank Apisa wrote:

I don't need any data. It definitely is my guess – my sense – my thinking.

I disagree! Sad

Surely you recognize that data can enhance or detract from the probability that what you think is actually true or false.

Frank Apisa wrote:

Not at all! You are not really thinking here, Ican. Your logic is sloppy. That is not like you.

We are talking about what it "possibly" could be.

What specifically are you saying that it cannot possibly be?

My logic is probably impecable. Laughing

If the truth (albeit, not known for certain to us) were that A is true in OOU, then it is not possible for NOT A to be true in OOU.

In summary, to say that anything is possible, because WE cannot know for certain what is or is not possible, is a content free statement. It provides zero guidance for us with regard to what is probably true. It serves only to deny that we are capable of judging correctly what criteria shall more effectively guide our thinking, our aspirations, and our actions.

It serves only to stifle individual effort to know and do the right thing. After all, application of your point of view makes it seem possible that anything we choose to do is the right thing! That approach to life on this planet is probably unproductive. Check the data!

0 Replies

ican711nm wrote:

Frank Apisa wrote:

Actually, I think anything is possible whether the universe is finite or infinite.

Ok! But you are not certain!

Me certain!!! You haven't had a go at the sacramental wine, have you? :wink:

Quote:

Frank Apisa wrote:
However, in this particular instance, I would have thought you would realize I was specifically meaning, "anything is possible" with regard to your contentions about getting from point "a" to "where we are now" without INTELLIGENT guidance -- which is why the paragraph refers to that issue.

Ok! But again you are not certain!

Me certain twice??? Jeez. I hope that was rhetorical. Laughing

Quote:

Frank Apisa wrote:
However, if it is important to where you are going with this Ican, I am certainly willing to add wording to the effect..."it is my impression or my guess that..." or "I think that" – if it is important. I feel, though, that my wording of "...is almost a dead certainty" pretty much establishes that sense of things.

"almost a dead certainty"
Ok! But again you are not certain!

This is getting boring! Sad

Quote:

Frank Apisa wrote:
I don't need any data. It definitely is my guess – my sense – my thinking.

I disagree! Surely you recognize that data can enhance or detract from the probability that what you think is actually true or false.

Read the reply again. You are wrong. I am commenting on what I am thinking. I need no data other than thinking it. It has absolutely nothing to do with whether what I am thinking is true or false. It is what I am thinking.

Quote:

Frank Apisa wrote:
Not at all! You are not really thinking here, Ican. Your logic is sloppy. That is not like you.

We are talking about what it "possibly" could be.

What specifically are you saying that it cannot possibly be?

My logic is probably impecable.

If the truth (albeit, not known for certain to us) were that A is true in OOU, then it is not possible for NOT A to be true in OOU.

IF Queen Elizabeth had balls, she'd be King of England! My guess is your logic IS impeccable - but not impeccable. :wink:

In any case, I figured you would go to one of those "Can God make a rock so large he can't lift it" kinds of things.

Don't you ever wise up? Shocked

Obviously there is an Ultimate Reality -- and that is the only thing that IS and the only thing that CAN BE.

But in a discussion of this kind, if I have to go through all that in order to clarify a statement like "Anything is possible" it is because the person I am debating is "content free."

This is like the nonsense that suggests I do not know what name is on my driver's license.

What do you get out of this kind of stuff, Ican? Question

Quote:

In summary, to say that anything is possible, because WE cannot know for certain what is or is not possible...

That statement makes no sense. Bake it a bit more and then serve it. I'll deal with it then.

Quote:

... is a content free statement. It provides zero guidance for us with regard to what is probably true.

I am sure you will serve up plenty of what you consider to be "probably true" -- and I can PROBABLY write the stuff for you since I've heard it so many times. I can PROBABLY even make the subtle changes that are sure to be there. And since you will serve up so much, my lack of contribution in that department will not be a serious problem.

Quote:

It serves only to deny that we are capable of judging correctly what criteria shall more effectively guide our thinking, our aspirations, and our actions. It serves only to stifle individual effort to know and do the right thing.

Well it also serves to tell the truth about the situation -- without all the guesses that sometimes get pulled out of the air -- or are manufactured in tortured reasoning and misuse of probability.

I think that's important. Don't you? Idea

Quote:

After all, application of your point of view makes it seem possible that anything we choose to do is the right thing! That approach to life on this planet is probably unproductive. Check the data!

I don't really think so, Ican. I think you are simply bothered by people who do not know the answers to certain questions - and who just acknowledge that they do not know. You would prefer, or so it seems, that they do the kind of thing you do.

I will not do that. I consider it illogical and unethical. Exclamation

0 Replies

mechsmith wrote:

Quote:

It seems as though we are trying to discover if matter could possibly exist without our perceptions. Or anythings perceptions or intelligence for that matter.
If you get on a roller coaster you perceive your stomach jumping. An independent observer would not be aware of it.
So what would the Universe be to an independent observer? And is there or could there possibly be any such a thing?

Well in one sense there is an independent observer; 'awareness'

i.e. if awareness is not a link in the chain of causes and effects then it is independent from them. It just observes, although it appears that it also makes choices in terms of "what it observes", but that may be a misconception, or only an apparency.

Quote:

ican, I think that I have shown that matter can exist independent of our perceptions of it.

You have!. The world is waiting Smile

ican wrote:

Quote:

I agree with all that you have written here except that I suspect/reason differently. I suspect that I am a subset of the universe and am not the same as the universe. In fact, I think that the probability that I am a subset of the universe is greater that [1-a googolth], or is practically certain. I think the probability that I am the same as the universe is less than a googolth, or practically impossible. (Note: a googol equals 1 followed by 100 zeros; a googolth equals 1/googol).

Yes we are diametrically opposite.

Though I don't think the ''truth'' has anything to do with statistics, or probabilities.

I.e.What is, may be the least probable, the least unlikely, the least obvious etc.

Then it could also be the most obvious.

But the question is always, always, always, To whom is it obvious? To whom is it least probable?

Just like errors the truth has no independent existence.

0 Replies

Ok... Let me sum it up for you...

KNOWN: Electromagnetic fields (Gravity included) slow relative perception of time.

First, let me give you a quick summary of Special Relativity. This deals with force-free motion. That is, motion WITHOUT acceleration in any direction. Basically, imagine that Sam is in devoid space. According to Sam, he is sitting still, as he cannot percieve any motion since there are no reference points. He has a green light on his suit. Sam sees a red light moving towards him. It is Bob. They wave, and Bob floats by. Now, consider Bob. From Bob's perspective, he was still, and Sam was the one moving. Both statements are correct. In force-free motion, there is no way to percieve state of motion without some landmark to see or hear.... Now...

The speed of light is known. It is a constant.

Imagine two "clocks." Each of these clocks consists of two mirrors, separated by approximately 6 inches. There is a single photon between the mirrors, bouncing back and forth. This will take about a billion "ticks" to make a second. Imagine these two clocks are synchronized, sitting on a table. One clock begins to move at constant velocity. Consider the path of the photon on the sliding clock from our perspective.

Since from our perspective, the clock is moving, the photon must travel at an angle. If the photon did not travel on an angular path, it would miss the upper mirror and fly off into space. As the sliding clock has every right to comain that it's stationary and everything else is moving, we knows that the photon WILL hit the upper mirror and hence the angular path is correct.

The photon bounces off the upper mirror and again travels a diagnoal path to hit the lower mirror, and the sliding cock ticks. This path is obviously longer than the straight up and down path taken by the photon in the stationary clock. Since the speed of light is constant, we know both photons are travelling at the same speed. Yet, since the photon in the moving clock must travel farther, that clock will tick less frequently. Time thus slows down.

If this is hard to imagine, read more on Special Relativity and it will make more sense....

Now, Imagine you are standing motionless on a small metal platform on Earth. You are experiencing a downward accelerational force of 9.8m/s^2 due to gravity. Now, imagine you are standing motionless on this platform in space, far away from any massive body, and therefore are not experiencing any gravitational pull. Now, if the platform you are on accelerates toward your head at 9.8m/s^2, you will percieve a force of "gravity" equal to that of Earths between your feet and the platform. This is the basis of Special Relativity.

So, we now know that motion can slow perception of time. And we know that forces of motion and forces of gravity are interchangable. So, If we have a force of gravity strong enough, it too will slow time.

And imagine this: We move in 3 dimensions; x,y,z. For a given motion vector, there are components for each dimension which sum to the total magnitude of the vector. However, we are leaving out the 4th dimension - time. Since all 4 dimensions share this vector, when the magnitude of acceleration in one direction is increased, the magnitude of the other dimensions is decreased. Thus, it follows that at light speed, there is no passage of time. All energy is put into spatial motion and the magnitude of the time vector is 0.

Ok... now imagine a black hole... a singularity so massive that not even light can escape the gravitational pull. The halo around a black hole is called the horizon. Just insize the horizon, approaching the singularity, the gravitational field increases exponentially. Near the singularity itself, this field would have strength enough to halt perception of time.

NOW THE CATCH... The key word in this is perception. If I were on Earth and you were flying around at the speed of light, to me, you would stop aging. TO YOU, it would be life as normal. If each of us were to live 50 years and burn x number of calories in those 50 years. I would percieve you living longer than I. However, to you, it would be only 50 years, and you could still only burn your x calories....

Now, most of the other stuff follows pretty easilty from this. If you have specifi questions, ask me and I'll try to explain them in a shorter more precise method.

0 Replies

Ok... what is "a" and "not a" ??? And why can they not exist simultaneously?

0 Replies

Frank Apisa wrote:

Well it also serves to tell the truth about the situation -- without all the guesses that sometimes get pulled out of the air -- or are manufactured in tortured reasoning and misuse of probability.

I think that's important. Don't you?

This is strange in the context of all you've written in this post. You admitted you don't know for certain what the truth is, and now you say that admission implies that statement is the truth. Shocked

Frank Apisa wrote:

You would prefer, or so it seems, that they do the kind of thing you do.

I will not do that. I consider it illogical and unethical.

Yes, I would prefer that because I consider it constructive, logical and ethical, ... and healthier. However, I will not "demand" it.

I prefer to gamble that OOU is rational and unaffected by whether SATOOU exists or not.

I prefer to gamble that whether OOU is infinite or not, OOU is purposeful.

I prefer to gamble that discerning what OOU's purpose probably is, will help us all evolve further, and individually without any coercion, gain more valid data about what is the right thing to do, how to do the right thing, and then do the right thing.

I prefer to gamble that refusing to make judgments about what works better just because we can't know for certain is a waste of human talent.

Bur, I also prefer to gamble that no assertion uttered by me or you or any one else is ever certain to be true.

Oh, one more thing: I prefer to gamble that if we are all in the same boot camp, those who continue to think like I infer you do, are doomed to repeat boot camp over and over until its doors are closed (if in deed they are ever closed). Crying or Very sad

0 Replies

twyvel wrote:

[You have!. The world is waiting……

I have encountered stuff that existed long before I was aware of its existence (e.g., planet earth, the Wright Brothers first self-propelled airplane).

However, I forgot that you think none of that stuff actually existed until you or I were aware of it. To me that appears quite presumptious. Why do you think that?

I guess I have not truly shown you that reality exists independent of our perception of it. Nonetheless, there are enough folks who do think that to make a party.

ican wrote:

Quote:

I agree with all that you have written here except that I suspect/reason differently. I suspect that I am a subset of the universe and am not the same as the universe. In fact, I think that the probability that I am a subset of the universe is greater that [1-a googolth], or is practically certain. I think the probability that I am the same as the universe is less than a googolth, or practically impossible. (Note: a googol equals 1 followed by 100 zeros; a googolth equals 1/googol).

Yes we are diametrically opposite.

Though I don't think the ''truth'' has anything to do with statistics, or probabilities.

I.e.What is, may be the least probable, the least unlikely, the least obvious etc.

Then it could also be the most obvious.

But the question is always, always, always, To whom is it obvious? To whom is it least probable?

Just like errors the truth has no independent existence.[/quote]

0 Replies

ican711nm wrote:

Frank Apisa wrote:
You would prefer, or so it seems, that they do the kind of thing you do.

I will not do that. I consider it illogical and unethical.

Yes, I would prefer that because I consider it constructive, logical and ethical, ... and healthier. However, I will not "demand" it.

I prefer to gamble that OOU is rational and unaffected by whether SATOOU exists or not.

I prefer to gamble that whether OOU is infinite or not, OOU is purposeful.

I prefer to gamble that discerning what OOU's purpose probably is, will help us all evolve further, and individually without any coercion, gain more valid data about what is the right thing to do, how to do the right thing, and then do the right thing.

I prefer to gamble that refusing to make judgments about what works better just because we can't know for certain is a waste of human talent.

Bur, I also prefer to gamble that no assertion uttered by me or you or any one else is ever certain to be true.

Oh, one more thing: I prefer to gamble that if we are all in the same boot camp, those who continue to think like I infer you do, are doomed to repeat boot camp over and over until its doors are closed (if in deed they are ever closed).

Yeah, I'm sure you do, Ican.

But the fact is that if you were truly on a fact-finding mission -- you would do just that -- gather facts and go where they lead.

You do not do that, Ican.

You have a conclusion you want to reach -- and you attempt to shoehorn that conclusion into whatever you look at.

I've been through dozens of threads with you -- and in each you were obviously trying to show that you can show that it is more likely that there is a God than that there isn't.

And each trip has been a trek through Ican in Wonderland.

If you were truly an investigator seeking truth -- rather than trying to find some way to muscle your pet theories on reality onto others (always disguising it as trying to convince yourself) -- you would look at the evidence without those preconceptions and see where it leads.

I KNOW where it leads.

It leads to agnosticism.

We do not know the nature of reality nor the answers to Ultimate Questions -- and there simply is not enough unambiguous evidence upon which to make meaningful guesses.

(I know, I know. You are convinced that there is plenty of evidence upon which to state: The probability is greater that God exists than that there are no gods.

Just as Craven and a half dozens other A2Kers are convinced that there is plenty of evidence upon which to state: The probability is greater that there are no gods than that there is a God.)

We do not know. We do not come close to knowing.

We continue to investigate and well we should. I support that with every fiber of my body. But don't for a second think that your skewed data; tortured logic; misapplied probability theory; and concocted conclusions represent investigation of that sort.

If anything, it is the enemy of true investigation.

Have fun doing your thing.

I'll be here watching and commenting.

0 Replies

USAFHokie wrote:

Ok... what is "a" and "not a" ??? And why can they not exist simultaneously?

I'm glad you asked. A is a logic variable.

If A, +, &, ~ certainly exist, then:

A + ~A (i.e., A OR NOT A) is certainly true.
A & ~A (i.e., A & NOT A) is certainly false.
(A & ~A cannot both be true at the same time)

What is A, you ask. A is any proposition you care to substitute for A.

For example:

A = Mike owns a Learjet.
~A = Mike does not own a Learjet.

A + ~A is certainly true.
A & ~A is certainly false.

Here's a couple of others:

GIVEN (1)

B = it is raining.
~B = it is not raining.

C = Mike is wearing a raincoat.
~C = Mike is not wearing a raincoat.

IF B is true, THEN C is true.

Then CONSEQUENTLY

[C is true implies B is true] is a false statement.

GIVEN (2)

B and C are defined as in GIVEN (1)

IF AND ONLY IF B is true, THEN C is true.

Then CONSEQUENTLY

[C is true implies B is true] is a true statement.

0 Replies

the universe and space....?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know