Quote:
Consider the limit to this statement... relativity doesn't apply to an object at REST with it's environment yet Newtonian Physics does. An object at rest with it's environment would experience neither time dialation nor length contraction, the hallmarks of relativity.
Oh come on, now you are nitpicking. What if the object moves at speed epsilon? Does Newtonian physics only apply to resting objects then ?
Quote:
Let's take a minimialist approach: God is a being more powerful than any human that cannot be seen by conventional means (ie EM radiation) and has a lifetime on the order of the lifetime of the universe.
Sounds good, but the more minimalist the definition the harder it will be to make any inferences.
@AndersA:
Quote:
As I have already said, if you add other axioms, you may show that there are several gods or no god at all. You talk about proofs, but you don't like me to talk about logic which is the mother of proof theory.
Nothing wrong with proofs, but you can only come to a valid conclusion if you start with valid axioms. Borrowing your notations, fastlane made the following statements:
1) R(x) := x is a god and
2) x
The question then is what is required to show that either
(x).(y).R(x) ^ R(y) -> x==y or
(x).(y).R(x) ^ R(y) -> x!=y
It comes down to figuring out what the existence of one or many gods entails, i.e. what other predicates can we deduce from x ^ R(x) ? The answer to this lies outside of predicate logic.
Last edited by Marco_Grubert; 03/16/06 01:23.
