No, this is clearly false. What you must assume in order for this to be true is that 1. Conclusions need not be necessitated by the premises (thereby denying the very idea of reason) and 2. That there exist humans are without the possibility of error, and that you are referring to said humans.

"An appeal to authority is a logical fallacy: authorities can be wrong, both in their own field and in other fields; therefore referencing authority does not automatically imply truth. " From your "authority".. So are both true, neither true? or is this simply fodder for a new Fox series: When athorities collide?

Truth is not a popularity contest. Were this the case, then the earth would have been flat, there would be a god, and Santa claus would be real..

How many individuals does it take to make a false claim true? 1, if you like them enough? 2? 27? 42?

XT,

Actually I recognize that there is clearly something outside of the bubble that SS tries to make the case for, but recognize that it is entirely arbitrary, unsupported and necessarily unsupportable. I recognize that the points made against the bubble are not points against the universe simply because SS chooses to redefine the word in his criticisms, but then use the meaning of "universe" in his conclusions. The differential usage is the very definition of equivocation. So you see it is not merely the strange and indefensible redefintion which is the problem, but the inconsistent usage which prevents the claims from being what SS seems to want to claim that they are.

As I make clear in another thread, if I redefine the term "barn" to refer only to red boards, or more accurately specific red boards, any criticism I make of "barns" applies only to red boards and not in fact to barns. To make the confusion and problems more clear let's look at an example of this confused usage in one sentence: The barn(1) is composed of many other "barns"2

The first instance of barn refers to the structure which houses animals and stores feed. The second usage is the redefinition, which refers only to some red boards. This is what happens in the claims of many universes and the other criticisms of the universe that SS has offered. With the barn example the lack of reference, the lack of connection to that which is being attacked is clear. We can more easily or at least more immediately see why the equivication, the redefinition of some usage of the term, causes the conclusion to be at best quite confused, and in truth to actually be simply false. When the word being used in the equivocation is replaced by the different definitions the point becomes trivial or false.

The housing for the animals is composed of many red boards.

See how this is rather trivial?

The one building which houses animals and stores feed is composed of many buildings which house animals and store feed.

See how this is clearly false?

The illusion of meaning only occurs when the confusion is introduced:

The one building which houses animals and stores feed is composed of many "barns."

The illusion of meaning comes from the baggage which accompanies the label (in this case "barn" in SS's case "universe") as opposed to either the actual meaning or even the redefinition.

If the point were the point, if the claim could be supported then the term would have been abandoned in favor of something clear. That there is a death grip on the term as opposed to anything with clarity and meaning, tells us something important about the argument itself. It needs that illusion of meaning since there is no substance.

This post was last modified: 01-21-2007 12:15 AM by TXStorm.

A (Christian) friend of mine told me that there is "no such thing as an atheist" because we couldn't probe that god didn't exist. I told her to prove that God did exist... She stopped arguing.

But if anyone uses the Bible as proof, simply tell them that the Bible holds no more proof that God exists than Superman comics prove that Superman exists.... Because it's true (i got that from someone's /. sig)

I, too, prefer the many-worlds interpretation, it seems to explain a lot, such as how the anthropic coincidences are such as to allow us to exist. It also, I think, is indicated by the success (limited though that success is right now) of quantum computers.

TXStorm, what SS is trying to say is this.

In our bubble of space time the laws of physics exist as we know them. In other bubbles of space time, these laws may be different. There may exist a bubble of space-time* in which things such at the Law of Conservation of Energy do not apply. In this bubble God may reside.

*SS actually stipulates God may exist between these bubbles, not in one. However, it makes no sense to stipulate there exists anything in between completely disconnected bubbles of space time, as the very concept of "in between" applies to spacial and temporal dimensions.

TX Storm is no longer on these forums either.