Freedomain Radio

If there are only two states of being, existence and non-existence, then anything that qualifies as NOT(non-existing) must exist, making existence the default assumption.

E = E

AND

E = !(!E)

Isn't that contrary to Inductive Reasoning?

After all, if the default assumption is non-existence, wouldn't you be spending the entire time trying to prove a negative (non-existence)?

Shouldn't the default assumption be that a proposed claim is invalid until proven otherwise?

fromkentucky:

Isn't that contrary to Inductive Reasoning?

dedution is for deriving conclusions from the large to the small.

deduction rests upon inductors have done a good job generalizing from the small to the greater.

There is no conflict between these two.

fromkentucky:

After all, if the default assumption is non-existence, wouldn't you be spending the entire time trying to prove a negative

No. Exactly because proving a negative is impossible, they who push forward a positive claim have the burden of proof. This is true logic. In the realm of science on the other hand, they turned the burden of proof upside down, presumably because they soon realized that proof of existence of matter is impossible. In science you are allowed to say "hockey club" and it's up to everybody else to prove that human activity is negligible in question of global warming. This is how bad it is within the realm of science these days. They've got a severe crisis. It has to do with science being used for the first time, to enforce tax. Theory of science need another line of ethical code: "Just because something is not disporven doesn't mean you're allowed to use your hypothesis to hit people with coercion".

Jalla:

deduction is for deriving conclusions from the large to the small.

deduction rests upon inductors have done a good job generalizing from the small to the greater.

There is no conflict between these two.

Jalla:

No. Exactly because proving a negative is impossible, they who push forward a positive claim have the burden of proof. This is true logic. In the realm of science on the other hand, they turned the burden of proof upside down, presumably because they soon realized that proof of existence of matter is impossible. In science you are allowed to say "hockey club" and it's up to everybody else to prove that human activity is negligible in question of global warming. This is how bad it is within the realm of science these days. They've got a severe crisis. It has to do with science being used for the first time, to enforce tax. Theory of science need another line of ethical code: "Just because something is not disporven doesn't mean you're allowed to use your hypothesis to hit people with coercion".

Actually, that was a typo. It should read:

fromkentucky:

After all, if the default assumption is existence, wouldn't you be spending the entire time trying to prove a negative (non-existence)?

Jalla:

Exactly because proving a negative is impossible, they who push forward a positive claim have the burden of proof. This is true logic. In the realm of science on the other hand, they turned the burden of proof upside down, presumably because they soon realized that proof of existence of matter is impossible. In science you are allowed to say "hockey club" and it's up to everybody else to prove that human activity is negligible in question of global warming. This is how bad it is within the realm of science these days. They've got a severe crisis. It has to do with science being used for the first time, to enforce tax. Theory of science need another line of ethical code: "Just because something is not disporven doesn't mean you're allowed to use your hypothesis to hit people with coercion".

fromkentucky:

Science doesn't use Deductive reasoning, because in that system, validity is not dependent on the truth of the premises. That means it can be valid AND false.

If that was the objection against deduction they could just ignore validity and go for truth. Problem solved.

(snip rant that rest upon the same misconception)

Jalla:

fromkentucky:

Science doesn't use Deductive reasoning, because in that system, validity is not dependent on the truth of the premises. That means it can be valid AND false.

If that was the objection against deduction they could just ignore validity and go for truth. Problem solved.

 

fromkentucky:

Actually, you can't.

Yes, you can and science does it all the time. Induction, they use to find the common denominator in gathered data from an event. Now data has become information which they build their axioms upon, from which they use to deduce new information from simular events, with the motive of understanding the complete picture of a certain discipline.

fromkentucky:

If there are only two states of being, existence and non-existence, then anything that qualifies as NOT(non-existing) must exist, making existence the default assumption.

It isn't clear what you mean by "default assumption" . 

Asumption is defined in Black's Law as "A fact or statement taken for granted; a supposition < a logical assumption>"

Supposition is defined as "An assumption that something is true , without proof of its veracity [validity or truth]; the act of supposing."

Taking these definitions into consideration,  when one posits (states as a principal or a fact) a particular postulate (a position or supposition assumed without proof) it establishes nothing!

I wonder if you are trying to convey the idea of 'default position'.  Either way the outcome is the same.

For instance, those who posit the existence of a particular god, and those who posit the non-existence of god stand in an equal position. Both persons are positing concepts that are assumed (supposed without proof) by them. Their assumed position (based upon the act of positing) is not established firmly by their supposition, and cannot logically be, if we hold ourselves to the principles of intellectual honesty and logical consistency.

fromkentucky:

After all, if the default assumption is non-existence [existence], wouldn't you be spending the entire time trying to prove a negative (non-existence)?

Shouldn't the default assumption be that a proposed claim is invalid until proven otherwise?

You later corrected your statement as set forth above in brackets. Either way, any default assumption whatever its nature should be considered invalid until proven otherwise. What is true for the hypothesis of biblical creation likewise applies to the big bang hypothesis.  Neither of these postulates have ever been firmly established. Both are nothing more than hypothesis.

As to solving the question of 'whether reality is composed of a state of existence or non-existence?', humans must first agree on a starting point.  If the starting point is one of observation, (which is all we really have with which to weigh)  then the most logical conclusion is that the state of existence is real (reality). 

The most we as humans can presently know with the tools of observation that we are equipped with is 'what is the most logical position'. That position can be discovered,  and should be recognized.  Having made the individual discovery of "what is the most logical position', the incumbant duty is to move forward in our search for additional enlightenment from there. 

fromkentucky:

If there are only two states of being, existence and non-existence, then anything that qualifies as NOT(non-existing) must exist, making existence the default assumption.

E = E

AND

E = !(!E)

Isn't that contrary to Inductive Reasoning?

After all, if the default assumption is non-existence, wouldn't you be spending the entire time trying to prove a negative (non-existence)?

Shouldn't the default assumption be that a proposed claim is invalid until proven otherwise?

Who says there are only two "states of being"?

Ill give you a hint. Existence and non-existence need not (and indeed should not) be thought of as contradictories, but rather contraries.

Can you think of any category that describes neither existence nor nonexistence, but acts as their mutual boundary? It may be easier to equate existence with being and nonexistence with nothing for the sake of the exercise.

Dissilusionist:

Can you think of any category that describes neither existence nor nonexistence, but acts as their mutual boundary?

The boundary of existence, is nonexistence.

The boundary of nonexistence, is to exist.

MrCapitalism:

Dissilusionist:

Can you think of any category that describes neither existence nor nonexistence, but acts as their mutual boundary?

No, I can't

The boundary of existence, is nonexistence.

The boundary of nonexistence, is to exist. 

What about something ceasing to exist as one category and then existing as another category i.e. becoming.

What about something that exists passing away into nonexistence, or nonexistence arising into existence?

I could continue indefinitely but you should get the idea.

Dissilusionist:

MrCapitalism:

Dissilusionist:

Can you think of any category that describes neither existence nor nonexistence, but acts as their mutual boundary?

No, I can't

The boundary of existence, is nonexistence.

The boundary of nonexistence, is to exist. 

 

What about something ceasing to exist as one category and then existing as another category i.e. becoming.

What about something that exists passing away into nonexistence, or nonexistence arising into existence?

I could continue indefinitely but you should get the idea.

 "Becoming" is merely a variant of the word "be"; being is merely a state of existence.  Once "becoming" begins, existence is.  There is no middle ground.

Can you show one example of your hypothesis to support your position?

Lastradicaldude1:

Dissilusionist:

MrCapitalism:

Dissilusionist:

Can you think of any category that describes neither existence nor nonexistence, but acts as their mutual boundary?

No, I can't

The boundary of existence, is nonexistence.

The boundary of nonexistence, is to exist. 

 

What about something ceasing to exist as one category and then existing as another category i.e. becoming.

What about something that exists passing away into nonexistence, or nonexistence arising into existence?

I could continue indefinitely but you should get the idea.

 

 "Becoming" is merely a variant of the word "be"; being is merely a state of existence.  Once "becoming" begins, existence is.  There is no middle ground.

Can you show one example of your hypothesis to support your position?

Consider dropping sand continuously into a bucket. At what point is the sand a pile?

Dissilusionist:

Lastradicaldude1:

Dissilusionist:

MrCapitalism:

Dissilusionist:

Can you think of any category that describes neither existence nor nonexistence, but acts as their mutual boundary?

No, I can't

The boundary of existence, is nonexistence.

The boundary of nonexistence, is to exist. 

 

What about something ceasing to exist as one category and then existing as another category i.e. becoming.

What about something that exists passing away into nonexistence, or nonexistence arising into existence?

I could continue indefinitely but you should get the idea.

 

 "Becoming" is merely a variant of the word "be"; being is merely a state of existence.  Once "becoming" begins, existence is.  There is no middle ground.

Can you show one example of your hypothesis to support your position?

 

Consider dropping sand continuously into a bucket. At what point is the sand a pile?

 You would first need to define what was going to constitute a pile.  If one grain balanced (piled) on top of the other was a pile then two grains would suffice.

If a pyramidal plane was the goal for which we were shooting, then 3 on the bottom, 2 on the next level and one on top would suffice as a basic pile.

If we agreed on a three dimensional pyramid as a pile, then the minimum number of grains would be 10.

But whichever example you chose, until the final grain was placed on top of the first grain or grains there would be no pile.  But at that moment, the moment the final grain is added, the pile then exists.  Until then there is no pile, even in the "becoming" sense.

If this final grain were taken from the limited supply constituting another pile, then that pile would no longer exist.

The idea of pile is rather nebulous.  So it requires one to first define it.  But there is no in between state.

Sand exists.

"Piles" do not. They are a concept.