
The surface (*) of the earth has no length or width (because it has no edges). And it is related to the topic, because you are using this as the basis of a "logical" argument.
Nothing. The universe/space is all there is. There is nothing outside. There is no outside.What can be around space if it is limited ?
When you say this is not "logical" you just mean you do not understand it.
(*) Note: that is the surface of the earth. The SURFACE.
Even there is nothing there can be space
Nothing. The universe/space is all there is. There is nothing outside. There is no outside.
When you say this is not "logical" you just mean you do not understand it.
I'd say that's incorrect.
Lacking evidence either way does not, automatically, assign 50/ 50 probability.
If I recall we had much the same with... er, someone, in the last month or so, regarding the existence of god (or not).
Their claim was that, since we couldn't prove it either way, it MUST be 50/ 50. Which is blatantly incorrect. These are your statements aobut which I said it right
Space is not nothing.
Hi RAJ,
Just going back to your question: "What can be around space if it is limited ?
Nothing ? even if it is nothing it is yet space"
The actual answer is we just don't know what is beyond space, all space lumped together we call the universe, what we can see of the universe is approximately 93 billion light years across (diameter), beyond this we really are purely into the realm of the unknown.
We don't know whether the universe is bounded or unbounded, infinite or not beyond what we can see, but what we do know is it is expanding, though again into what is another of those questions as yet we simply cannot answer.
You either don't know what a contrapositive is, or you weren't thinking clearly, or I didn't understand what you said. All you have demonstrated is that if a statement is true, then its converse is not necessarily true. There are plenty of statements that are true but not their converses, even in a deterministic universe. What I am asking is how a statement can be true, but failed when the statements are reversed AND negated, i.e., the contrapositive. The last part of your statement fits.
You are unable to show me wrong
What example you gave against "a true logic cannot violate other true logic"
First point of your statement
1. It cannot be in last cup as this will not make surprise ,if we reached 5th cup & then eliminate last cup
It is not logical, or false logic
When we reached 5cup , this means we know well about the the 5 cups out of 6 cups and
It is not 6th cup that will make surprise , it is our absence of knowledge that will make surprise
Note: It will not even make surprise even if it is in 1st cup and you have knowledge that ball is not in last 5 cups.
Your example does not present "True Logic"
Unsupported claim, again.
Erroneous claim.What example you gave against "a true logic cannot violate other true logic"
If we have already turned over the first 5 cups then the ball can ONLY be under the 6th. If it can only be there then there is no "absence of knowledge".First point of your statement
1. It cannot be in last cup as this will not make surprise ,if we reached 5th cup & then eliminate last cup
It is not logical, or false logic
When we reached 5cup , this means we know well about the the 5 cups out of 6 cups and
It is not 6th cup that will make surprise , it is our absence of knowledge that will make surprise
Therefore it cannot be a surprise.
Please try to think.
Since all you have presented so far is complete failure to grasp the example (maybe because understanding what is written would wreck your claim) then you still haven't refuted the example.Your example does not present "True Logic"
Yes I am saying the same thingOriginally Posted by Dywyddyr
It cannot be in 6th cup not because it is 6 cup but because you assume we have knowledge of first 5cup
That completely deletes surprise
If we have knowlege of any 5 cups like 1,2,4,5,6we also know what is 3rd cup and third cup would not make surprice
You are making it equal even if we do not have knowledge of 1,2,4,5,6 yet it cannot be in 3rd cup
that is completely wrong
Your statement does not give true logic
and show nothing just meaning words
No doubt , we do not have experimentally proof whether space is limited or unlimited and we can not guaranty about the validity of final answer.
But we do not assign every thing 50:50 chances based on our current knowledge ,logic and reasoning .
Logically we cannot assign 50% chances to limited space
It is valid as per reasoning and current knowledge to assign much more value to the unlimited space. Like 60:30, 80 :20 or any other as per our current knowledge, reasoning and logic
Why?
You have, so far, failed utterly to present ANY reasoning ^{1} or reference to current knowledge to even support the idea of "unlimited space".
Sheer bullshit  you have absolutely no way of assigning probabilities.Like 60:30, 80 :20 or any other as per our current knowledge, reasoning and logic
As you have tacitly admitted by using such generalised values.
1 Argument from incredulity is not classed as "reasoning".
am sorry mr Duck for not realising that you were the one who posted that impotant experiment.i'd try better next time.
Now at my first try on the six cup experiement i noted that if we were ever told that the ball was under any cup before we started looking,then finding the ball in any cup will not surprise us.because it was excatly noted that we would find the ball underneath one cup.
if however(Duck permit me to expand the experiement)there was seven similar cups,that had the ball placed under one of them and all were mixed,and one cup was picked out randomly.
if we are told that if we check the six remaining cups,there is a chance that we would find the ball in one.
then the above system will always produce a surprise.for even if we have complete knowledge of the 1st 5cups,finding the ball under the 6th will still be a surprise. and if we have complete knowledge of all 6cups,then knowing that the ball is under the 7th cup that was randomly removed will still produce a surprise.
Last edited by merumario; July 28th, 2013 at 01:44 AM.
Regardless of the number of cups (providing it's more than 1 of course) checking at random will give the surprise.
The logic relies on taking each cup in line sequentially.
No, if you've checked 6 out of 7 and not found the ball then it MUST be under the 7th  thus it won't be a surprise.then the above system will always produce a surprise.for even if we have complete knowledge of the 1st 5cups,finding the ball under the 6th will still be a surprise. and if we have complete knowledge of all 6cups,then knowing that the ball is under the 7th cup that was randomly removed will still produce a surprise.
I should note, for those haven't realised, that actually running the experiment WILL result in a surprise. Because, logically, there can't be a ball under any of them, then wherever it turns up (unless it does happen to be in the final cup) it will come unexpectedly.
And another empty claim.
Can you show where or how the logic is faulty?
Can you rebut with anything other than empty repeated assertions?
Then explain WHY the conclusion is incorrect.By stating your statements "logic" and make conclusion of this logic that ball cannot be in any cup to surprise is completely wrong
But you will not understand I hope
Can you at least do that?
Please, instead of making repeated assertions (based on, so far as I can tell, nothing more than your "religious" insistence ^{1} that you must be right) show me the logic that highlights the error.
1 Superbly illustrated by your blatantly false signature.
Duck,the epanded 6cups experiement will always produce surprise. why?
even if we have complete knowledge of 6cups and we now know that it was in the cup that was randomly picked,it will also be a surprise.
this surprise however will not be due to the initial probability of the system but will be due to the randomness at which the cup was picked.
in other words after checking 6cups we become instantly surprise that the cup that was randomly picked actually had the ball underneath it.this can also be said that the surprise was based on the uncertainty of whether the cup will randomly picked had the ball on it.
Is it really logically there can be no ball under any cup, because if there were it wouldn't be a surprise ?Originally Posted by Dywyddyr
Ball in any cup can be surprise until you have the knowledge of other 5cups.
So it is completely illogical to eliminate any cup
Simply " if you have knowledge of any five cups out of six suppose last five , it will not surprise if ball is in first cup"
Again simply "If you do not have knowledge of cups, ball in first cup to make surprise
Your fault" You are equalizing both illogically
to show following false :
"A true logic cannot violate other true logic, if it does one of them is not true "
PLEASE LEARN TO READ.
It was CLEARLY stated that it could NOT be under the 6th cup  BECAUSE, having eliminated the previous 5 it could ONLY be under that one, and would, therefore, not be a surprise. And not being a surprise precludes it from being under that cup because of the conditions given at the outset.
What?Simply " if you have knowledge of any five cups out of six suppose last five , it will not surprise if ball is in first cup"
What you seem to be ignoring is that, having turned over the first 5 you DO have knowledge.Again simply "If you do not have knowledge of cups, ball in first cup to make surprise
Bull. Shit."A true logic cannot violate other true logic, if it does one of them is not true "
As has been explained to you more than once.
Last chance: do have ANY argument OTHER than empty claims, misunderstanding or unsupported faith in a ridiculous premise?
UNLESS you show the error, logically, in your next post I will ignore further replies from you on this subject except to point out any errors you display while posting to other people ^{1}.
1 I won't put you on ignore the way I did with Boing because, although you're at least as wrong as he was, you post far too often to be allowed to promote your specious crap uncorrected.
RAJ K, you are right for saying that Duck is wrong. it is true that you cannot say because finding the ball must be a surprise then the last cup would'nt have the ball in it.(incorrect)
But you failed in stating that the first Duck proposed thought experiment can never produce any surprise of any kind.
His first statement that the ball will be find by surprise cannot be satisfied by the experiment.
On the contrary: the experiment shows (conclusively) that finding the ball is a surprise. As does the logic.
For the simple reason that, having logically arrived at the conclusion that there is no ball under any cup, it's a surprise to discover that it is actually under one of them.
Sorry I just noticed this:
Are you saying that it's incorrect to eliminate the last cup as a possibility?t is true that you cannot say because finding the ball must be a surprise then the last cup would'nt have the ball in it.(incorrect)
Duck,saying that the ball was found in contrary to the condition will truly spring a surprise.(good for noticing that,although you were almost too late)
On the other hand am not eliminating the last cup.am actually stating what you have just noticed in another way. i.e i am saying that the condition must not decide what we observe,the condition can only guide us. and now with our new understanding of the surprise the 6th cup will spring then i agree with the 6cup experiment and the expanded 7th cup experiment(since they don't contradict one another).
I see what you mean, but, since the ball cannot be under any cup BUT the 6th (if the first 5 are elimated) then it's not that much of a surprise (and also means that the "surprise" condition was essentially a lie ^{1}  which is not the case when the experiment is performed).
I'm not sure at all what you mean here.On the other hand am not eliminating the last cup.am actually stating what you have just noticed in another way. i.e i am saying that the condition must not decide what we observe,the condition can only guide us. and now with our new understanding of the surprise the 6th cup will spring then i agree with the 6cup experiment and the expanded 7th cup experiment(since they don't contradict one another).
And changing the number of cups does nothing whatsoever to change the logic. (Unless you only have one cup  and all that does is eliminate most of the steps of the logic).
1 I.e. in such a case the surprise would be predicated on a contradiction of the the wording of the conditions, not the conditions themselves.
if the conditions state that finding the ball in any of the 6cups will be a surprise.
and the experiment disagrees,then the experiment springs another form of surprise against the condition.(that can be considered as the surprise)
While in the expanded 6cups experiment(7cups) the experiment agrees with the condition because of the uncertainty of the ball being in the randomly picked cup.(this will spring a surprise for and not against the experiment).
No.
If you check each cup sequentially then it doesn't matter how many cups are in the line. The same logic is applicable for 7 cups as it is 6. Or 506.
And note that cups aren't selected randomly (maybe you missed that part).
You start with cup 1 (say, the nearest to you) and work down the line.
(The same logic doesn't apply with randomlyselected cups ^{1} because that would mean that the cups aren't in a fixed order and can't be sequentially eliminated).
1 At least I don't think so, and I'm too tired to work it out.
you seem not to understand the 78cups exp. a ball was place under the bottom of one cup and these cups were mixed together(we no longer know which cup).after this,one cup is picked from that seven,and we are left with the normal 6cups expt.
the idea of the 7cups expt is that the cup that was picked will now affect the outcome of the remaining 6cups.
in other words,the expt will always produce a surprise because of the uncertainty of not knowing whether the ball is among the 6cups or its under the one that was removed.
In this experiment one can surpriseOriginally Posted by merumario
and this experiment satisfies condition of "surprise" practically
Fault is in" false logic" that gives false output
and if we do practically experiment "false output of logic" does not match with reality
You appear to be poor! i never expected тнιѕ level of reasoning.
We are told that finding the ball will be a surprise but how the surprise will come we don't know.However,we know that the ball is of course in one of the cups.
If we know the above then we will expect to see the cup at any point we check(hence no surprise).
And if we find the ball without surprise contrary to the condition,then another form of surprise will be spring(in other words we will be surprised that the experiment violated the condition.)
Originally Posted by RAJ_K
Originally Posted by PhDemon
Raj, your errors and inconsistencies have been pointed out many times by the Duck and others. What would be the point of me doing it again for you to ignore (again). You are a buffoon and it's less time consuming to point this out than prepare a post you will ignore. Lazy I know but any casual reader needs to know you post nonsense. I'm just going to put you on ignore now, I'm tired of your pigheaded idiocy.
I really do not mind of people who have no mind
I do not want to use this type of language
He started first
He can say simply me wrong
But he always use this type of language
Explanation of Dywyddyr ‘s experiment and logic in very simple words
1.Dywyddyr gave an experiment related to finding a ball in six cups in a row and it must satisfy condition of “surprise to find this ball”
2. Now Dywyddyr gave his logic and output of this logic based on upper experiment.
3. According to Dywyddyr ‘s logic “ Ball should not be in any cup because it will not satisfy condition of surprise “
4. Logic is wrong – as it eliminates the cups one by one by assuming we have knowledge of other five starting from 6^{th} and making output –ball cannot be in any cup or it will not make “surprise”
5.Now we practically do this experiment and we also took output theoretically calculated by Dywyddyr ‘ logic
6. Now in experiment, one would surprise when he find ball under 2^{nd} cup, and he see result does not match with logic.
7. There would be surprise in experiment.
Logic is wrong because its eliminatation of cups is not valid because it is making it equal “ball cannot be in 6^{th} cup because it will not make any surprise in particular cupt when we have knowledge of other 5cup “ with
“ ball cannot be surprise even if we do not have knowledge have other 5 cups”
Elimination of cup making equal sense of upper two lines.
I am going to do some work
Mr RAJ i would advice you not to base the entire experiment on that surprise condition only.
The experiment is treated like a probability system.if тнιѕ is So,then all cups have equal chances of having the ball(1/6),however if we have knowledge of the 1st cup the probability of finding the ball in the remaining cups is=1/5 Ƒor all cups.
If according to you we now find the ball in the second cup that has probability of(1/5) will now collapse to (1) and the rest will have a probability of 0.
By the above what brings the surprise? Nothing. That's why i made an expanded version. Which now brings a surprise because one cup that is not among the six might have the ball.So when the ball is found among the six,we are then surprise that it was not the cup that had the ball we removed. And if we don't see the ball among the 6cups then we will be surprise that the cup(7th cup) we picked away before we started actually had the ball(Ƒor better understanding see post 148#)
You mean that we don't look under the "7th cup" after we've removed it?
In which case you have completely altered the conditions  it cannot be stated with certainty that there is a ball under one of the 6.
It's therfeore not the same conditions, nor the same experiment.
Correct so far.
Do you deny that if we have turned over 5 cups then the ball MUST be under the 6th?4. Logic is wrong – as it eliminates the cups one by one by assuming we have knowledge of other five starting from 6^{th} and making output –ball cannot be in any cup or it will not make “surprise”
Your English is so garbled here I have absolutely no idea what you're trying to say.Logic is wrong because its eliminatation of cups is not valid because it is making it equal “ball cannot be in 6^{th} cup because it will not make any surprise in particular cupt when we have knowledge of other 5cup “ with
“ ball cannot be surprise even if we do not have knowledge have other 5 cups”
Last edited by Dywyddyr; July 28th, 2013 at 12:50 PM.
Since the 6cups experiment can only spring a surprise against the condition and the 7cups experiment will spring a surprise Ƒor the condition,i do not argue that they same experiment.
In Dywyddyr 's experiment condition of surprise refers " Probability should not collapse to 1 until we check the cup" For exapmle he said it cannot be in 6th cup because when we checked first five cups, probability would collapse to 1 in final cup before checking itOriginally Posted by merumario
Actually " if experiment is unable to make surprise Dywyddyr 's logic proved to be true "
As output of Dywyddyr 's logic matches with real output of experiment.
After some time ,today I will try your extended version of logic which may be more reliable
[QUOTE =DYDYDDYR]
4. Logic is wrong – as it eliminates the cups one by one by assuming we have knowledge of other five starting from 6^{th} and making output –ball cannot be in any cup or it will not make “surprise”
Do you deny that if we have turned over 5 cups then the ball MUST be under the 6th?
[QUOTE ]
No I am not denying , it is exactly right
What?
This am probably wrong, but this is what I think. Like many other theories, quantum physics requires you to accept its axiom. One of these axioms is that under the correct conditions, a system (particle) can have more than one state simultaneously. This never happens to us, so we thing of this idea as being illogical. Because of this, when we hear the idea our brains automatically label it as silly nonsense. We go our whole lives thinking a particular way and this axiom says we have to reverse all that. That's why it fells so weird when you think about it, your brain labeled it as weird. So quantum physics violates common sense, but not logic. I hope this idea is correct and that i explained it well. If its wrong please tell me how it should be.
I don't think that is an axiom but a prediction of the theory (confirmed by experiment).
Exactly. Unfortunately, some people think that common sense = logic. (Although, the OP was referring to formal mathematical logic.)So quantum physics violates common sense, but not logic.
Well, that is my mistake. At least I had some part right.
well the example you gave of the relativity of simultaneity depends on your veiw of time.
if you hold to the Atheory of time, then past events aren't real.
However if you hold to the Btheory of time, past events are real just as the present is real...the Btheory of time is supported by einstein's theory of relativity.
« The Expansion of Space effects on Energy/Matter  E8 Theory vs MTheory » 