Can truth not exist anymore if existence stopped?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Ben_Sinner
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
B

Ben_Sinner

Guest
I’m talking about, what if the universe stopped existing and became nothing (not an empty kind of nothing, but something that doesn’t exist anymore Can’t be sensed or even thought of). All of existence would be gone. Would truth still survive?

One could say “Nothing exists” anymore would be true, thus making truth still alive, but one could say “That statement is from logic, even logic wouldn’t exist anymore in that situation.”
 
If the universe stopped existing, would the laws of logic the universe uses also stop existing as well? I guess that is another part of the question
 
Truth is rooted in God, so yes it would still exist even without the created order. Many specific truths, however, would cease to be true. In my opinion the laws of logic are not arbitrary constructs fitted to this universe, but are also rooted in the being of God, and therefore would continue also.
 
All of creation participates in existence, but God is existence.

Creation could stop existing, but God could not.
 
Ben_Sinner said:
I’m talking about, what if the universe stopped existing and became nothing (not an empty kind of nothing, but something that doesn’t exist anymore Can’t be sensed or even thought of). All of existence would be gone. Would truth still survive?

One could say “Nothing exists” anymore would be true, thus making truth still alive, but one could say “That statement is from logic, even logic wouldn’t exist anymore in that situation.”
Click to expand...
I’m a little confused by your question, but I am going to try to answer anyway.

I think the easiest way to think about this is to use math as an analogy. Numbers have properties, even imaginary numbers like i. Zero is the equivalent of nothing, but it still has properties, rules apply to it, and logic doesn’t break down when using zero in equations.

There is another kind of nothing in math: an empty set. A group of numbers with no members has no properties, nothing can be said of it, and logic can’t be applied to it.

If you are talking about this universe getting somehow snuffed out, you are essentially talking about it getting zeroed out, and logic would still apply to this ex-universe. If you are talking about an absence of a universe, you are talking about an empty set to which logic doesn’t apply.

At least that is my understanding. I should point out that, while I am not really an expert at anything, I am also not an expert at nothing.
Does that answer your question at all?
 
TheCuriousCat said:
There is another kind of nothing in math: an empty set. A group of numbers with no members has no properties, nothing can be said of it, and logic can’t be applied to it.
Click to expand...
I don’t think that is true. Inasmuch as the empty set is a set, the rules of set theory will apply. Actually, there is a way of building up the natural numbers on the foundation of the empty set.
For example, you can either define or make a 1-1 correspondence between the following objects:
Let { } denote the empty set:
0 <-> { }
1 <-> { { } } the set containing 1 element, i.e., the set containing the empty set.
2<-> { { { } }, { } }
3 <-> { { { { } }, { } }, { { } }, { } }
etc.
and the rules of logic or set theory will apply.
 
Tomdstone said:
I don’t think that is true. Inasmuch as the empty set is a set, the rules of set theory will apply. Actually, there is a way of building up the natural numbers on the foundation of the empty set.
For example, you can either define or make a 1-1 correspondence between the following objects:
Let { } denote the empty set:
0 <-> { }
1 <-> { { } } the set containing 1 element, i.e., the set containing the empty set.
2<-> { { { } }, { } }
3 <-> { { { { } }, { } }, { { } }, { } }
etc.
and the rules of logic or set theory will apply.
Click to expand...
Interesting. I am convinced. You explained that really well, thank-you.
 
Ben_Sinner said:
I’m talking about, what if the universe stopped existing and became nothing (not an empty kind of nothing, but something that doesn’t exist anymore Can’t be sensed or even thought of). All of existence would be gone. Would truth still survive?

One could say “Nothing exists” anymore would be true, thus making truth still alive, but one could say “That statement is from logic, even logic wouldn’t exist anymore in that situation.”
Click to expand...
Great question! I think the only thing left will be TRUTH!
 
Truth is a metaphysical reality which is the result of God’s permanence and immutability. Since God cannot cease to exist (He is existence itself), Truth can never cease to exist.

Truth is not bound to the physical universe, so if the physical universe ceased to exist, Truth would be unaffected.
 
Ben_Sinner said:
I’m talking about, what if the universe stopped existing and became nothing (not an empty kind of nothing, but something that doesn’t exist anymore Can’t be sensed or even thought of). All of existence would be gone. Would truth still survive?

One could say “Nothing exists” anymore would be true, thus making truth still alive, but one could say “That statement is from logic, even logic wouldn’t exist anymore in that situation.”
Click to expand...
Yes, truth is objective. 1+1=2 whether there is a universe or not.
 
Tomdstone said:
Actually it is not always true that 1+1 = 2.
Click to expand...
It is true in all instances that 1.0000000^n + 1.0000000^n will always and in every conceivable way, equal 2. 1.1 is not the same number as 1.0 . No amount of discussion about rounding or significant figures can change that, and no amount of mathematical shenanigans can change the fact that the absolute number 1, when added to itself, will always equal the absolute number 2.
 
ProdglArchitect said:
It is true in all instances that 1.0000000^n + 1.0000000^n will always and in every conceivable way, equal 2. 1.1 is not the same number as 1.0 . No amount of discussion about rounding or significant figures can change that, and no amount of mathematical shenanigans can change the fact that the absolute number 1, when added to itself, will always equal the absolute number 2.
Click to expand...
In the binary system.there is no 2, there is only 1 and zero. so in that system:
1 + 1 = 10.
 
Ad_Orientem said:
Equivocation. The symbols used does not change the truth expressed, nor the logic.
Click to expand...
There is also the mod arithmetic. for example in mod 12, you would have 11 + 3 = 2. Now Z_2 is mod 2 arithmetic. In mod 2, you have only 1 or zero. And so 1+1= 0 (mod 2)
And there is something called a field with finite characteristic p. In the case where the field has characteristic 2, you will have 1+1 = 0 (the same as in Z_2.

And of course there are other non mathematical situations where 1+1 may not equal 2. Take for example a pile of sand. If I then scoop up one other pile of sand and place it on top of the given one pile of sand, you will still be left with one pile of sand.

And of course there is the case in special relativity physics where if you have two particles A and B both travelling at a certain high velocity speed the combined addition of the two speeds will not add up in the usual manner.
Suppose an object A is moving with a velocity v relative to an object B, and B is moving with a velocity u (in the same direction) relative to an object C. What is the velocity w of A relative to C?
Code: 
                         v
               B     -------> A

                  u
           C -------> B


                   w
           C ----------------->A
Let 1 refer to the one unit = 0.9c, where c is the speed of light.
So we will have 1 unit plus 1 unit is 0.9c + 0,9c. But according to the addition laws of special relativity, 0.9c + 0,9c = 0.994c or 1.105 of our unit 0.9c.
In other words, 1 unit plus 1 unit is 1.105 units.
So 1 unit plus 1 unit does not equal 2 units in special relativity.
 
Tomdstone said:
There is also the mod arithmetic. for example in mod 12, you would have 11 + 3 = 2. Now Z_2 is mod 2 arithmetic. In mod 2, you have only 1 or zero. And so 1+1= 0 (mod 2)
And there is something called a field with finite characteristic p. In the case where the field has characteristic 2, you will have 1+1 = 0 (the same as in Z_2.

And of course there are other non mathematical situations where 1+1 may not equal 2. Take for example a pile of sand. If I then scoop up one other pile of sand and place it on top of the given one pile of sand, you will still be left with one pile of sand.

And of course there is the case in special relativity physics where if you have two particles A and B both travelling at a certain high velocity speed the combined addition of the two speeds will not add up in the usual manner.
Suppose an object A is moving with a velocity v relative to an object B, and B is moving with a velocity u (in the same direction) relative to an object C. What is the velocity w of A relative to C?
Code: 
                         v
               B     -------> A

                  u
           C -------> B


                   w
           C ----------------->A
Let 1 refer to the one unit = 0.9c, where c is the speed of light.
So we will have 1 unit plus 1 unit is 0.9c + 0,9c. But according to the addition laws of special relativity, 0.9c + 0,9c = 0.994c or 1.105 of our unit 0.9c.
In other words, 1 unit plus 1 unit is 1.105 units.
So 1 unit plus 1 unit does not equal 2 units in special relativity.
Click to expand...
In all of these examples, one doesn’t actually represent the number “1.000000^n,” 1 is just being used as a placeholder for other numbers for ease of use. Mod mathematics are not the same thing as basic mathematics, adding in mod does not represent the same activity as adding in basic addition. As for the piles of sand, we use “1” to express the basic idea, but in reality we are moving n grains of sand. 1 is just a simplified placeholder for the amount that we are actually moving, it does not represent an absolute number. In the case of special relativity, again, 1 doesn’t actually represent the number “1.00000^n,” it is being used as a generic “unit,” which is a different metaphysical reality from the actual number 1, not really any different from using x in an algebra equation. In that instance, 1 isn’t actually a number, it’s a variable.

We’re not talking about the numerical character “1,” we’re talking about the metaphysical concept of “1.0000000^n.”
 
If God and the universe ceased to exist, I don’t think truth would exist anymore.

On the math question, isn’t there a college class you can take that proves that 1 plus 1 equals 2?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top