Claim for a logical truth.

Wiki I believe describes a logical truth quite well:

Logical truth claimed:

"For something to exist it must have time to exist in"

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Brief explanation:

For something of substance or value to exist it must exist for a time duration that is greater than zero.

Questions:

1. Does it remain valid in all worlds and circumstances?
2. If valid what are the ramifications?
3. Can it, the logic, remain valid against all possible interpretations?
4. Could it be worded more precisely? If so how would you word it?
   

I am unable to find logical cause for invalidation but perhaps others can...

Care to discuss?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

1. No. It does not remain valid where at t=0 there is no movement for the entire duration of t=0, where space would still exist.
2. Your claim is not necessarily valid in all worlds (see 1).
3. There is no logic presented, just a claim. You would need to present your logic for it to be assessed, but given (1) above, if the claim is shown to be false in at least one world then the logic does not remain valid against all possible interpretations. But as said, all you have so far done is made a claim: no premises, no argument, just a claim. One can not base an assessment of the logic on just a claim.
4. I do not think you can turn such a claim into a logical truth.

At best you would need to clarify what you mean by "to exist" in this context. But then I also fear you would be question-begging, by needing to define existence as requiring the passage of time. Your claim would then be: "Existence requires the passage of time, therefore at any duration of 0 seconds there is no existence" or some such. This would be question-begging of the highest order, would be logically valid (tautological) but would still not be a logical truth, as it is not necessarily true in all worlds (e.g. where existence does not require the passage of time).

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Interesting, Thanks for posting.
I have concerns about the logic of your answer to number 1
....in that to have suspended movement for a duration of zero time is illogical.

you will need to define the word "space"...somehow...

oh I like this....

However existence must be all inclusive, including temporal and imaginary values etc... ie, absolute statements
But we shall see if others have anything to say....

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Distance is inevitable.

Objects such as humans, earths, rocks, galaxies, universes exist for a duration of time. The clock starts at birth and stops at death. It's your job to define t=0 (birth). Does t=0 mean there wasn't some time before that? No! It just means you have a birthday!

 

just a cake with out any candles ... yes?

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

T=0 is your birth day. I mean the day you accelerated away from momma.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

What about us test tube babies?... Sorry, couldn't resist.

 

Why is it illogical? If you want to claim it as such, show it to be.
You are the one talking of suspended movement, and time t=0. How long do you think t=0 lasts for? I am merely saying that at t=0 there may be no movement, and in such a scenario your "logical truth" does not hold, and is thus not a "logical truth".

If there is no movement at t=0, how long does that lack of movement last for?
I worded my comment on 1 as I did to highlight the pertinent points as I see them.

If you consider space time as a single continuum then space is what you would be left with at any given zero-duration of time.

Rather depends on what you consider it means "to exist".
Anyhow, as it stands, your claim is not demonstrably truthful nor logically so.

 

I don't think that's a logical truth. It looks to me like a metaphysical proposition.

As I understand it, a logical truth is a statement that's true as the result of its logical form alone. In other words, the various terms in the statement can be exchanged for variables and it will continue to be true under all interpretations of those variables.

For example,

If Paris is the capital of France, then Paris is the capital of France.

That's true whether the proposition 'Paris is the capital of France' is T or F.

What's more, it's true for whatever proposition we replace 'Paris is the Capital of France' with.

If Winston Churchill is a fictional character, then Winston Churchill is a fictional character.

So,

If P, then P

is a logical truth, because its truth is purely the result of its logical form, and isn't dependent on its content.

 

@ Sarkus,

I am not..you are.
I would suggest that if t=0 duration then there is no -thing to suspend.
To claim suspended movement for zero duration is an illogical claim.
Especially in a universe that requires movement to exist. [re: Minkowski/spacetime.]
Test question:
For how long is time suspended?
If zero, how can the word suspended be valid as the word is defined to include a positive time duration greater than zero?

Into the quala we go:
The idea of suspending the propagation of a photon for zero time duration and have it still exists is not sound IMO. [ especially since the invariance of light speed 'c' is considered to be true and suspension for zero duration is a self contradiction]

 

thanks for posting, very interesting...

Just my thoughts on this at the moment as this is rather a more formal approach to a lot of my ideas and is new and interesting for me.

I will quote from wiki and presume that the wiki article is sound and comprehensive enough for our purposes.

In the case of "if p then p"

refers, I believe, to something similar to A=A

However to make this a logical truth it must have a "circular" consequence.
"if p and q then p"
noting the "if and the "then" composition.
Claim for a logical truth:
Simplified:
"Existence requires the passage of time"
contextual rephrasing:
"To exist the passage of time is required"
=====
Form:
p and q = p
therefore:
E and TD = E
Reversed:
E less TD =/= E

where E= existence
and TD= time duration
notes: the function of "and" is not quite the same as "plus"

 

As said, I didn't use the term "suspend". I merely said that there is no "time" at t=0.
If you cut a sheet of paper in half, what is the area of paper that is cut out?
There is as much paper in the two halves as there was in the whole.
Similarly "t=0" is merely a place of division, not a duration. And thus it is meaningless to talk of it as though it has the same properties as you'd expect from the actual passage of time.

First, I didn't use the term "suspend", I merely said that there was no movement for entire duration of t=0. It is merely saying that there is no suspension of time. Yet at t=0 there is no time.
Just as where you cut the paper in half there is no paper.

Citation for this claim, please.

If you do not think the word "suspend" is valid, why are you blaming me for using it when I did not and you did?

 

No it doesn't. It merely has to be true through the logic alone.

Your attempt at equivalence is flawed.
You are converting "and" to "requires" which changes the logic from one of a logical truth to, as Yataza suggests, a logical proposition.

First, E and TD = E is also not the same as "If P and Q then P".
"If P and Q then P" would be such as "if you see a boy and a girl, then you see a boy". Note that the "then P" need make no reference to Q. This is a logical truth, as no matter what P and Q are, if P and Q then P.

Second, if you want to argue "If P+Q = P" then you are merely saying that Q=0 (i.e. irrelevant).
But at the moment, "E and TD then E" just means: if you have existence and the passage of time then you have existence.
Which is a logical truth, but in no way links TD and E as being in any way related.

Your "reversal" is also incorrect, because if E and TD = E, then E less TD also = E. This much is simple maths.
Because "and" does not mean "requires" or any other such explicit or implied relationship.

 

I am confused then by this snip from the wiki article:

perhaps, Sarkus, you would like to clarify which position I should take?
admittedly my suggestion that a consequence was required was not entirely correct.
When I wrote:

although one could argue that "All married people are married" does imply a circular consequence...

"Existence must include the passage of time to exist."

is that any better In your opinion?

If E includes TD then E


*where E= existence and TD= time duration

 

My mistake... I was inadvertently, and unintentionally making reference to another thread discussion.

 

Perhaps if I had included the word "mere" (as in it changes it to a mere logical proposition) it may have been clearer.
Logical truths are still propositions, but not all propositions are logical truths.

admittedly my suggestion that a consequence was required was not entirely correct.
When I wrote:

although one could argue that "All married people are married" does imply a circular consequence...[/quote]It is not so much circular as it is tautological. Circularity in an argument uses one part to prove the second which in turn proves the first etc. and thus the truth of the first is dependent on the truth of the second which is itself dependent on the truth of the first.
In a logical truth there is no such circularity, because it is the logic that provides the truth value.
I.e. It doesn't matter whether P is true or not, but it is always true that "If P then P".

As an attempt at a logical truth? No. It is still a mere claim/proposition.

The "must include" is where you deviate from a logical truth. It doesn't matter whether existence includes it or not, existence still exists (if you accept this as a valid expression). The logical truth would be just that: "existence exists" (where "exists" means "to be existence")

As Yataza explains, if you use other elements without adjusting the logic, then for it to be a logical truth it must still hold.
In your case you could swap E for peanut butter and TD for bananas, and you would end up with "peanut butter must include bananas to be peanut butter" which is patently false.
However "peanut butter is peanut butter" is a logical truth, as you could swap "peanut butter" for anything you want and it would still be true.

The "if P and Q then P" can similarly be exampled as: "If I have peanut butter and jelly, then I have peanut butter". Note that there is no claim that you have a combination of the two, or that one is required for the other. Simply that if you are holding two things, then you are indeed holding one of them.
If you want to say, "yes, but you're actually holding both of them, not just one!" then this is also true, but is of the form "if P then P" where P can be substituted for both things as a set. I.e. If I have "peanut butter and jelly" then I have "peanut butter and jelly".
The "if P and Q then P" is only making a statement with regard P. Think of it as being that if you do X to a list of things, then you do X to each of them. E.g. If you are holding P and Q then you are holding P. Also if you are holding P and Q then you are holding Q.

So no, your proposition is not a logical truth, and I honestly don't think you could ever make it be one while also having the meaning you want it to, as I do not think your desire to link P and Q (one requiring the other) can be deconstructed to mere logic, but instead to definitions and the specific premises being employed within the argument.

 

What is a logical truth?

 

Yes, exactly. You have undoubtedly stated a logical truth. There can be no debate about this. At t = 0 reality did not exist. Reality is reality, as in the only thing that can cause itself, therefore it is self-caused.

 

yes..
I was thinking on this last night and realized my mistake and misreading of the definition. [ logical truth]

The proposition:

"Existence must include the passage of time to exist."
is not self contained with regards to it's logic.

Therefore it is merely a proposition to be proved.

Proposition:
"A logical truth requires no proof beyond itself."

I believe at this stage that you are quite correct in writing the above.
but shall consider it some more...thanks..
Funnily enough if one has a look at the etymology of the word "Existence":

To "come into being" in itself implies passage of time.

so could the single word "Existence" be a logical truth simply by definition? [If defined as "come into being"]
*stretching the issue a little perhaps.
just curious as to your thoughts...


An amended image:

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

It may be a Physical truth but not necessarily a logical truth. As Sarkus has aptly demonstrated.