Logic Question #1 and the “why?”

W

WendyDarling

Registered Senior Member
Logic question: Which is more logical...

A) something coming from nothing

B) something coming from something

A or B? and why?
 
Hi-D said:
Logic question: Which is more logical...

A) something coming from nothing

B) something coming from something

A or B? and why?
Click to expand...

The preposition "from" gives a status of provenance to "nothing" (i.e., the latter is modified to being some kind of entity or situation -- granting that the latter is not was intended to begin with).

Thus, redundancy. The same statement essentially occurs twice: "something coming from something", though one of the instances is incognito or superficially obscured.

Another way to put it is that the very use of "from" negates an "absence of all existential categories" [nothing] as being literal -- including abstract subcategories of being (like a generative principle) that one might even contend are etiological or have causal powers to bring about concrete subcategories of being.

This doesn't exclude the possibility of recruiting a symbolic system that avoids the use of a preposition like "from" so to make a coded proposal which involves "nothing" in the context of preserving it indicating an "absence of all existential categories".

However, the result of that would be that the non-existence of all existential categories (including the abstract concept of "cause" itself having membership) accordingly offers no ontological agent to be prior to other ontological agents. The idea of cause, itself, again, not being applicable to the scenario, anyway. (Cause is not more fundamental than existence -- all types of existence.)

Today's romp in satire brought to you by Hilbo's Buttons, your friendly retail store for a wide variety of goat ranching accessories and psychedelic 'shrooms. Stay tuned for a preview of tomorrow's episode.
 
Hi-D said:
Logic question: Which is more logical...

A) something coming from nothing

B) something coming from something

A or B? and why?
Click to expand...
Neither, because statements are not, in and of themselves, a matter of "logic".

Logic is with regard an argument supporting a conclusion.
Here you have posted two conclusions, but no arguments for either.
Thus it is not possible to assess the "logic" as to how either are reached, let alone determine which is "more logical".

Maybe if you want to provide an actual argument, one can then assess the "logic" of it.
But then the question is what determines something as being "more logical"?
Is one valid deductive argument "more logical" than any other valid deductive argument?
Is a valid deductive argument "less logical" than a sound argument (when it could be argued that soundness is not to do with the logic per se but simply the truth value of the proposition)?
How does one assess whether an inductive argument is "more logical" than another?
Etc.
 
B) is more logical.
A) is nowadays pretty commonplace, as we learn more and more about physics. Google quantum foam.
 
This isn't really "logic" as has been pointed out.

What you are really implying though is that "my common sense tells me that B sounds more likely".
However common sense has to do with that which is commonly observed. You have no basis for applying your everyday common sense to either the quantum world or to aspects for which you have no knowledge or observations (pre-Big Bang).

Therefore it's pointless to continue with that line of thinking.

It's like saying, in the 1700's, what is more likely a person is talking to something in his hand and a person on the other side of the world hears him or I'm just looking at a crazy person talking to his hand?

When you are lacking in what the future holds, common sense can't help you with subjects involving the future.
 
WendyDarling said:
Logic question: Which is more logical...

A) something coming from nothing

B) something coming from something
Click to expand...
I'm going to agree with most of the other posters, above.

Neither is "more logical". Logic involves reasoning from premises towards conclusions. Neither A nor B does that.

Perhaps what you really wanted to ask is something like: do we observe A or B more often, in our own life experience? The answer to that is simple, isn't it? B is what we are more familiar with. But that has nothing to do with logic.
 
billvon said:
B) is more logical.
A) is nowadays pretty commonplace, as we learn more and more about physics. Google quantum foam.
Click to expand...

B is correct.

I gave you a premise and you reasoned it out correctly but did not state the explanation of how you arrived at your conclusion, which is?

Yes, A is pushed by academia.
 
Seattle said:
This isn't really "logic" as has been pointed out.

What you are really implying though is that "my common sense tells me that B sounds more likely".
However common sense has to do with that which is commonly observed. You have no basis for applying your everyday common sense to either the quantum world or to aspects for which you have no knowledge or observations (pre-Big Bang).

Therefore it's pointless to continue with that line of thinking.

It's like saying, in the 1700's, what is more likely a person is talking to something in his hand and a person on the other side of the world hears him or I'm just looking at a crazy person talking to his hand?

When you are lacking in what the future holds, common sense can't help you with subjects involving the future.
Click to expand...

B is correct.

Natural observations, the kinds that can be found in commonsense, are what the assumptions of scientific theories is supposed to be all about.

Reason about and test what seems the most likely, logical.

The Quantum world and the Big Bang are unproven theories for which experimental results never pan out.

Something coming from something makes way more sense since it is what we observe daily.

Something coming from nothing makes way less sense since it is unheard of.
 
WendyDarling said:
B is correct.

Natural observations, the kinds that can be found in commonsense, are what the assumptions of scientific theories is supposed to be all about.

Reason about and test what seems the most likely, logical.

The Quantum world and the Big Bang are unproven theories for which experimental results never pan out.

Something coming from something makes way more sense since it is what we observe daily.

Something coming from nothing makes way less sense since it is unheard of.
Click to expand...
If quantum mechanics wasn't accurate we wouldn't have electronics and therefore we wouldn't be having this discussion.

Regarding something from something. Where did the original "something" come from, feel free to use your common sense.
 
WendyDarling said:
[...] A is pushed by academia.
Click to expand...

Their "nothing" is just a label. It's not a legitimate absence or non-existence of every type of be-ing that humans have ever discriminated and proposed. For instance, they may select (real or detectable) particles to be their "something" and their supposed "nothing" then referring to a fallow condition of quantum fields. The latter is actually "something" itself in terms of potential effects.

"Frank Wilczek (1980), Stephen Hawking and Leonard Mlodinow (2010, 180) as well as Lawrence Krauss (2012) explicitly claim that this answers the question of why there is something rather than nothing. The basic idea goes back to an issue raised by the symmetry of matter and anti-matter. Given that the symmetry implies equality, matter and anti-matter should have annihiliated each other. Creation should have been aborted. Why is there NOW something (particles) rather than nothing (mere energy in a quantum field)?" https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/nothingness/#ResConEnt​

Legitimate, absolute non-existence would also include the absence of actions (not just "things", substance, an environmental situation or whatever nouveau gibberish addressing concrete affairs). Which is an insane item to have to needlessly highlight, but probably necessary due to our bizarre incapacity at times to grok that "actions" don't float on their own without "something" doing or instantiating them. They're a generalization and occasional "systemic expression of directions/instructions" abstracted from a sequence of different states of _X_ (changes). Subsumed slashed grouped under terms like "running" or "colliding" or "oscillating" so that each individual state does not have to be tediously and impractically referenced.
 
WendyDarling said:
B is correct.
Click to expand...
Yes.

Similar question. Which is more logical to someone who has never studied science?

A) The Earth is round; a sphere floating in space
B) The Earth is flat.

To such a person, B) is more logical. It agrees with their experience. A) makes no sense; people would fall off.
 
Last edited:
WendyDarling said:
I gave you a premise and you reasoned it out correctly but did not state the explanation of how you arrived at your conclusion, which is?
Click to expand...
First: you did not give any premise.
Instead you gave two conclusions and asked which was "more logical".
But then if you can't tell the difference between a premise and a conclusion... who's to say what you might consider to be "more logical".

Second: how do you know that Billvon "reasoned it out correctly"?
Do you judge that solely because the answer matches yours?
As it is, Billvon did not set out any argument in support of the answer given, so you can not possibly know whether any reasoning employed was "correct" or not, or indeed whether there was any "reasoning" and not just, say, a toss of the coin.
 
WendyDarling said:
Logic question: Which is more logical...

A) something coming from nothing

B) something coming from something

A or B? and why?
Click to expand...
Without any other premises or arguments, A is more logical.
As a conclusion, "something coming from something" implies an infinite regress, as all non-specified "somethings" are interchangeable.
At least nothing requires no further explanation, making it a proper conclusion, where "something from something" violates parsimony and fails to explain anything. "Something from something" is equivalent to "it's elephants all the way down."
 
billvon said:
Yes.

Similar question. Which is more logical to someone who has never studied science?

A) The Earth is round; a sphere floating in space
B) The Earth is flat.

To such a person, B) is more logical. It agrees with their experience. A) makes no sense; people would fall off.
Click to expand...

The difference between your question and mine is this...

...mine is philosophy where reasoning begins to solve questions

...yours is science where the results are supposed to be in alignment with the reasoning.

Understand the difference?

The ancient philosopher, Hypatia, was able to reason her way to answering scientific questions about astronomy, but she didn't base it on abstract, metaphysical theories, rather experimentation that gave results that aligned with her logic. Her logic, her reasoning, guided her experiments to remain grounded in natural observations. And when experiments remain grounded they tend to give the desired and expected results aligning with the reasoning.
 
Vociferous said:
Without any other premises or arguments, A is more logical.
As a conclusion, "something coming from something" implies an infinite regress, as all non-specified "somethings" are interchangeable.
At least nothing requires no further explanation, making it a proper conclusion, where "something from something" violates parsimony and fails to explain anything. "Something from something" is equivalent to "it's elephants all the way down."
Click to expand...

If, A is more logical, give me a couple naturally observed instances of 'something coming from nothing?'

How do you equate 'something' with 'only elephants?' You only fancy elephants? And a downward spiral on an elephant?
 
Baldeee said:
First: you did not give any premise.
Instead you gave two conclusions and asked which was "more logical".
But then if you can't tell the difference between a premise and a conclusion... who's to say what you might consider to be "more logical".

Second: how do you know that Billvon "reasoned it out correctly"?
Do you judge that solely because the answer matches yours?
As it is, Billvon did not set out any argument in support of the answer given, so you can not possibly know whether any reasoning employed was "correct" or not, or indeed whether there was any "reasoning" and not just, say, a toss of the coin.
Click to expand...
A and B, two. Then you think through them to reach a logical conclusion based on natural observations.

If all you are worried about is the language being textbook, then you are going to loathe everything I do.

I am only interested in logic and it doesn't take lots of words, let alone academia's authority, to write it out a statement making logical claims.

Sorry, if you do not like my style. I am not here to impress, only to philosophize.
 
C C said:
Their "nothing" is just a label. It's not a legitimate absence or non-existence of every type of be-ing that humans have ever discriminated and proposed. For instance, they may select (real or detectable) particles to be their "something" and their supposed "nothing" then referring to a fallow condition of quantum fields. The latter is actually "something" itself in terms of potential effects.

"Frank Wilczek (1980), Stephen Hawking and Leonard Mlodinow (2010, 180) as well as Lawrence Krauss (2012) explicitly claim that this answers the question of why there is something rather than nothing. The basic idea goes back to an issue raised by the symmetry of matter and anti-matter. Given that the symmetry implies equality, matter and anti-matter should have annihiliated each other. Creation should have been aborted. Why is there NOW something (particles) rather than nothing (mere energy in a quantum field)?" https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/nothingness/#ResConEnt​

Legitimate, absolute non-existence would also include the absence of actions (not just "things", substance, an environmental situation or whatever nouveau gibberish addressing concrete affairs). Which is an insane item to have to needlessly highlight, but probably necessary due to our bizarre incapacity at times to grok that "actions" don't float on their own without "something" doing or instantiating them. They're a generalization and occasional "systemic expression of directions/instructions" abstracted from a sequence of different states of _X_ (changes). Subsumed slashed grouped under terms like "running" or "colliding" or "oscillating" so that each individual state does not have to be tediously and impractically referenced.
Click to expand...

Non-existence is only an idea. If non-existence were an actuality, everything(all of actual existence) would go 'poof.' Existence is antithetical to non-existence, hence non-existence needs to be redefined. Neither, existence or non-existence, can exist simultaneously.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top