How to prove God's existence the way it's supposed to Part 1

[ThinkingSapien]

For example, if you have two cups filled with sugar you can say that the sugar in cup 1 is sweet and that the sugar in cup 2 is also sweet. Now if you pour both cups in a bigger one according to your theory it is not a certainty that the sugar in this bigger cup is sweet while it actually is. Or how sometimes there’s now difference between looking at the quality of a sum and looking at the qualities of the parts.

I don’t think that’s applicable. A container of sugar, water, or some other homogeneous undifferentiated substance has the same properties (with the exception of mass and volume, of course) regardless of the quantity (assuming we can ignore the case of having a quantity measured in solar masses) the properties are going to be the same. 2 cups of sugar are sweet in the same way 1 cup is. Two cups of liquid water are wet just like 1 cup of liquid water is. You could repeat this with many other substances. But when talking about living organisms you are talking about a union of differing systems whether it be a single celled organism or multicellular organism.

Let’s look at this from another direction. 1 cup of sugar is sweet. So is half a cup. Now let’s apply this to a living organism. If I divide my living cat in half is it still alive? No. If I divide a planarian in half is it still alive? Yes. The sugar cup metaphor isn’t a good conceptual metaphor for life; the inferences made from one don’t necessarily transfer over to the other.

In simple terms: You already agreed that life is not possible in a body that hasn’t got a single empty space in it. You say that it’s useless that i talk about two correct parts inside a living body because it’s all about the sum of those two parts.
But it remains a fact that life is impossible inside the full part because you agreed that life is not possible inside a body that hasn’t got a single empty space inside.

There’s a physical constrain (primarily due to electromagnetic forces) on how tightly packed the atoms in a body (living or not) can be assuming we are not talking about something larger than several solar masses or smaller than a sub-atomic particle. So I am interpreting what you are saying as being “There’s no life in which the molecules that make up that life behave outside of the constrains of widely accepted models of molecular interaction.”

On that note, I find the concept of a statue made of atoms with the space removed difficult to conceptualize. Something like that would be massive, and once you get beyond a certain mass then the rigidity of the body is overcome by it’s own gravity and assume hydrostatic equilibrium.

 

[Candide_West]

Which brings me back to your theory about the qualities of parts and what they say about the qualities of the sum of the parts.
Your theory is based upon the ‘two can do more than one’ saying.

? Are you trying to say that it’s only a theory that many things brought together can do things that each of those things individually cannot?

If so I would invite you to test this theory for yourself. Assuming you own a car, try driving it, confirm that it does in fact transport you along the road at a good speed. Then dismantle the car completely down to it’s individual components (lets only go as far as nuts and bolts for the sake of this experiment) and test each one individually to see if it can transport you along the road at a good speed.

I strongly suspect that you will not find a single nut, bolt, gear, bearing, wire, linkage or anything else which can on it’s own transport you along in the manner which the car as a whole currently can.

but let me know your results.

You use that theory to prove i’m wrong but you’re not aware of the exceptions to your theory.
For example, if you have two cups filled with sugar you can say that the sugar in cup 1 is sweet and that the sugar in cup 2 is also sweet. Now if you pour both cups in a bigger one according to your theory it is not a certainty that the sugar in this bigger cup is sweet while it actually is. Or how sometimes there’s now difference between looking at the quality of a sum and looking at the qualities of the parts.

Of course this doesn’t apply to all things, with some things taking a two lumps of the same material and putting them together to make one big lump means you have a big lump with approximately the same properties as the two smaller ones. If you tried doing this with the wrong quantities of weapons grade plutonium however you’d find that the larger lump responded extremely differently.

in any case human bodies are not in any sensible way comparible to cups of sugar, we are not chemically and mechanically uniform, we have a very high degree of internal complexity… hmmm the absurdity of what i am needing to write here just struck me. I really hope this point needs no further defense.

In simple terms: You already agreed that life is not possible in a body that hasn’t got a single empty space in it.

for the sake of the argument i’ve accepted this, yes.

You say that it’s useless that i talk about two correct parts inside a living body because it’s all about the sum of those two parts.

No, what i’ve shown is that it’s silly to pretend that we can divide a living body, or an atom, or a house, or anything else into “the full part” and “the empty part”. and it’s even sillier to pretend that we can then treat them separately to look for something living.

if you follow the same logic as your “proof” and then we can say that it’s impossible for “the full part” to contain a single atom (since in order for an atom to be an atom there must be empty space in it, and there is no empty space in “the full part”). So therefore all the atoms in the body are must be in the “empty part” of the body. which is kinda confusing because it’s leaves the “full part” of the body containing nothing and the “empty part” of the body containing everything.

perhaps now it’s clearer why your terminology is confusing?

But it remains a fact that life is impossible inside the full part because you agreed that life is not possible inside a body that hasn’t got a single empty space inside.

and there you have again pretended that the separation is possible. Essentially you’ve pretended to make a separation of the full and empty parts, then used the fact that making that separation is impossible to show that life can’t be in the full part.

You are willing to agree with that fact but you say that it doesn’t matter because it’s all about what the sum of the two parts say and not what the parts say about themselves on their own.

kinda. it’s the same thing as the example with your car or the plane, the parts, put together in the right way can do things that no individual part can. This seems pretty straightforwards.

But when you are willing to admit that life can’t be inside the full part…

again, you missed off “or the empty part” remember your logic is incomplete if you miss out question 2b.

if you really need me to demonstrate some of the silly conclusions this can lead to i will do so in a separate post.

Like with the sugar exception a dead part plus a dead part results as sum in a bigger but also dead part. That means that whenever you find a dead part inside a living body you have only the option left to go look and find the life in one of the other parts. Because when the sum of dead parts results in a bigger but also dead part there needs to be ‘a living part’ in a sum of parts with dead parts in that sum to result in a sum that was about a body with life inside of it.
And that still makes everything i wrote correct and logical and you are always able to read it all again here.

again, this is reductionism at it’s worst (by which i mean with the false assumption that there can be no emergent properties) this has been well demonstrated not to work. all you’ve done here is applied something that doesn’t work in a selective manner.

 

[Neverbeendead]

? Are you trying to say that it’s only a theory that many things brought together can do things that each of those things individually cannot?

If so I would invite you to test this theory for yourself. Assuming you own a car, try driving it, confirm that it does in fact transport you along the road at a good speed. Then dismantle the car completely down to it’s individual components (lets only go as far as nuts and bolts for the sake of this experiment) and test each one individually to see if it can transport you along the road at a good speed.

I strongly suspect that you will not find a single nut, bolt, gear, bearing, wire, linkage or anything else which can on it’s own transport you along in the manner which the car as a whole currently can.

but let me know your results.

Of course this doesn’t apply to all things, with some things taking a two lumps of the same material and putting them together to make one big lump means you have a big lump with approximately the same properties as the two smaller ones. If you tried doing this with the wrong quantities of weapons grade plutonium however you’d find that the larger lump responded extremely differently.

in any case human bodies are not in any sensible way comparible to cups of sugar, we are not chemically and mechanically uniform, we have a very high degree of internal complexity… hmmm the absurdity of what i am needing to write here just struck me. I really hope this point needs no further defense.

for the sake of the argument i’ve accepted this, yes.

No, what i’ve shown is that it’s silly to pretend that we can divide a living body, or an atom, or a house, or anything else into “the full part” and “the empty part”. and it’s even sillier to pretend that we can then treat them separately to look for something living.

if you follow the same logic as your “proof” and then we can say that it’s impossible for “the full part” to contain a single atom (since in order for an atom to be an atom there must be empty space in it, and there is no empty space in “the full part”). So therefore all the atoms in the body are must be in the “empty part” of the body. which is kinda confusing because it’s leaves the “full part” of the body containing nothing and the “empty part” of the body containing everything.

perhaps now it’s clearer why your terminology is confusing?

and there you have again pretended that the separation is possible. Essentially you’ve pretended to make a separation of the full and empty parts, then used the fact that making that separation is impossible to show that life can’t be in the full part.

kinda. it’s the same thing as the example with your car or the plane, the parts, put together in the right way can do things that no individual part can. This seems pretty straightforwards.

again, you missed off “or the empty part” remember your logic is incomplete if you miss out question 2b.

if you really need me to demonstrate some of the silly conclusions this can lead to i will do so in a separate post.

again, this is reductionism at it’s worst (by which i mean with the false assumption that there can be no emergent properties) this has been well demonstrated not to work. all you’ve done here is applied something that doesn’t work in a selective manner.

Your car example is still completely wrong and everything i wrote correct. If a small subpart of a car were to be alone on the street and could talk it would say: you can’t drive with me but if you were to add these and those parts to me you would be able to drive with me because adding these and those parts to me is the equivalent of the bringer of your ability to drive on the road with the new bigger me.
In the same way if the full part of a living body was cut in a million pieces scattered all over the street and those million pieces could talk in one voice it would say: you can squeeze my million scattered pieces here into a perfect cube that hasn’t got a single empty space inside of it because i used to be the full part of a living body that hasn’t got a single empty space inside of it. Then you can use a technique which is much more difficult in reality than putting the parts of a car together, that cuts my cube into the right pieces and separates them from each other (so that empty spaces come between them or are added to them) so that the endresult is exactly the same as ‘the cathedral’ which is a living body.
Because you can’t find life in me but adding that empty part to me in the way described will enable you to find life in the new bigger me and yes, the adding of the empty part to me makes the empty part the bringer of your ability to find life in the new bigger me while emptiness can only bring to the mix that what the word means and so logic goes over itself to make an impossibility possible and a good one to start with.
The bringer of your abilty to drive on the road with the new bigger me and the bringer of your ability to find life in the new bigger me.

 

[ThinkingSapien]

Tracing back through what was said…

Which brings me back to your theory about the qualities of parts and what they say about the qualities of the sum of the parts.
Your theory is based upon the ‘two can do more than one’ saying.

? Are you trying to say that it’s only a theory that many things brought together can do things that each of those things individually cannot?

If so I would invite you to test this theory for yourself. Assuming you own a car, try driving it, confirm that it does in fact transport you along the road at a good speed. Then dismantle the car completely down to it’s individual components (lets only go as far as nuts and bolts for the sake of this experiment) and test each one individually to see if it can transport you along the road at a good speed.

Your car example is still completely wrong and everything i wrote correct.

His statement is not wrong. Take a single bolt or nut from your car and you will find that it doesn’t transport you very well. Perhaps you meant to say that it was in applicable? I can’t find that it’s completely inapplicable either.

if you were to add these and those parts to me you would be able to drive with me

This appears to be a rewording of the point that he was trying to make, but coming from the reverse direction (coming from composition instead of decomposition). In either case you find that an individual part does not have the same capability as the sum of the parts.

I Then you can use a technique which is much more difficult in reality than putting the parts of a car together, that cuts my cube into the right pieces and separates them from each other (so that empty spaces come between them or are added to them) so that the end ]result is exactly the same as ‘the cathedral’ which is a living body.

So are you saying that if I took something that was alive and increased the empty spaces between the molecules would you then expect it to have more life in the empty space than before I started expanding it? That the impression I get, and what I think is being communicated in the following.

…]and yes, the adding of the empty part to me makes the empty part the bringer of your ability to find life in the new bigger me while emptiness can only bring to the mix

If I’ve misunderstood let me know.

 

[Neverbeendead]

A house has only two rooms in it. Room A and room B.
The house=room A + room B.
There is a cat inside the house but you are only allowed to take a look in room A.
You see that the cat isn’t inside room A and so you know that it is in room B.
In my exact same example the living body=the empty part + the full part.
There is life inside the living body and you have deduced that it is not inside the full part and so you know that it is inside the empty part.
In this topic a wrong theory has been put up to suggest that if you don’t see the cat in room A it is possible that you don’t see it in room B too but that you can see it in the house because the house is the two together and has different quality to it than the qualities of the rooms on their own. It is this exception to his theory that made it so that there were words put in my mouth about a mysterious third room C and that was complete nonsense.
With his wrong theory he suggested that when life isn’t inside the full part it can also be not inside the empty part and that it can be inside the full part and the empty part when you see them together because then you see them with the new quality that comes from joining things together.

 

[Neverbeendead]

To make it more easy to understand the same house now has a cat in each room but one is dead and the other one alive.
You are only allowed to have a look in room A and you see a dead cat.
Then you could say something like this and sound right: There’s no life going on in this room so if there’s really life going on in this house it’s gonna be in the other room.

That sounds so much better then:There’s no life going in this room so if there’s really life going on in this house it’s possible that it is also not going on in the other room while it is possible that it is going on in this house when you look at the whole house at once because as a whole that has different quality to it then those of the rooms separately.

 

[Candide_West]

Your car example is still completely wrong and everything i wrote correct.*

Well I’ve pointed out your errors. As I said. If you like I can show you other examples of silly conclusions we can reach using the same erroneous logic (I gave one already by showing that all the atoms are in the “empty part” of the body too).

If you’d like to show that the errors are in fact not in your “proof” then please go ahead.In other words that you haven’t selectively applied a form of extreme reductionism.

The rest of your post was just repeating the same errors again so I don’t think there’s any need for me to respond to it.

 

[Candide_West]

A house has only two rooms in it. Room A and room B.
The house=room A + room B.
There is a cat inside the house but you are only allowed to take a look in room A.
You see that the cat isn’t inside room A and so you know that it is in room B.

Ok, here’s an even more simple and appropriate example.

A house has two rooms in it. Room A and room B.
The house=room A + room B.

You know that the house is a two room house. But you are only allowed to look in room A.*

You look in room A and see that room A isn’t a two room house. So you know that room B is a two room house.

In my exact same example the living body=the empty part + the full part.
There is life inside the living body and you have deduced that it is not inside the full part and so you know that it is inside the empty part.

The error is made clearer in how you have written this “There is life inside the living body” as if “life” is an object that can be located.

You are as well to say “two room houseness is in this two room house” then look in the room A. Find that “two room houseness” isn’t in there and conclude “two room houseness” must be in my room B.

In this topic a wrong theory has been put up to suggest that if you don’t see the cat in room A it is possible that you don’t see it in room B too but that you can see it in the house because the house is the two together and has different quality to it than the qualities of the rooms on their own.

Are you still sticking to this idea that emergent properties don’t exist? Have you found the nut in you car that you can drive down the road yet?

*It is this exception to his theory that made it so that there were words put in my mouth about a mysterious third room C and that was complete nonsense.

Yes, saying that a cat would be an emergent property of putting two rooms together would be silly.*

But saying that a “two room house” is NOT an emergent property of putting two rooms together as a house is equally silly.*

With his wrong theory he suggested that when life isn’t inside the full part it can also be not inside the empty part and that it can be inside the full part and the empty part when you see them together because then you see them with the new quality that comes from joining things together.

And that’s exactly what we have here.*

We have room A - which isn’t a two room house.*
And room B - which isn’t a two room house.*

You put them together to form a house and you have a two room house.*

Your version of reductionism would insist that one room or the other must in itself be a two room house or the thing as a whole CANNOT be a two room house.*

 

[Neverbeendead]

If A + B=C
and you figure out that A NOT= C then you may always conclude that B NOT=C aswell.

That makes it so that tworoomhouseness is never a quality that can be given to one room.

But not every quality of a sum is only the quality of the sum. It can also be the quality of one of the parts or all the parts but you deny this by saying correctly that the ‘sumquality’ of the sum can’t be given to a part of a sum because a part of a sum is not the sum of the parts.

And one of those exceptions is this one that has already be given:
A house has only two rooms. There’s a dead cat in one room and an alive one in the other room.
You go in a room to see a dead cat and can correctly say: There’s no life going on in this room or area so the life that’s going on in this house will be found in the second room.
Correct and in relation to finding life in a certain area.

And that is a good exception to your right sumquality theory but wrong in this context because there are more qualities to a sum then just the sumquality.

Not only a good and correct exception but as good as the one were you say:There’s no life in this full part or area but since there’s life in the whole body going on it must be going on in the other empty part.

 

[Candide_West]

If A + B=C
and you figure out that A NOT= C then you may always conclude that B NOT=C aswell.

That makes it so that tworoomhouseness is never a quality that can be given to one room.

Exactly well done. So we can make
A = “the full part”,
B = “the empty part” and
C = “a living thing”

and if we figure out that A NOT= C then we MAY always conclude that B NOT=C as well.

That makes it that “living” is never a quality that can be given to either the full part or the empty part.

That is the reason that your “proof” fails.

But not every quality of a sum is only the quality of the sum. It can also be the quality of one of the parts or all the parts but you deny this by saying correctly that the ‘sumquality’ of the sum can’t be given to a part of a sum because a part of a sum is not the sum of the parts.

Indeed, I have never said that ALL properties of a group of things together are ONLY found in the group together. on the contrary it was you who was saying specifically that ANY property of the group of things together MUST be a property of at least one of the sub parts.

And one of those exceptions is this one that has already be given:
A house has only two rooms. There’s a dead cat in one room and an alive one in the other room.
You go in a room to see a dead cat and can correctly say: There’s no life going on in this room or area so the life that’s going on in this house will be found in the second room.
Correct and in relation to finding life in a certain area.

Indeed, in that case the cat is in one area or the other or neither. Obviously there are plenty of examples like that, where the property is NOT emergent. Equally there are plenty of examples where there ARE emergent properties (like the tworoomhouseness).

Not only a good and correct exception but as good as the one were you say:There’s no life in this full part or area but since there’s life in the whole body going on it must be going on in the other empty part.

Ok, to use the terminology from the top of your post, what you have said here is essentially.

A + B = C
and
A NOT= C

Therefore

B = C

BUT

As YOU already established

If
A + B = C
and
A NOT= C

It is still possible that

B NOT=C

 

[cerad2]

Hi Neverbeendead,

Perhaps it might help if you could define “empty space” and give an example or two? As far as I know, no such thing as empty space actually exists which kinds of make you whole approach a non-starter.

 

[Neverbeendead]

Exactly well done. So we can make
A = “the full part”,
B = “the empty part” and
C = “a living thing”

and if we figure out that A NOT= C then we MAY always conclude that B NOT=C as well.

That makes it that “living” is never a quality that can be given to either the full part or the empty part.

That is the reason that your “proof” fails.

Now let’s rewrite what you wrote in the exact same way but change the name full part into alive baby inside pregnant woman or short baby and the name empty part into everything inside the pregnant woman except the alive baby or short rest.
Then we get this and it’s not what we are supposed to get.

A = baby
B = rest
C = “a living thing”

and if we figure out that A NOT= C then we MAY always conclude that B NOT=C as well.

That makes it that “living” is never a quality that can be given to either baby or rest

That is the reason that your “proof” is fails

Not what we were supposed to get.

.

The baby is indeed not that living thing called the mother or the sumquality but that doesn’t mean that it cannot be alive.
And so the only thing failing is your denial for exceptions that i wrote clearly in my previous post and that makes everything i wrote still correct.

 

[Candide_West]

Now let’s rewrite what you wrote in the exact same way but change the name full part into alive baby inside pregnant woman or short baby and the name empty part into everything inside the pregnant woman except the alive baby or short rest.
Then we get this and it’s not what we are supposed to get.

A = baby
B = rest
C = “a living thing”

and if we figure out that A NOT= C then we MAY always conclude that B NOT=C as well.

That makes it that “living” is never a quality that can be given to either baby or rest

That is the reason that your “proof” is fails

Not what we were supposed to get.

Ok. I think you may have misread this part - "and if we figure out that A NOT= C then we MAY always conclude that B NOT=C as well. "

The word is MAY, I even wrote it in capitals to make sure that I emphasised that fact that the word is “may” and specifically NOT “must always” which is what you accidentally read it as (for clarity “may” means that it CAN be, but is not necessarily in all cases).

So, try again.

Since it is your your own logic that shows that your “proof” fails. I take it that you now understand that your “proof” does not work correct?

The baby is indeed not that living thing called the mother or the sumquality but that doesn’t mean that it cannot be alive.
And so the only thing failing is your denial for exceptions that i wrote clearly in my previous post and that makes everything i wrote still correct.

Correct, so in the case of the mother and baby

A + B = C

A = C
AND
B = C

Other options for other cases are

The Cat in room B.

A + B = C

A NOT= C
AND
B=C

The Cat in room A.

A + B = C

A = C
AND
B NOT= C

**The “tworoomhouseness” of the two rooms together. ** (or the “empty” and “full” parts of a person.)

A + B = C

A NOT= C
AND
B NOT= C

BUT, and here is the important part. For your proof to work the last one MUST be IMPOSSIBLE. That is what your proof depends upon. You have already acknowledged that this is false. So you have already shown that your proof fails.

 

[Neverbeendead]

Ok. I think you may have misread this part - "and if we figure out that A NOT= C then we MAY always conclude that B NOT=C as well. "

The word is MAY, I even wrote it in capitals to make sure that I emphasised that fact that the word is “may” and specifically NOT “must always” which is what you accidentally read it as (for clarity “may” means that it CAN be, but is not necessarily in all cases).

So, try again.

Since it is your your own logic that shows that your “proof” fails. I take it that you now understand that your “proof” does not work correct?

Correct, so in the case of the mother and baby

Other options for other cases are

The Cat in room B.

The Cat in room A.

**The “tworoomhouseness” of the two rooms together. **(or the “empty” and “full” parts of a person.)

BUT, and here is the important part. For your proof to work the last one MUST be IMPOSSIBLE. That is what your proof depends upon. You have already acknowledged that this is false. So you have already shown that your proof fails.

The reason that the word may is there is because there is one exception to your theory that the sumquality of a sum is a quality that a part of that sum can never have.
It’s when there is the adding with zero or adding with nothing

5 + 0 = 5
where a part of the sum has all the qualities, including the sumquality, of the sum because they turn out to be one and the same.

So if you want to eliminate my word may it becomes:
and if we figure out that A NOT= C and A NOT= 0 or NOT= nothing then we must always conclude that B NOT=C as well.
It is one exception, that you didn’t see, but i did not need to mention that because it isn’t of any consequence to all the correct things i’ve written. Some people even claim that adding nothing to something isn’t adding at all but it can be written down as such so it can be called the exception.
That’s why i’m gonna have to write a new post to get you more in touch with my correct logic.

 

[Neverbeendead]

And so a little task for Candide about some stuff i’ve written down and that he has always left untouched for obvious reasons.

A house has only two rooms in it and there is only one living thing in the house,a cat.
A person gets this information and for the time being trusts it and is only allowed to check one room of his own choice. He makes his choice and finds no cat and says: Well, there is no life going on in this room so if there really is life going on inside this tworoomhouse, the only thing left to conclude in a correct way is that there’s life going on in the other room because that’s where the alive cat is.

So now you may tell me why this guy may have come to the wrong conclusion when he for the time being was trusting information that told him about life going on inside a tworoomhouse, life that he concluded inside the only other part of the tworoomhouse because it wasn’t inside the part of the house that he had checked.

 

[ThinkingSapien]

So now you may tell me why this guy may have come to the wrong conclusion

Because he’s constructed a false dichotomy in thinking that the cat must be in room A or B. In reality there are other possibilities (there may not be a cat, the cat may not be in the house, the cat may be in the house but hidden, so on…). I think you may have done the same though. Because you’ve not been able to identify any “part” of an organism that is responsible for life you’ve concluded that it must be in the negative space. Not because you’ve encountered something that confirms it’s there, but only because you’ve not “seen” it in what you’ve looked at.

 

[Candide_West]

Sigh, this conversation is becoming exhausting. But don’t worry Neverbeendead. I’m a very determined person and I won’t give up on you. I’m confident we’ll get there eventually.

The reason that the word may is there is because there is one exception to your theory that the sumquality of a sum is a quality that a part of that sum can never have.

But that is NOT my theory. I have specifically stated that a property of the parts together CAN be a property of all of the parts. OR it can be a property of one or more of the parts. OR it can be an emergent property and thus NOT a property of any of the parts. Perhaps you accidentally didn’t read this part of my last post…

so in the case of the mother and baby

Quote:
A + B = C*

A = C
AND
B = C
Other options for other cases are

The Cat in room B.
Quote:
A + B = C*

A NOT= C
AND
B=C

The Cat in room A.
Quote:
A + B = C*

A = C
AND
B NOT= C

The “tworoomhouseness” of the two rooms together. (or the “empty” and “full” parts of a person.)
Quote:
A + B = C*

A NOT= C
AND
B NOT= C

It’s when there is the adding with zero or adding with nothing
*
5 + 0 = 5
where a part of the sum has all the qualities, including the sumquality, of the sum because they turn out to be one and the same.

Right which is the same as the two cat examples I gave above.
*

So if you want to eliminate my word may it becomes:
and if we figure out that A NOT= C and A NOT= 0 or NOT= nothing then we must always conclude that B NOT=C as well.

But if you eliminate “may” then the statement becomes incorrect. So that seems like a silly thing to do.

It is one exception, that you didn’t see, but i did not need to mention that because it isn’t of any consequence to all the correct things i’ve written.*

No, I did see it. In fact I specifically stated it in my previous post. But you are right, that isn’t the reason that your “proof” fails.*

The reason it fails is because of the last case where

A + B = C*

A NOT= C
AND
B NOT= C

You can do it mathematically if you like too. Where*

A=2
B=3
C=5

You see how neither A, nor B are equal to C. But when you add them together they are. This is the equivalent of the “tworoomhouseness” or the “being alive” of the living body.

Essentially in your “proof” you have said*

“Empty” and “full” together make up a living body.
A + B = C*
(2 + 3 = 5)

“full” part in itself isn’t a living body.
A NOT=C
(2 NOT=5)

Therefore “empty” part is a living body.
B = C
(3 = 5)

Some people even claim that adding nothing to something isn’t adding at all but it can be written down as such so it can be called the exception.
That’s why i’m gonna have to write a new post to get you more in touch with my correct logic.

It’s not the correct part of your logic which is the problem. But your incorrect logic in pretending that emergent properties are not possible when you have yourself established that they are.

 

[Neverbeendead]

Sigh, this conversation is becoming exhausting. But don’t worry Neverbeendead. I’m a very determined person and I won’t give up on you. I’m confident we’ll get there eventually.

But that is NOT my theory. I have specifically stated that a property of the parts together CAN be a property of all of the parts. OR it can be a property of one or more of the parts. OR it can be an emergent property and thus NOT a property of any of the parts. Perhaps you accidentally didn’t read this part of my last post…

Right which is the same as the two cat examples I gave above.
*

But if you eliminate “may” then the statement becomes incorrect. So that seems like a silly thing to do.

No, I did see it. In fact I specifically stated it in my previous post. But you are right, that isn’t the reason that your “proof” fails.*

The reason it fails is because of the last case where

A + B = C*

A NOT= C
AND
B NOT= C

You can do it mathematically if you like too. Where*

A=2
B=3
C=5

You see how neither A, nor B are equal to C. But when you add them together they are. This is the equivalent of the “tworoomhouseness” or the “being alive” of the living body.

Essentially in your “proof” you have said*

“Empty” and “full” together make up a living body.
A + B = C*
(2 + 3 = 5)

“full” part in itself isn’t a living body.
A NOT=C
(2 NOT=5)

Therefore “empty” part is a living body.
B = C
(3 = 5)

It’s not the correct part of your logic which is the problem. But your incorrect logic in pretending that emergent properties are not possible when you have yourself established that they are.

The reason why your theory is that any quality of a sum is always only the quality of a sum and never of one, more or all parts of a sum (which relates to sumquality theory) is because you claim that finding life inside a body is restricted to finding it in the whole body and never in one of the parts because the parts on their own do not have that emergent quality of finding life inside them. So when a guy cuts of a foot and throws it away he has turned his ‘emergent whole living body’ into two parts and now would no longer be able to find life in only one of the two remaining parts. But he can because finding life inside a whole body is not about finding an emergent property restricted only to finding it in the whole body. And when you claim that something that can be found in a part can only be found in the sum you claim equally wrong that all things that can be found in a part can only be found in the sum. Or that the sumquality is even true for all other qualities of a sum since there aren’t any exceptions to the sumquality theory. Because you claim that i am wrong when i point out that life needs to be found inside the empty part of a living body after having figured out that it cannot be found in the full part.

 

[Candide_West]

The reason why your theory is that any quality of a sum is always only the quality of a sum and never of one, more or all parts of a sum (which relates to sumquality theory) is because you claim that finding life inside a body is restricted to finding it in the whole body and never in one of the parts because the parts on their own do not have that emergent quality of finding life inside them.

No, I keep saying again and again, “sumquality” CAN be a property of all of the constituent parts. OR it can be a property of one or more of the parts. OR it can be a property of none of the parts (but is emergent when all of them are put together).

I have never said that “sumquality”* can ONLY be a property of the whole.*

Again, none of this is why your “proof” fails.*

So when a guy cuts of a foot and throws it away he has turned his ‘emergent whole living body’ into two parts and now would no longer be able to find life in only one of the two remaining parts.

Right, so when we are talking about cutting a living thing it to pieces we can (again) see each of the cases I talked about.

so in the case cutting a planarian in half. (A is one half, B is the other half, and C is "alive ").

Quote:
A + B = C*

A = C
AND
B = C

The cutting off a persons foot (A is the foot, B is the rest of the body and C is “alive”).
Quote:
A + B = C*

A NOT= C
AND
B=C

And cutting a person in half, straight down the middle (A is right half, B is left half and C is “alive”).
Quote:
A + B = C*

A NOT= C
AND
B NOT= C

But he can because finding life inside a whole body is not about finding an emergent property restricted only to finding it in the whole body.*

Exactly, so this the middle case from the above. Where only one part is alive.*

However, if instead of cutting off a mans foot, you cut out all the “empty spaces” in his body. You’d have separated him into a volume of vacuum and a super dense block much smaller than 1mm cubed. Neither of these would exhibit any characteristics which we would use to describe something which is living.

This would be like the third case above, where you have separated the man into “left” and “right” parts of his body.*

And when you claim that something that can be found in a part can only be found in the sum you claim equally wrong that all things that can be found in a part can only be found in the sum. Or that the sumquality is even true for all other qualities of a sum since there aren’t any exceptions to the sumquality theory.*

But again, I’ve never claimed these things. In fact I’ve explicitly stated that these things are false. You seem to be in violent agreement with me about this point.

Because you claim that i am wrong when i point out that life needs to be found inside the empty part of a living body after having figured out that it cannot be found in the full part.

Yes, that’s correct, your error is in thinking that the last case (where

A + B = C*

A NOT= C
AND
B NOT= C

Is impossible.*

That is what your “proof” depends upon and it is not correct. As your own logic demonstrated.

I’m struggling to see what part of this you are finding so difficult to understand or why you keep arguing against a position that nobody (on this thread at least) holds. Maybe it would help if you worked your way through the*

A + B = C*

A NOT= C
AND
B NOT= C

Case where A = empty part and B = full part and C = living thing. In the same way you did for the two room house.*

 

[Neverbeendead]

When i formulated my proof in a logical and correct way you were only willing to agree up to a certain point. So let’s go to that point again first and formulate further in a way you understand better.
You agreed that life can’t take place inside a body that hasn’t got a single empty space inside.
Out of that agreement followed your agreement that there is at least one empty space inside a living body.
Out of that agreement followed your agreement that it is correct to define two parts in a living body.
The empty part is the group of all empty spaces inside a living body and the full part is all the rest inside a living body or everything else that hasn’t got a single empty space inside.
Out of that agreement followed your agreement that life can’t take place inside the full part because life can’t take place inside a body that hasn’t got a single empty space inside.
Now what happens when we focus on the empty part.
What if the next question to solve is: can life take place inside the empty part?
The answer is also simple: No because only emptiness takes place inside emptiness.
I’m sure you are willing to agree to this as well and so a living body has two parts in it and are as such the only two parts in it, the full part and the empty part.
You can’t find life inside the full part and you can’t find life inside the empty part because logic says so.

In short you agreed that these two parts, which together are a complete living body, are not able to have life going on inside them except when you look at the full and the empty part as a whole.

Then you would say that this is not a problem because it is not because you can’t find life in one part of a living body and can’t find life in the only other part of that living body that you can’t find life in the two parts together.
Because you go looking to find life in one part of the body, can’t find it, then go looking to find life in the only other part of the body, can’t find it, then go looking to find life inside the two parts together and then you say that that’s when you can find life because that’s when you start looking in the places you had not yet been to go looking for life.
It’s okay if you believes in nonsense like that, i don’t and i have my reasons because the title of this topic is still far from nonsense just like all the rest i wrote.