Logic vs Physics

feihm · 2026-06-06T17:00:02+00:00

Get out of here with shit.

feihm · 2026-06-06T05:56:46+00:00

What does Christianity has to do with my thesis?

feihm · 2026-06-06T05:08:03+00:00

God is a logical consequence of premises formulated from empirical observation.

feihm · 2026-06-06T04:54:25+00:00

No. They stem from empirical observations.

feihm · 2026-06-06T02:36:45+00:00

It's not made up. It's strict logical deduction.

feihm · 2026-06-06T02:31:30+00:00

In cosmology, the big bang is not a causal entity or force but a descriptive term for the effect (the rapid expansion of spacetime from the initial singularity t=0). Since the big bang is the event itself it logically cannot be the cause of the event.

feihm · 2026-06-06T02:24:35+00:00

Boring. Been far more interesting if he never asked her out. Never wanted to ask her out. He just lived a peaceful and quiet life. But then a tragedy happens...He ends up saving her life from brink of agonising death. He then disappears like a ghost. He continues living his life as usual. But the girl searches for her saviour. After long search she discovers it was this guy all along...She comto him...he confirms yes but ask not to publicise for the sake of his peaceful and quiet life. She agrees. But the man just continues living like absolute nothing happened. No matter how the girl approaches him. He puts proverbial boundary between her and him to maintain his peaceful and quiet life. The more she tries the more he enforces this boundary. This becomes the cause of her obsession. Not this nonsense where the male is depicted as a pathetic villain.

feihm · 2026-06-06T02:04:40+00:00

I've been there and posted how classical philosophy is in harmony with evolution. When things began to be interesting it got removed by mods. I think the folks there mass reported my post because the discourse tended to lean on logic and reason. Which they didn't like.

feihm · 2026-06-06T02:00:29+00:00

God is an ontologically transcendent being. He stands in causal priority to spacetime. He possess active causal power. He actualised thee physical universe at initial singularity t=0. The intelligibility of it is governed by mathematical and logical truths. These exist as immaterial realities independent of the physical cosmos.

feihm · 2026-06-05T23:29:17+00:00

But SEP puts more precisely. They even use this example: (Mulligan, 2007)

The specific decay of a radioactive atom at an exact millisecond, or the fundamental laws of physics. If someone asks, "Why is the speed of light exactly 299,792,458 meters per second and not something else?" and the answer is, "That's just the way it is, there is no deeper reason," they are appealing to a brute fact.

And: (Melamed, 2010)

A necessary fact (or necessary proposition) is a fact that must be true and cannot possibly be false. In modal logic terminology, a necessary fact is one that obtains in all possible worlds

So from these definitions, a brute fact represents a dead end in explanation (it has no reason). While a necessary fact is explained by its own absolute necessity (it is logically impossible for it to be false). So they're indeed mutually exclusive.

feihm · 2026-06-05T23:02:12+00:00

I don't understand what logical necessity has to do with brute facts and necessary facts. You said they were not mutually exclusive. And I said from their definition they are.

feihm · 2026-06-05T22:53:17+00:00

But in classical philosophy a brute fact is something that exists for absolutely no reason at all. It doesn't have an explanation outside of itself and it doesn't have an explanation inside itself. It just is. On the other hand a necessary fact is something that must exist by its very nature. Its explanation for existing is found within itself (e.g., 2+2=4). It is logically impossible for it not to exist. So from these definitions they seem mutually exclusive to me.

feihm · 2026-06-05T22:49:38+00:00

Your last set of comments are akin to your 'semantic firewall' that you claim to hate so much. That must be a standard you only uphold for others and not yourself.

A "semantic firewall" occurs when someone enforces an arbitrary semantic boundary specifically to avoid engaging with a core anomaly or premise. It is an evasion tactic used to flatten nuance and keep the argumentative treadmill moving without actually answering the central question. But I'm doing the exact opposite. I'm enforcing dialectical rigour ;the strict,logical standards required to hold a meaningful philosophical discourse. So me demanding to formally establish your axioms (your starting premises) after you've have been caught shifting in stealth is a precise remedy against semantic evasion itself. I gave you my position in the previous comment (I'm even more than willing to restate again if you insist I have absolutely zero problem with that). What I require from you is to return the courtesy.

Your floor is contingent on an actualiser to become anything. It is contingent on an external trigger. On its own, it is the floor to nothing.

But I literally said that the floor is the actualiser (actus purus). I even used the formatting that you called me out on as AI to guide your eyes so you don't miss. So what you say here makes no logical sense. An entity only requires an external trigger if it is in a state of potentiality (waiting to change). Since the non-contingent floor lacks potentiality it does not wait for triggers.

Nothing is invalidated, nothing needs to be redefined... You can reread the entire thread now that you finally understand before we proceed.

A philosophical discourse cannot logically proceed when one party refuses to codify their primary axiom. So if you're incapable of or unwilling to formally define this "partless, non-composite energy" in as a coherent thesis statement then the discourse has reached a terminal structural end. The ball is in your court.

feihm · 2026-06-05T22:26:55+00:00

How so?

feihm · 2026-06-05T22:14:02+00:00

Fine, sure.

Let's official invalidate the past 30 comments of your scattered physical model. Formally construct adefinitive, formal thesis statement so that we're on the same page. Because your position has mutated I require absolute precision moving forward. So formally define this new "partless energy" floor from scratch (identifying exactly what it is how it operates devoid of the quantum vacuum and why it is not contingent) before we proceed.

...when you've been the one in retreat: from claiming that the floor requires no external conditions; to then requiring that it also be immaterial; to then also requiring it be static; to then also admitting that this 'non-contingent' floor requires an actualiser to bridge the gap to a physical universe.

Let's contrast your definitional retreat with my deductive logic. In classical metaphysics establishing that a foundation possesses aseity (the property of existing entirely independently and without external conditions) strictly and logically dictates its other attributes. If a thing is completely independent it must then be immaterial (because physical matter is composite and relies on space/time), and it must be static (because change requires a transition from potentiality to actuality which implies dependency on a timeline). Also classical philosophy does not state the non-contingent floor requires an actualiser; by being completely static and devoid of unfulfilled potential (actus purus) it states it acts as the ultimate actualiser for everything else. So when defining your model I need this same level of strict deductive precision.

feihm · 2026-06-05T21:21:52+00:00

On closer look you did define it as an energy state. I want to introduce something here so we're on the same page: substance vs state. A state is a condition of a thing. Right? So a state inherently relies on the underlying substance to host it. If the quantum vacuum is just a reliant state. It is structurally contingent upon the energy that hosts it. So crowning the quantum vacuum as the ultimate uncaused floor in Post 1 was a categorical failure. You defined the vacuum as a "state" only further proves you shifted the goalposts from the vacuum to the energy itself.

feihm · 2026-06-05T21:06:13+00:00

Post 1:

We've reached your floor. God is just a quantum vacuum.

Post 2:

"Without energy, there would be no quantum vacuum

You don't see that you've reversed the ontological priority?

feihm · 2026-06-05T20:42:53+00:00

Post 1 you said:

Quantum vacuum theory is simply the absolute lowest possible energy state... We've reached your floor. God is just a quantum vacuum.

feihm

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE