Subj : Possible Worlds To : DAVE OLDRIDGE From : LEE LOFASO Date : Thu Nov 01 2001 08:36 am Hello Dave, >LL>True or False: Any logically possible world that one can think of > >actually exists. >DO>Why should this be true? Might there not be a finite number of such >DO>worlds that DO exist and an infinite number that don't? Short of >DO>examining all actually existing worlds, there is no way to know this. >LL>Lewis suggested that if something is logically true then it must be >LL>true. Is that a finite set? Maybe. But doubtful, given that there is DO>Lewis was wrong. Something can be logically correct yet false. One can have two valid premises and a wrong conclusion. An example of a valid syllogism with a correct conclusion would be: Premise 1: All squares are rectangles Premise 2: All rectangles are quadrilaterals Conclusion: All squares are quadrilaterals An example of a syllogism with two valid premises with a wrong conclusion would be: Premise 1: All squares are rectangles Premise 2: All rectangles are quadrilaterals Conclusion: All quadrilaterals are squares DO>Logic is only truth if its structure is correct and its axioms and DO>premises are true. The argument must be both valid and sound to be true. Even if the structure is correct and its axioms and premises are true, the argument must also be sound to be true. >LL>no way to verify all that can be logically true. Anything that is not >LL>logically possible would be non-existent, since only something that is >LL>logically possible can exist. But then, man's understanding of logic is >LL>quite limited... DO>Usually when nature presents a paradox, it is one (or more) of our DO>assumptions that are wrong. Suppose the majority of the world's population was autistic. How would the views of the small minority of folks who are not autistic be seen by the rest of the world's population? Would the world of non-autistic folks be seen as a logically possible world by those who are autistic? Would the views of non-autistic folks even be understood by those who are autistic? >DO>(Or maybe it's only all possible entropically connected worlds, focus >DO>on a primordial beginning) . >LL>If there is a beginning, there must be an end. And if there is an end, >LL>such a world would no longer exist. DO>Why should a beginning imply an end? There is a difference between immortality and eternity. For something to be immortal, it must have a definite beginning but no end. For something to be eternal, there can be no beginning and no end. But man lives in a linear universe, his whole understanding of nature being that everything has a definite beginning and a definite end. DO>If entropy starts at zero it can still increase indefinitely. Still, it would be finite. The universe itself is a finite universe, having a definite beginning (The Big Bang) with a definite end (The Big Collapse). IOW, it started with something and it ends with something, everything remaining the same. No energy is lost, but all energy is expended. How that something got there to begin with is an open question, since if there was nothing then there would have been no Big Bang. Does the universe begin again once it has collapsed, only to collapse again and start all over again and again and again et al infinitum? If so, was there a beginning and will there be an end? It still begs the question, since the original Big Bang would have had to have something to begin the process. Infinity. Such a complicated word... --Lee * SLMR 2.1a * Louisiana is a great place to live if you're an alligator --- Platinum Xpress/Win/WINServer v3.0pr5 * Origin: Try Our Web Based QWK: DOCSPLACE.ORG (1:18/140) .