Re: The logic of atheism

Ben Goren <ben@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Paul Holbach wrote:

> Ben Goren wrote:
>
>>>> I don't think there's any point in going further until you
>>>> can offer up an example of something that's logically
>>>> possible but physically impossible. You're making a false
>>>> distinction between the two that's simply not supported.
>>>
>>> For example, it is logically possible for light to travel at a
>>> speed higher than 299.792.458 ms^-1, but (in our universe) it
>>> is physically impossible for it to do so.
>>
>> But you answered the question yourself. In our universe,
>> faster- than-light travel is logically impossible. It requires
>> more than infinite energy, which is a logical impossibility.
>>
>> Could one theorize some other universe with a different set
>> of physics? Sure. But that's completely irrelevant. In our
>> universe, the speed of light is a logical as well as physical
>> law.
>
> No, because it is true /in our universe/ that it is logically
> possible for light to travel at a speed higher than 299.792.458
> ms^-1. In other words, the state of affairs of it being
> logically possible for light to travel at a speed higher than
> 299.792.458 ms^-1 obtains /in our universe/.
>
> It is the very light in our universe that could have been such
> that it travels at a speed higher than 299.792.458 ms^-1.

Erm...do you have a non-crank source for that assertion? The only
people I've ever heard seriously suggest such a thing are young-
earth creationists.

Necessarily true: means that it must be true in all possible universes.
"2+2=4" is necessarily true. "Either A or ~A" is also necessarily true.

Contingently true: in some possible worlds, it is true, in others, it is
not. "I have blue hair" is contingentally false. "c is 299,792,458m/s" is
contingently true.

Besides, all that's necessary to make it crystal clear that we
really are talking about a logical impossibility is to state that,
without changing the shape of spacetime in our universe in some
ill-defined way, altering the speed of light is impossible.

No, "c=1m/s" is possible, even if it's true in this actual universe, because
there is some possible set of circumstances in which it could be true. Just
do a google search for "necessary+contingent+possible."

It's the /exact same/ thing as the example with the line and the
equidistant point. Either is trivial if you warp spacetime to the
desired shape. Both are logically impossible if you don't.

No, it's logically impossible to have a square-circle in a flat plane.
There's no possible universe in which it could ever exist. It is necessarily
impossible. The speed of light is NOT logically impossible to be 1m/s.

--
Mike

-------------------------------
"Our enemies are innovative and resourceful, and so are we. They never stop
thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people, and neither do
we," George W. "Shrub" Bush Aug 5, 2004
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: The logic of atheism
    ... which is a logical impossibility. ... >> Could one theorize some other universe with a different set ... > possible for light to travel at a speed higher than 299.792.458 ...
    (talk.atheism)
  • Re: Re. The 5:29 PM (Evolution/Creation - the debate) Post
    ... > There's no such thing as a "scientific impossibility." ... That the universe cannot ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Re. The 5:29 PM (Evolution/Creation - the debate) Post
    ... There's no such thing as a "scientific impossibility." ... Carl: ... The laws that govern the physical universe are the proper subjects of: ... Either atheistic evolutionists prove their assertions regarding the ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Peanos space-filling curve
    ... > angles in this or that universe. ... > the angle can be trisected, then all I can say is, ... Under the mathy hat, I reject it. ... > to me like you must reject the impossibility claim. ...
    (sci.fractals)
  • Re: Peanos space-filling curve
    ... > angles in this or that universe. ... > the angle can be trisected, then all I can say is, ... Under the mathy hat, I reject it. ... > to me like you must reject the impossibility claim. ...
    (sci.math)