I said that you cannot prove it either way, which means that you cannot prove that it is possible, or that it is impossible.
Everything is possible. There are universes without entropy and universes with it. Also, every fictional character/story is real.
Old, but... I understand that the word may not have the same meaning in French as it does in English colloquially. (Je comprends que le mot ne peut pas avoir le même sens en français comme il le fait en anglais familièrement. <- Yes, I know, I am bad for using Google Translate. I do understand some French though - did it for 3 years) See http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/touché
Red did NOT just link a wiki on Touché. Son, i am disappoint. And talons, don't you realize who you're debating with? Its the SK. No one wins against the SK. I suggest deleting posts to save humiliation.
Well it has the same meaning... As sk said, and he's right, but not only for that, for nearly everything, as every issues are going around, it is just interesting, but not for a lot of time:
Well a lot of interesting issues do have implications; it's just that this one doesn't have much of one. You can think of a bunch of possibilities, but that's pretty easy and doesn't take that much time, and then you're kind of stuck at that point.
You are stuck each time you enter into a reflection, because everything has a link somewhere. If you want to represent an arborescence of subjects, you should make a circle, where every point constituing the circle is a subject. Everyone knows a circle has infinite points, I hope it helped to understand the meaning of this message.
Subjects may be interrelated, but logical reasoning is not a circle. You will, and MUST, reach an initial point in the reasoning (at which point, it will be an assumption), otherwise you need better logical reasoning abilities. Many possibilities share the same root assumptions, and so you can tweak certain variables to make an infinite number of possibilities, but that's pretty easy to do and I see no reason to do it. A statement cannot prove itself, for then that would open the door for every statement being true.
I am right with the "assumption" root reasoning, as real there are like three states: Assumption Disapprove (a certain way, or at least it's a point where it looks like not to be true at all, or in part, it depends on the subject, but this state always exist) Aprove (at the end, nearly always, you finally return back to the point of the assumption, but you understood the thing this time). For me it takes two hours max, most of the time, only complex problems are taking just more of my time. But what I mean is that, as all is linked, you can't go too far, and you can't place limits since you understood the subject, so as real there could be a 4th state: after to have understood the core of the subject, you must understand what is the end of it, wich is the most complex part, similar to introspection, because you must use memory to remember your logic, to remember not where you gone, but where you didn't go... I know it could be confusing, but if you thought to subject like some did, like I think I did, you MUST know what I'm talking about.
I do not consider assumption to be a state. An assumption cannot be proven false or true (otherwise it would be a fact); it's something you have to accept for granted because there's nothing to prove or disprove the statement. For example, you accept that a point in geometry is defined as an object with no dimension. You accept that everything in the world follows logical rules and certain underlying fundamental physical laws. We accept these things because it's not practical to choose to accept nothing.
Occam's Razor is often stated "the simplest solution is the right one". This is a vast error. Simplicity and correctness have no correlation. The correct statement is "the solution that makes the fewest assumptions and fits all given evidence should be considered the correct one until new evidence presents itself that contradicts the solution or a solution is presented which carries less assumptions". When we mention facts we speak of Occam's razor. Newtonian physics was considered fact for a very long time, as the evidence necessary to point out its flaws had not yet been discovered, and better explanations had not yet come along. There are assumptions necessary to reach any conclusion, to get anywhere, but assumptions are best kept to a minimum. You don't assume that certain natural laws govern the universe, natural 'laws' are an explanation of the evidence humans have gathered about the way things work.
Have you ever tried to take an assumption, to use your logic to think about it, trying to know how this assumption has been created ? Assumptions are created by people, people that think about things, so there is a logical work behind every assumptions.
No, but you assume there exists natural laws that do govern the entirety of the universe. This is a very important starting point, and an idea that we did need once to grapple with many eons ago as humans, but it's now become an implicit assumption most people take for granted. Without that assumption, it is not possible to define something as a 'law' of the universe. There's no reason to study physics or biology without that very important assumption having been made. Because we do have that assumption, we now have laws that are based upon that assumption -- in fact, everything in science is based on that assumption. It may seem pedantic to discuss assumptions, but any statement can be made true if you accept the right assumptions. Therefore it should be fairly obvious as to the importance of identifying your assumptions. I never made a mention of how assumptions are chosen. I merely noted that they must exist in order to qualify a given statement as true or not.
True, you have to assume that the evidence presented by your senses is sometimes right or you can reach no logical conclusion. I actually agree completely with you, but the term 'natural law' carries certain implications that are deceptive.
We act on a little of both to be honest. I'll use a simple example to explain it. Ok like we all are on Earth to survive, so any goals that are created from that become determinism, because without those goals we die. Things like food, and how to obtain them are things we need, but we have the free will to determine how to achieve those ends. Things like hobbies and entertainment, are stuff you also have free will to choose how to and enjoy those things.
