The Law of Cause and Effect.

[Curious George]

And?

Again, i am not arguing about the existence of things no matter how hard you are trying to street the discussion into that direction.

To say something is or is not an event therefore entails a comment on its existence.

 

[Darkstorn]

To say something is or is not an event therefore entails a comment on its existence.

That is not a logically sound statement.

 

[Curious George]

That is not a logically sound statement.

How so?

 

[Darkstorn]

How so?

Your premise assumes existence and "event" are synonymous. But they are not. They are not even mutually exclusive.

 

[Curious George]

That is not a logically sound statement.

If all fish are furbles, talking of fish means you are also talking of furbles.

 

[Darkstorn]

If all fish are furbles, talking of fish means you are also talking of furbles.

But that statement doesn't prove that all furbles are fish.

 

[Curious George]

Your premise assumes existence and "event" are synonymous. But they are not. They are not even mutually exclusive.

The point is that if you are going to slip away into solipsism, our discussion is done.

If existence is real:
Anything that exists occurs
Anything that occurs is an event

Therefore anything that exists is an event.

The first premise?

If something exists it must do so somewhere and at sometime.

If something exists somewhere and at sometime then it occurs in that place at that time.

Therefore it is an event.

 

[Curious George]

But that statement doesn't prove that all furbles are fish.

100% correct it is still a true conclusion nonetheless. Talking about a specific category of furbles is still talking about furbles.

 

[Darkstorn]

I already replied to both those points.

 

[Curious George]

Your premise assumes existence and "event" are synonymous. But they are not. They are not even mutually exclusive.

Of course they are not mutually exclusive. One entails the other. That is the very opposite of mutually exclusive.

 

[Darkstorn]

One entails the other.

Not true.

/E: Actually kind of true, but the opposite of what you are thinking. Existence entails events. Not the other way around.

 

[Curious George]

I already replied to both those points.

The first point you asked me to elaborate on my premise. Which is why i wrote the second post. Your reply to the second post was:

No. Only the occurrence is the event. Again, your original claim is that a probability is an event. But it cannot be by definition.

Probability is the measure of the likelihood that an event will occur. And that's ALL a probability is. It's not an event.

And an event is merely a location in spacetime.

But even if we ignore that: You aren't an event. You becoming into existence is an event. That's a big difference of distinction.

You are literally fighting windmills here.

You did not address the logic at all. You simply said no. Pointed out that occurrences are different than an occurence (because one is plural and one is singular).

So i do not believe you have responded to these points.

 

[Curious George]

Not true.

/E: Actually kind of true, but the opposite of what you are thinking. Existence entails events. Not the other way around.

Great, prove it. Or show me where i am mistaken.

 

[Darkstorn]

Pointed out that occurrences are different than an occurence (because one is plural and one is singular).

I didn't do this at all. Prove it or stop putting words into my mouth.

Great, prove it. Or show me where i am mistaken.

An event requires time and space. Both of which must exist first. There were no events before time and space.

 

[Curious George]

/E: Actually kind of true, but the opposite of what you are thinking. Existence entails events. Not the other way around.

While i think the magic goes both ways on this one, that is sufficient to bring us to the point regarding a probability's existence.

 

[Curious George]

I didn't do this at all. Prove it or stop putting words into my mouth.



An event requires time and space. Both of which must exist first. There were no events before time and space.

Prove that the difference between occurence and occurences is that one is plural and one is singular?

 

[Darkstorn]

While i think the magic goes both ways on this one, that is sufficient to bring us to the point regarding a probability's existence.

One huge problem that still remains to be addressed.

I never claimed that probabilities don't exist. But they aren't events. Probability is the measure of the likelihood that an event will occur. And that's ALL.

Prove that the difference between occurence and occurences is that one is plural and one is singular?

Why?

 

[Curious George]

One huge problem that still remains to be addressed.

I never claimed that probabilities don't exist. But they aren't events. Probability is the measure of the likelihood that an event will occur. And that's ALL.

You just agreed that existence entails an event.

 

[Darkstorn]

You just agreed that existence entails an event.

And? What does that have to do with what i just said?

 

[Curious George]

One huge problem that still remains to be addressed.

I never claimed that probabilities don't exist. But they aren't events. Probability is the measure of the likelihood that an event will occur. And that's ALL.



Why?

Again if something exists it occurs.
If it occurs then it is an event.
Therefore if something exists it is an event.

Let's go the other way.

If something is an event it occurs.
If something ocurrs it exists.
Therefore being an event entails existence.