Eise

Graeme M, I think you answer the original question too easy. Let's retell the story a little, in the hope that it becomes more clearly: Situation 1 On earth, you step in the transporter, and push the green button. The next moment that you are conscious again and step out of the cabin, you are on Mars. Situation 2 On earth, you step in the transporter, and push the green button. The next moment that you are conscious again and step out of the cabin, you are still on earth. You hear that there was a malfunctioning of the transporter. Your original 'you' (i.e. you) were not immediately destroyed in the process, but the copying worked well and your duplicate has just stepped out of the transporter cabin on Mars. If you want, you can talk with him via telephone. However, due to the scanning process, you will die in the next few days. Are you dying or surviving in situation 2? Would you step in such a device? If you wouldn't, would you in situation 1? Why?

The idea is good, but not original: see e.g. this 'existential comic'. Originally it was brought by Derek Parfit, in his 'Reasons and Persons'. He uses it as test for our our intuitions about personal identity. If you really believe that you are just a function of your body, would you then step into such a machine? Who would be the 'real you'? If you are copied to Mars: who would be the 'real you'? The one still being on earth, or the one on Mars? What if the machine causes the original to have a heart failure, so you will die in a few days?

Yeah, that is true. But I think that every discipline that claims to have, or be, valid and objective knowledge earns to be called pseudo science (well, of course if it is not really science). Well, if it is not claimed as scientific, then it is not claimed to be valid and objective knowledge. How is that with those 'some persons'? What is their claim that astrology is?

??? Wikipedia

That's what I would say too, yes.

But astrology has also one scientific leg: the positions of the planets and the stars. Why don't you think that (Wikipedia): does not fit to astrology? AJB. It doesn't even count as pseudo-science.

That is a great list, but why are these pseudo science and astrology isn't? (You see Swansont, I am still figuring out why astrology would not be a pseudo science.) Yeah, but is exactly, what I would say, is not copying, but faking.

A.L.P, I think you should read about Kant's antinomies.

Many pseudo-sciences (like astrology and alchemy) started as a proto-science, and as far as they are still existing (I am not aware of present day alchemy) they are pseudo-sciences now, claiming knowledge they simply do not have. Homoeopathy might be an example of what you mean: Hahnemann made empirical observations. They were of course worthless from a scientific point of view. So one cannot speak of 'copying the scientific method'. If one copies the scientific method, then one is really trying to do science. In fact homoeopathy is faking the scientific method. If astrology wants to be a body of knowledge, then it needs the scientific method. But we know what happens when we use the scientific method in astrology: nothing is left.

So what are good examples of real pseudosciences?

I don't even understand why you think that astrology would be based on a geocentric model. It has arisen in 'geocentric' times, yes, but I do not see why a heliocentric model would invalidate it. Astrology is based on the relative positions of celestial bodies to the earth. The relative positions of planets and constellations is the only scientific aspect of astrology: it can just borrow it from astronomy. As a small story: in my time as a student, I once visited an extreme 'new age believer'. He immediately wanted to know my birth day for drawing my horoscope on his PC. Then I asked him if he could make the horoscope of the present moment. Of course he could, and showed me the diagram. I said ,yeah, that fits.' He reacted with astonishment and asked 'what do you know about astrology?'. I asked him to go outside, and look to the western horizon: 'You see, these two bright stars there? They are no stars, those are Jupiter and Venus, close behind the sun that has just set. Exactly as you can see in your horoscope diagram'. 'Wow, I did not know that you could see that!'. Isn't that great? The only point where astrology touches science, he did not know anything of... I wonder why you call it 'not even pseudo science'. I think it has all aspects of pseudo science: it suggests it is a body of knowledge, suggests it has methods to determine outcomes etc, where in reality it has no methodological basis at all. There is no empirical program of gathering knowledge, of falsifying wrong hypotheses etc. Astrologists do not even get at the same results (except the diagram they draw with PC programs).

From Wikipedia. But if Suits' definition really is enough... Shouldn't be a game voluntary?

Did he? How did he show this? Do you have references/sources?

That is true. But we know Mark got his information elsewhere. He uses some Aramaic phrases, which points to Aramaic sources, Jesus' own tongue, even that Mark himself wrote in Greek. His source could have been an eyewitness, but of course it could also be hearsay. But at least one step closer to the historical Jesus.

Of course that is not a coincidence! Many philosophical problems are based on shifts in meaning, subtle or not. Not every problem is (dis)solved under analysis of the terms in which a problem is formulated, but a lot of them are: e.g. if a falling tree makes a sound when nobody is there to hear it; if we have free will; if a cheese sandwich is better as God... Keep kidding! Weren't jesters saying the truth under a sauce of humor? Can you give your formal approach?

That means you already have a definition. So whatever a questioner means with 'God', you say it/he does not exist. That is a good way to produce misunderstandings. The difference in the case of God is absolutely minimal. Or do you really say 'Well, it could be that there is a God who created the universe, and who led the people of Israel through the desert, but unless I have proof I do not believe it'? From the above I read that for you 'God' means at least something supernatural. Don't you believe that something supernatural does not exist? What could be something supernatural, that would change your mind?

I think an answer to the question only reveals what somebody means with sound. If he means that it was heard by somebody, and it was stated that there was nobody there, then there was no sound. If he means perturbations (that could have been heard when somebody would have been there), then there was sound. So if somebody asks the question, the first thing you must do, and ask what the questioner means with sound. Same when somebody asks you if you believe in God. First you must ask what kind of God. Then you might be able to answer the question. That is also the reason one formally cannot answer the question if one is an atheist. First you must know which God the questioner thinks you deny.

My logical joke is getting a life of its own. OK, here we go. Let's take this one: Anything is greater than Nothing. (1) Nothing is greater than God (2) So: Anything is greater than God. Translate it to correct logical language: 1. [math]\forall x: x > Nothing [/math] (1) 2. [math]\neg \exists x: x > God [/math] (2) Instead of (2) we can write: [math]\forall x: God > x [/math] (2a) So: [math]God > Nothing[/math] (3) So when you leave out 'Nothing' of (2), and re-write it as 'not exists', the 'problem' disappears. Is this the solution you meant, overtone?

I like it. Isn't that close to my interpretation that 'Nothing' has no referen? O sorry, I interpreted you this way, because of the phrases I made bold..

I completely agree with that. I just think you choose your different meanings just as you please. E.g. I can rephrase your: Having a cheese sandwich is better than having the empty setto: Not everything is worse than a Cheese SandwichNow I also refer to everything, of course with a negation (of course, in the worst case above sentence refers to the empty set). (emphasis added) Yeah, sorry for the confusion. The facts expressed are the same, but their connotations are not. (E.g. It is a fact that the evening star and the morning star are the same object, Venus, but their connotation is different: you will never see the evening star in the morning, per definition.)

No. The sentences: Nothing is greater than God. Everything is less than God. may express the same fact, but their connotation is different. I just say the same as you say with the empty set: you say: Having a cheese sandwich is better than having the empty setI say: The set of objects greater than God is empty.So we have: [math] \emptyset \Rightarrow Cheese Sandwich \Rightarrow God \Rightarrow \emptyset[/math] AFAIK there is only one empty set. What do you prefer? A Cheese Sandwich without cheese, or a Marmalade Sandwich without marmalade? In which do the 'emptinesses' of both sandwiches differ? So my point is still: one cannot build such logical derivations with 'Nothing', because it does not refer to anything.

No, of course it is wrong. I reacted on PeterJ's posting of 'Nothing' to be a metaphysically empty concept. I agree with that, and wanted to show what great 'logical' constructs you can build using 'Nothing'. My position why the 'derivations' are wrong is because 'Nothing' has no referent. 'Greater than', or 'better than' only work when the objects are real referents. But the essence of 'Nothing' is that one means there is no referent. Say I put all existing objects on an ordered scale from 'better'. Past the worst there is nothing, put past the best there is also nothing. By saying 'A Cheese Sandwich is better than Nothing' is express that it is not the worst to have. By saying 'Nothing is better than God' I express that everything is less good as God. So both 'Nothings' refer to the empty set. But the empty set does not always works the same in argumentations, a bit similar why 0 does not always yield correct results when used in mathematics (division by 0, 0⁰, etc). (As an aside: Say I have [math]x[/math] and [math]y[/math] so that: [math]x^2 - y^2 = x^2 - xy[/math] [math](x -y)(x+ y) = x(x - y)[/math] [math]x + y = x[/math] Now e.g. take [math]x = y = 1[/math] (That fits the original equation). Then I get: [math]1 = 0[/math] End of aside) 'Nothing' referring to 'everything' seems a bit of overstretching of the usual meaning of 'nothing'.

It was a political move of Mohammed. He hoped he could unite Arabs, Christians and Jews under his one new religion. Obviously he did not succeed...

But these are both not the meanings in my 'syllogisms'. So what is it that makes my logical derivations invalid?

Why do you think so? What are the two different meanings?