[The One and Only...]

Originally Posted by kellychaos

Much of logic was develop by Aristotle and is based on truth tables, diagrams, ect. Much of the rigorous thereoms of mathematics are proven in the "if then" structure of logical inductive proofs because it's the way Nature has conditioned our minds to think. I'd even add that our minds, being a part of nature, have evolved to think most naturally, in this (mostly) "black and white" world of logic. I have to hear any convincing ... nay, valid ... logical arguments about the metaphysical in which some concept of "faith" wasn't involved.

Your confusing the concept of logic with the process of logic. Logic, as it is defined, does not necessarily have to be bound by natural laws.

Originally Posted by The One and Only...

Time is not a separate entity. Even the way in which we measure time has changed according to the civilization that you're talking about. Some based time on a lunar calendar, some on a solar calendar. You could have then broken these time systems down in any number of ways based on the number system that your civilization used. The way in which people mark time is based on the "cause and effect" of the planets. The way in which people chose to break this down into numbers is merely arbitrary. Most societies chose a base-ten number system because the have ten "digits" ... like, your fingers, man. What has that have to do with time at all?

I'm not following this. Time is merely what events pass through in the natural world. That does not mean that events must be caused.

Originally Posted by The One and Only...

The basic ingredients of the planet at it's original state ... throw in some physical laws ... and, yes, throw in a little probability ... and you have both the way our planet and ourselves evolved. I'd say that the planet has more to do with the way we evolved than any dent we could make the other way around ... and when we're gone, the planet will hardly remember our existence at all. The way in which we evolved wasn't predistined ... such is the flavor I'm getting from your writing. The path we, or the world, took could have been changed completely by just the change of a few insignificant variables.

True, but what I am saying is that it is unprobable that we would have naturally evolved to a superior state that matched the capabilities we have gained with technology had we never made technological advancements.

Originally Posted by The One and Only...

Wha? Prove it! For want of a nail, another OAO kingdom has fallen.

I already pointed out that the argument only works if you accept the first premise. You don't have to do so - but, so far as we can tell, it would seem that all things are caused by virtue of an extremely large induction.

There are very few things which can be proven beyond a doubt.