If I am immortal, then I will die sometime in the future

In your personal opinion, do you feel that the implication is valid or invalid?

  • Total voters
    5
  • Poll closed .
Speakpigeon

Speakpigeon

Valued Senior Member
In your personal opinion, do you feel that the following implication is valid or invalid?

And either way, can you try and explain why?

If I am immortal, then I will die sometime in the future​

Thank you to vote before posting any comment.
EB
 
Speakpigeon said:
In your personal opinion, do you feel that the following implication is valid or invalid?

And either way, can you try and explain why?

If I am immortal, then I will die sometime in the future​

Thank you to vote before posting any comment.
Click to expand...

"Immortal" is a symbol that has been set to mean the opposite of that. Its definition(s) are not an arbitrary, contingent empirical event but a pre-established, stable item in a devised language system.

Component-wise, the word unit "im" signifies not and the word unit "mortal" signifies subject to death.

In real-world and figurative context, "immortal" can also designate a person of enduring fame (which thereby is potentially subject to death).

This illuminates the deficiencies of everyday language, in which a symbol can have multiple meanings dependent upon context of usage. In contrast to the nomenclatures of some disciplines, where a sign may be assigned a single, specialized definition to avoid the interpretative problem.
 
Last edited:
C C said:
"Immortal" is a symbol that has been set to mean the opposite of that. Its definition(s) are not an arbitrary, contingent empirical event but a pre-established, stable item in a devised language system.
Component-wise, the word unit "im" signifies not and the word unit "mortal" signifies subject to death. In real-world and figurative context, "immortal" can also designate a person of enduring fame (which thereby is potentially subject to death). This illuminates the deficiencies of everyday language, in which a symbol can have multiple meanings dependent upon context of usage. In contrast to the nomenclatures of some disciplines, where a sign may be assigned a single, specialized definition to avoid the interpretative problem.
Click to expand...
My advice is keep it simple. When we discuss the validity of logical arguments, we assume the proximate definitions of the words used in the argument. As simple as that. There is nothing else to it. Doing any different leads to equivocation and a waste of everybody's time.
EB
 
Speakpigeon said:
In your personal opinion, do you feel that the following implication is valid or invalid?

And either way, can you try and explain why?

If I am immortal, then I will die sometime in the future​

Thank you to vote before posting any comment.
EB
Click to expand...
If immortal means living to the end of time then obviously when time ends an immortal dies...

So the question really is about whether or not Time will end...
 
Last edited:
Speakpigeon said:
My advice is keep it simple. When we discuss the validity of logical arguments, we assume the proximate definitions of the words used in the argument. As simple as that. There is nothing else to it. Doing any different leads to equivocation and a waste of everybody's time.
EB
Click to expand...
What do you mean by the key word:
Speakpigeon said:
implication
Click to expand...
Are you arguing only the validity of a logical argument or are you arguing the implications as being valid ( sound)?
 
Quantum Quack said:
If immortal means living to the end of time then obviously when time ends an immortal dies...
Click to expand...
Not necessarily. "Immortal" doesn't mean living till the end of time and then dying; it means living forever, or incapable of dying. So, if "forever" means "to the end of time", it still doesn't necessitate an immortal dying, but either ending (whatever that means) his existence along with time's, or else existing on beyond time, as an omni-everything god is supposed to do.

So the question really is about whether or not Time will end...
Click to expand...
I thought the question was whether a word implies the opposite of its meaning.
 
Jeeves said:
Not necessarily. "Immortal" doesn't mean living till the end of time and then dying; it means living forever, or incapable of dying. So, if "forever" means "to the end of time", it still doesn't necessitate an immortal dying, but either ending (whatever that means) his existence along with time's, or else existing on beyond time, as an omni-everything god is supposed to do.


I thought the question was whether a word implies the opposite of its meaning.
Click to expand...

Jeeves to your first statement . Exactly ; Immortal has outside of time .
 
Speakpigeon said:
My advice is keep it simple. When we discuss the validity of logical arguments, we assume the proximate definitions of the words used in the argument. As simple as that. There is nothing else to it. Doing any different leads to equivocation and a waste of everybody's time.
Click to expand...

If the meanings of words are irrelevant, then simply use placeholder symbols. Since you're an obscurantist in terms of people fathoming what the hell of you're asking of them to begin with[*], then don't waste everybody's time with the possibility of the content of the form mattering in that course their trying decipher your Martian psychology and aims.

- - - footnote - - -

[*] Assuming literally everything you request isn't arbitrary, inconsistent, or outright double talk.
 
Last edited:
Speakpigeon said:
My advice is keep it simple. When we discuss the validity of logical arguments, we assume the proximate definitions of the words used in the argument. As simple as that.
Click to expand...
In that case, the solution to the question of whether the argument "if I am immortal, then I am mortal" is valid or not would seem obvious, would it not?

Next time you post one of these, please start with your own thoughts on the question you are raising. This waiting so you can jump out of the bushes and shout "gotcha!" is getting rather repetitive and tiresome.
 
Immortal doesn't necessarily mean transcendent to the physical universe, which is probably of limited time span. So to say one is immortal only means they will live as long as the universe itself.
 
spidergoat said:
Immortal doesn't necessarily mean transcendent to the physical universe, which is probably of limited time span. So to say one is immortal only means they will live as long as the universe itself.
Click to expand...
exactly .. so the argument is not only valid it is sound too...
 
Does this mean from now on anyone using the word ''immortal'' must stipulate they only mean until the end of the universe?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top