Shadow thread for MOA H2H Debate

[rikuoamero]

As the title says, this is a shadow thread for the Head-to-Head debate currently in progress here
viewtopic.php?t=32046

Other than this post, I will NOT interact with this thread. I merely wanted to provide a set space for discussion on the debate for other users.

[Bust Nak]

It appears to me that you simply aren't paying attention to what I've been saying all along.

So you basically end up using the fact that #4 is false...

YOU ARE DOING IT AGAIN - step #4 is NOT FALSE.

I have always agreed with this in terms of pure imaginary logic that is totally detached from the real world!

Whatever gave you the impression that I wasn't paying attention? I KNOW you have always agreed with this in terms of pure imaginary logic. I specifically addressed that. Recall if you will, I said that was not good enough. Step #4 is true fullstop, it is true is this world, and in every possible world. It appears it is you who haven't been paying attention to my post.

If we didn't have the real world to point to, then there is no way that we could falsify step #4.

We have the real world to point to, and we STILL cannot falsify step #4. Because it is true. Listen careful to what I am saying here.

Step #4 is not "false" in and of itself as a purely logical statement. It's only false when we actually LOOK at the real world and recognize that this is a false statement about our world.

NO, step #4 is not false at all. LOOK at the real world and recognize that this is a 100% true statement about our world.

But how do you PROVE that #1 is false without referencing the REAL WORLD?

Don't know. Does referencing what I can imagine in my head, in the REAL WORLD, counts as referencing the REAL WORLD? To be more explicit I offer this example: Currently, sitting in my chair, at my desk, in the REAL WORLD, I am imagining that I am flying in the sky like superman. Is that referencing the REAL WORLD?

And until you do, then you absolutely NEED to show that step #4 is false (because our world exists!) thus proving by contradiction that #1 necessarily must have been false.

How about I show you how to do that from #3 instead?

What is your justification for demanding that #1 is false?

By generating a contradiction by assuming both #1 and #3.

And keep in mind here that if you use the observation that our world is not benevolent in any way, then you have basically used #4 to prove that #1 is false.

And the only way you can do that is to show that #4 is indeed false.

That's where you are wrong. I can use the observation that our world is not benevolent in any way, I can basically use #4 to prove that #1 is false, WITHOUT showing #4 is false.

Excuse me, but that has NEVER been by position at any point of our conversation!

Then why did you bring it up?

My position is precisely the opposite. We can't ignore the real world in this particular argument because this particular argument is making statements specifically about our world (i.e. in Step #4)

Again, I point you back to one of my earlier point, I am not asking you to ignore real world, I am asking you not to ignore logic. No where have I even hinted at ignoring the real world, indeed I called you out before for attacking a strawman.

And keep in mind that other perfectly "logically sound" arguments can be made for the existence of worlds that our totally different from our world. In those cases you have no choice but to ignore our world because those arguments aren't claiming to make any statement about our world.

Why would you think that? I don't have to ignore anything about our world to entertain String Theory now, do I?

You can't dismiss argument #1 in the MOA without basically using #4 anyway.

Of course I can.

And you haven't shown how that could be done.

You seemed to have missed it, I mentioned a possible world with no beings, remember?

I'm waiting for you to actually SHOW that this is the case. Demonstrate to me how you can dismiss #1 and #3 WITHOUT referencing the real world.

Let me repeat it here in a formalised way for your convenience:

1) Assume MGB is possible. (corresponding to premise 1 in the MOA)
2) If MGB is possible then MGB exists in some possible world.
3) Assume that if MGB exists in some possible world then MGB exists in every possible world. (corresponding to premise 3 in the MOA)
4) A world with no beings is a possible world, let label this world X.
5) MGB exist in X. (from 3)
6) MGB does not exist in X. (from 4)
7) Logical contradiction from 5 and 6 means either MGB is not possible or it is not the case that if MGB exist in some possible world then MGB exists in every possible world (or both.)

And if you can't do that, then you aren't using "pure thought reasons" to reject these premises. Instead you are using the science of observing the actual physical world to draw your conclusions from.

There is nothing wrong with using the science of observing the actual physical world to draw your conclusions from. Note how that is different from call an argument invalid because its conclusion does not match your observation of the actual physical world.

Apparently you haven't been listening to a word I've said from the very beginning. I too agree that the MOA would be hard to dismiss if not for #4 where it actually makes statements about the real world.

I think were you and I ultimately disagree is on step #2. It totally do not accept that if something is "possible" then it necessarily must exist in some world. I hold that just because something is possible doesn't mean that it has to exist.

That's is not up for debate. It's axiomic.

It's certainly possible that I could have married Catherine Zeta-Jones. But that doesn't mean that there MUST BE a world out there where Catherine Zeta-Jones is my wife.

Actually it does mean that by definition. There is a possible world where Catherine Zeta-Jones is your wife. There is another world where Catherine Zeta-Jones is mine.

So I'm not even saying that you are wrong. If this is a principle of Modal Logic, then I reject Modal Logic.

I totally reject step #2 as being taken as necessarily "TRUE". Rule or not. If this is a axiom of Modal Logic, then I reject Modal Logic. Pure and simple.

So how do we go about fixing that?

In fact, I just looked up Modal Logic on Wiki and in their very first paragraph they answer this question and demonstrate that I am RIGHT!

Modal Logic

Modal logic is a type of formal logic primarily developed in the 1960s that extends classical propositional and predicate logic to include operators expressing modality. A modal—a word that expresses a modality—qualifies a statement. For example, the statement "John is happy" might be qualified by saying that John is usually happy, in which case the term "usually" is functioning as a modal. The traditional alethic modalities, or modalities of truth, include possibility ("Possibly, p", "It is possible that p"), necessity ("Necessarily, p", "It is necessary that p"), and impossibility ("Impossibly, p", "It is impossible that p").[1] Other modalities that have been formalized in modal logic include temporal modalities, or modalities of time (notably, "It was the case that p", "It has always been that p", "It will be that p", "It will always be that p"),[2][3] deontic modalities (notably, "It is obligatory that p", and "It is permissible that p"), epistemic modalities, or modalities of knowledge ("It is known that p")[4] and doxastic modalities, or modalities of belief ("It is believed that p").[5]

A formal modal logic represents modalities using modal operators. For example, "It might rain today" and "It is possible that rain will fall today" both contain the notion of possibility. In a modal logic this is represented as an operator, "Possibly", attached to the sentence "It will rain today".

Read the above.

P being "Possible" is NOT THE SAME as p being "necessary"!

So far so good. It might rain today means that in some possible worlds it WILL rain; It might not rain today means in some other possible worlds it WILL NOT rain today. Pretty simple.

So I'm right about step #2 in the MOA anyway. Just because the MGB is "possible" it does not follow that it must then actually exist in some possible world.

I have no idea how you jump from to above this this.

Because being "possible" IS NOT THE SAME as being "necessary"

Correct, but that does not support your claim in any way.

But now you've caused me to actually look this up to be sure, and now I found the formal Modal Logic AGREES WITH ME.

Hell no. Try reading the whole article?

It claims in step #2 that if something is possible it must exist in some possible world. That's baloney. It would need to be "necessary" for that to be true, not merely "possible".

Incorrect. It only needed to be possible to exist in SOME possible worlds. "Necessary" means exists in ALL possible worlds. Sure, this is one step beyond basic logic but hardly difficult to grasp.

PS, I noticed you didn't attempt my challenge.

[Divine Insight]

Let me repeat it here in a formalised way for your convenience:

1) Assume MGB is possible. (corresponding to premise 1 in the MOA)
2) If MGB is possible then MGB exists in some possible world.
3) Assume that if MGB exists in some possible world then MGB exists in every possible world. (corresponding to premise 3 in the MOA)
4) A world with no beings is a possible world, let label this world X.
5) MGB exist in X. (from 3)
6) MGB does not exist in X. (from 4)
7) Logical contradiction from 5 and 6 means either MGB is not possible or it is not the case that if MGB exist in some possible world then MGB exists in every possible world (or both.)

But what you are doing here is PROVING that PURE ARBITRARY LOGIC can NEVER get you anywhere.

In your step #4 above you are "creating" a totally imaginary world. You could have just as easily proclaimed that it's "possible" that a malevolent world exists.

What good is logic that is based upon totally imaginary worlds that can't be demonstrated to exist?

How can you be sure that a world with no beings is even possible? Perhaps our world is "observer created" and cannot exist if there are no observers. If that's the case, then a world with no beings may very well be impossible as well. So you don't even have any justification for your claim that a world with no beings is "possible", must less that it actually exists.

Pure logic that is based on totally arbitrary claims of "possible" worlds that haven't even been shown to exist, is utterly meaningless.

Just because you THINK you can imagine such a world doesn't mean that such a world is even possible. Perhaps your THINKING hasn't considered reasons why such a world might actually be impossible.

So playing around with "pure logic" using totally arbitrary premises that themselves haven't been fully fleshed out is not going to be very dependable at all.

If you are arguing for that "pure logic" is somehow meaningful, then I definitely disagree with that sentiment. And my main reason for rejecting this is precisely because you can assert totally arbitrary premises without having any need to show why they are valid. Just like your claim that a world with no beings is "possible". How do you know that?

I think were you and I ultimately disagree is on step #2. It totally do not accept that if something is "possible" then it necessarily must exist in some world. I hold that just because something is possible doesn't mean that it has to exist.

That's is not up for debate. It's axiomic.

Wrong. I've already linked to the Wikipedia on Modal Logic. Being "possible" does not mean that something has to exist.

But now you've caused me to actually look this up to be sure, and now I found the formal Modal Logic AGREES WITH ME.

Hell no. Try reading the whole article?

There is nothing in that article that disagrees with my position.

It even speaks of the difference between "Physical Possibility", and "Metaphysical Possibility".

The MOA argument for #2 can only be valid for metaphysical possibilities.

But in step #4 the MOA DEMANDS that it is including "physical possibilities'.

So once again it's not until you get to step #4 that there is a problem. If the MOA never required that our world be included then it would be fine. Although the MOA would still have problems in that it defined its MGB as being "omnipresent" which appears to require that this MGB must then exist in all possible world (which is precisely what Step #4 for attempting to establish).

It seems to me that you and I actually are in agreement on everything then.

The MOA would not be problematic if our world didn't exist. But then it would be a totally "metaphysical argument" which would be totally useless and meaningless.

In fact, this is why purely metaphysical arguments are meaningless. If you can't verify them or rebuke them using the real world, then what's the difference whether they are "logically sound" or not.

Like you say these are just MADE UP AXIOMS, anyway.

We "invented Modal Logic" and we invented the axioms that we have bestowed upon it.

There is no reason to believe that any "metaphysical worlds" described by Modal Logic actually exist anywhere other than in our own imagination. An imagination that can actually be horribly FLAWED.

Just because we made up an AXIOM doesn't make it a "Truth of Reality".

You can't dismiss the MOA based on your claim that a world without beings is "possible". How do you know that's true?

How do you know that it's possible for a world to exist devoid of any "beings"?

You don't. Just because you think you can imagine such a place doesn't mean that it has to be "possible".

[Divine Insight]

It's certainly possible that I could have married Catherine Zeta-Jones. But that doesn't mean that there MUST BE a world out there where Catherine Zeta-Jones is my wife.

Actually it does mean that by definition. There is a possible world where Catherine Zeta-Jones is your wife. There is another world where Catherine Zeta-Jones is mine.

Actually if this is true of Modal Logic, then Modal Logic is virtually useless. It's nothing more than totally metaphysical "speculation".

If Modal Logic DEMANDS that there needs to exist ACTUAL WORLDS where every man is married to Catherine Zeta-Jones then I highly question the the validity of this MAN-MADE formalism of reasoning.

All you're doing here is giving me really good reasons to reject Modal Logic entirely.

Assuming that you are correctly representing what it actually stands for, which I seriously doubt. More than likely you aren't paying attention to the DETAILS.

In fact, I would suggest that where you are failing to pay attention in modal logic is the difference between "Physical Possibility" and "Metaphysical Possibility".

You might think that countless universes where Catherine Zeta Jones is married to a different man in everyone of these universes is certainly a physical "possibility".

But it's not a physical "necessity". And just because it's physically "possible" doesn't mean that those actual physical universes then need to exist.

If you think Modal Logic is saying that those physical universes need to exist I suggest you study Modal Logic more closely. I doubt very seriously that it is demanding this. And if it does demand this then it's an extremely flawed formalism to be sure.

[benchwarmer]

a) IF Hillary won the election, THEN she WOULD BE the first female US president.

Right, there is a second part to this, what would you say to a person who insist that (a) is false, with the justification that goes alone the lines of "Hillary is not the first female US president in reality?"

I would say to that person that the fact that Hillary is not currently the first female US president in reality has nothing to do with (a) being false. (a) cannot be 'false'. (a) can only be 'incorrect'. As in "winning the election will not actually make you POTUS".

(a) has a built in 'truth table'. i.e. if x then y. In other words if !x then !y

If someone wants to argue that winning the election won't make someone POTUS, then they will have to take that up with the US electoral college (or whoever makes the actual decision - I'm not a US citizen so my knowledge is lacking here).

They will then have to provide a revised (a) that is correct in order to continue the conversation.

Perhaps I misunderstand your question?

[benchwarmer]

It's certainly possible that I could have married Catherine Zeta-Jones. But that doesn't mean that there MUST BE a world out there where Catherine Zeta-Jones is my wife.

Actually it does mean that by definition. There is a possible world where Catherine Zeta-Jones is your wife. There is another world where Catherine Zeta-Jones is mine.

Actually if this is true of Modal Logic, then Modal Logic is virtually useless. It's nothing more than totally metaphysical "speculation".

Sorry guys, you're both wrong. She's currently chilling with Blastcat last I saw. I never thought the cat would put a ring on it and share the bling, but whatareyougonnado?

(sorry, couldn't resist)

[Bust Nak]

But what you are doing here is PROVING that PURE ARBITRARY LOGIC can NEVER get you anywhere.

In your step #4 above you are "creating" a totally imaginary world. You could have just as easily proclaimed that it's "possible" that a malevolent world exists.

I could, but how would that help my case against the MOA?

What good is logic that is based upon totally imaginary worlds that can't be demonstrated to exist?

They can be use to prove things about our world.

How can you be sure that a world with no beings is even possible?

Because I am imagining one right now.

Perhaps our world is "observer created" and cannot exist if there are no observers. If that's the case, then a world with no beings may very well be impossible as well.

Why would that be the case? Our world could be "observer created" and yet there can still be other possible worlds that are not "observer created."

Pure logic that is based on totally arbitrary claims of "possible" worlds that haven't even been shown to exist, is utterly meaningless.

Just because you THINK you can imagine such a world doesn't mean that such a world is even possible. Perhaps your THINKING hasn't considered reasons why such a world might actually be impossible.

Try and imagine one for yourself, a world with no beings. Can't you do it? I am guessing you can, so are you imagining something that you THINK is possible, but is in fact impossible?

So playing around with "pure logic" using totally arbitrary premises that themselves haven't been fully fleshed out is not going to be very dependable at all.

At worse I have demonstrate that the MOA is question begging, whether MGB can be proven to exists or not, depends entirely on whether the MGB the author wants you to THINK you can imagine, is actually imaginable or not. Job done, all without touching step #4.

If you are arguing for that "pure logic" is somehow meaningful, then I definitely disagree with that sentiment.

Meaningful? That's progress, just yesterday you were saying pure logic cannot get to the truth. Sounds like you are conceding that it can get to meaningless truths?

And my main reason for rejecting this is precisely because you can assert totally arbitrary premises without having any need to show why they are valid. Just like your claim that a world with no beings is "possible". How do you know that?

By imagining it. Try it for yourself. You already know the difference between Catherine Zeta-Jones being your wife and a married bachelor. You can imagine the first but you cannot imagine the latter, right?

Wrong. I've already linked to the Wikipedia on Modal Logic. Being "possible" does not mean that something has to exist.

Correct, but irrelevant. No where have I suggested or implied that being "possible" means that something has to exist. Step #2 doesn't say anything like that.

There is nothing in that article that disagrees with my position.

There is nothing in that article that agrees with you re: step #2.

Were you perhaps under the impression that "existing in a possible world" means the same thing as "existing" fullstop?

It even speaks of the difference between "Physical Possibility", and "Metaphysical Possibility".

The MOA argument for #2 can only be valid for metaphysical possibilities.

Sure, what of it? I mentioned a possible world where you are flying to the next galaxy in one minute without aid, did that sound like I was talking about physical possibility?

But in step #4 the MOA DEMANDS that it is including "physical possibilities'.

Kinda, step #4 is still talking about metaphysical possibilities, it's just that metaphysical necessity, is also necessity in the physical world.

So once again it's not until you get to step #4 that there is a problem. If the MOA never required that our world be included then it would be fine. Although the MOA would still have problems in that it defined its MGB as being "omnipresent" which appears to require that this MGB must then exist in all possible world (which is precisely what Step #4 for attempting to establish).

No, omnipresent is about location in one particular world. A god can be everywhere in one world, that doesn't imply that god is in every world.

In fact, this is why purely metaphysical arguments are meaningless. If you can't verify them or rebuke them using the real world, then what's the difference whether they are "logically sound" or not.

Truth and rationality is very important to me. Isn't it to you?

Like you say these are just MADE UP AXIOMS, anyway.

We "invented Modal Logic" and we invented the axioms that we have bestowed upon it.

There is no reason to believe that any "metaphysical worlds" described by Modal Logic actually exist anywhere other than in our own imagination. An imagination that can actually be horribly FLAWED.

Where else do you think other possible worlds could exist, if not in our imagination?! It's quite surreal what you are saying here. Were you under the impression that other possible worlds were supposed to actually exist? I have to ask because actual existence means OUR WORLD. Surely you weren't thinking of "world" as in planets?

Just because we made up an AXIOM doesn't make it a "Truth of Reality".

Same example as before. I am right now as I type this, in front of my PC, imagining I am flying like superman. Is "Bust Nak is imagining he is flying" a true statement, a falsehood, or neither? If it is a true statement, how is different from a truth of reality?

You can't dismiss the MOA based on your claim that a world without beings is "possible". How do you know that's true?

How do you know that it's possible for a world to exist devoid of any "beings"?

Because I've just imagined it.

You don't. Just because you think you can imagine such a place doesn't mean that it has to be "possible".

Verify it for yourself, imagine.

I noticed you still haven't addressed my challenge re: the truth value of conditional statements.

[wiploc]

(a) has a built in 'truth table'. i.e. if x then y. In other words if !x then !y

If y is always true, then "if x then y" will be true too. What you wanted to say is that if x then y therefore if !y then !x.

[Bust Nak]

Actually if this is true of Modal Logic, then Modal Logic is virtually useless. It's nothing more than totally metaphysical "speculation".

Metaphysical "speculation" has uses in the real world. Look no further than semiconductors and imaginary numbers. Besides, modal logic can be far more concrete than that. Does reasoning about the possibility of rain like the wiki example, sound like useless metaphysical claims without applications to you?

If Modal Logic DEMANDS that there needs to exist ACTUAL WORLDS...

What's this about needing to exist actual worlds? There is only one ACTUAL WORLD, our world, which is one possible worlds out of many. I have no idea what misconception you have that lead to you make such a statement, with Catherine Zeta-Jones or otherwise.

In fact, I would suggest that where you are failing to pay attention in modal logic is the difference between "Physical Possibility" and "Metaphysical Possibility".

You might think that countless universes where Catherine Zeta Jones is married to a different man in everyone of these universes is certainly a physical "possibility".

But it's not a physical "necessity". And just because it's physically "possible" doesn't mean that those actual physical universes then need to exist.

What on Earth made you think that you need to point this out? Who has ever suggested that Catherine Zeta Jones being married to every man a physical necessity?

If you think Modal Logic is saying that those physical universes need to exist I suggest you study Modal Logic more closely. I doubt very seriously that it is demanding this. And if it does demand this then it's an extremely flawed formalism to be sure.

The question is why would you even think that I was hinting/suggesting/implying/saying anything along the lines of "physical universes need to exist."

[Bust Nak]

I would say to that person...

Perhaps I misunderstand your question?

No, that's the kind of answer I was fishing for. Divine Insight was saying (a) "If a MGB exists in every possible world, then it exists in the actual world" is somehow invalid/false because (b)" MGB does not exist in the actual world." You don't even need to be familiar with modal logic to know (a) is true. It functionally equivalent to the claim that "if a phone exists inside every house, then a phone exists in my house." No amount of phone searching could make that false.

[Divine Insight]

How can you be sure that a world with no beings is even possible?

Because I am imagining one right now.

How can you be sure that your imagination doesn't contain logical contradictions?

Perhaps our world is "observer created" and cannot exist if there are no observers. If that's the case, then a world with no beings may very well be impossible as well.

Why would that be the case? Our world could be "observer created" and yet there can still be other possible worlds that are not "observer created."

I have no clue why it would be the case that our universe would be "observer created". But I can't rule this possibility out either. So I'm stuck with it as a "possible" world in so far as I can tell. And according to you if it's possible then it must exist.

Also you claim that the can still be other "possible" worlds that are not "observer created". But how can you be so sure of that? How can you know that it's possible for a world to exist that isn't "observer created"?

You can't know that. For all you know "observer created" worlds are all that are "possible".

This is the problem with your idea of a totally arbitrary logical system. If you can claim that just anything is "possible", then according to you Modal Logic will support any arbitrary opinion you can come up with.

Try and imagine one for yourself, a world with no beings. Can't you do it? I am guessing you can, so are you imagining something that you THINK is possible, but is in fact impossible?

I can imagine a LOT of things that are impossible! Just because I can imagine something doesn't mean that it has to be possible. We already went through this before. I can imagine floating through the universe at faster than the speed of light in nothing but bluejeans and a T-shirt. But just because I can imagine doing this doesn't mean it must then be possible.

You are digging yourself into a deeper and deeper hole the more we converse on this topic.

Just because I can imagine something make it possible.

At worse I have demonstrate that the MOA is question begging, whether MGB can be proven to exists or not, depends entirely on whether the MGB the author wants you to THINK you can imagine, is actually imaginable or not. Job done, all without touching step #4.

According to YOU the MOA is perfectly fine if you take step #4 OUT of it. According to YOU all a person needs to do is be able to IMAGINE this world and it has to exist!

I can imagine a perfectly moral world, can you? I can also imagine that all worlds are perfectly moral, including ours. All I would need to do to accomplish that is to also imagine that every immoral act I ever thought I saw was nothing but a daydream and never really happened. I can imagine that too!

So according to you as long as I can imagineit, then it must be possible. And according to you, if it's possible, then it must exist.

You're never going to get anywhere with that line of thinking. You have Modal Logic all wrong if you think it can be used to support anything you can imagine.

Meaningful? That's progress, just yesterday you were saying pure logic cannot get to the truth. Sounds like you are conceding that it can get to meaningless truths?

Meaningless truths?

Would would that be? Things that are said to be true via the arbitrary axioms of a poorly-thought-out logical formalism?

Meaningless "truths" are exactly as described. Totally meaningless in any sense of the word.

So apparently you are the one who is conceding that Modal Logic produces "meaningless truths"?

And my main reason for rejecting this is precisely because you can assert totally arbitrary premises without having any need to show why they are valid. Just like your claim that a world with no beings is "possible". How do you know that? Think

By imagining it. Try it for yourself. You already know the difference between Catherine Zeta-Jones being your wife and a married bachelor. You can imagine the first but you cannot imagine the latter, right?

That's because the latter violates the definition of the terms.

The problem with trying to imagine a world with no beings is that you can't know if these concepts are mutually exclusive or not. The only possible worlds are "observer created" then it wouldn't be anymore possible to have a world with no beings than it would to have a married bachelor.

Just because you don't KNOW that a world without beings is impossible doesn't mean that can't be mutually exclusive in some way that you are simply unaware of. Just like the terms married and bachelor are mutually exclusive.

It sounds to me like you would just end up arguing semantics at that point.

Wrong. I've already linked to the Wikipedia on Modal Logic. Being "possible" does not mean that something has to exist.

Correct, but irrelevant. No where have I suggested or implied that being "possible" means that something has to exist. Step #2 doesn't say anything like that.

Sure it does. In fact, that's exactly what it says:

2. If it is possible that a maximally great being exists, then a maximally great being exists in some possible world.

That is simply not true. And I showed why Modal Logic does not support this statement.

You could argue that in a purely metaphysical argument one would assert that this must be the case. But remember when the MOA gets to step #4 any bets that it's speaking metaphorically are OFF.

This is why step #4 kills it. As soon as step #4 is introduced the argument can no longer claim to be a metaphysical argument and thus producing a "meaningless truth" as you had referred to previously. Meaningless truths are irrelevant to the real world.

There is nothing in that article that agrees with you re: step #2.

Were you perhaps under the impression that "existing in a possible world" means the same thing as "existing" fullstop?

I've already addressed this. In Modal Logic the difference between "Physical Possibility" and "Metaphysical possibility" has been covered.

see Modal Logic Physical vs. Metaphysical possibilities

Proponents of the MOA appear to be trying to MIX these two without acknowledging that they have clearly stepped over the boundary to the physical limitations in STEP #4.

Until they get to step #4 they could claim that they are speaking of Metaphysical Possibilities and not actual physical possibilities.

This is where their real ERROR lies.

That's what I've been stating.

You are trying to claim that you can prove their argument to be false even on purely metaphysical terms because you claim you can imagine a world with no beings thus violating their argument.

The problem is that you may as well have claimed to imagine a world that is not benevolent. That would work too.

In fact, you could even claim to imagine a world where the MGB does not exist!!!

If you claim that you can imagine such a world and that if you can imagine it, it must then be possible, then you can WIN ANY metaphysical Modal Logic argument by simply claiming that you can imagine something that would violate whatever they other person is arguing for.

This is why Pure Logic or "Pure Philosophy" is not only DEAD, but it's utterly absurd in any case. It's just arguments of the imagination. Basically nothing more than arguments of unsubstantiated opinions.

You claim that you can imagine a world with no beings, and therefore such a world must be POSSIBLE!

Sorry but that's just absurd.

Sure, what of it? I mentioned a possible world where you are flying to the next galaxy in one minute without aid, did that sound like I was talking about physical possibility?

EXACTLY MY POINT!

You are clearly making absolutely no distinction between metaphysical arguments and physical arguments.

I claim that purely metaphysical arguments are utterly meaningless. You may as well be playing the blues. You are doing nothing more than entertaining yourself.

The only arguments that can have any value or meaning at all are arguments about the real physical world. And the MOA DEMANDS that is is an argument about the real physical world in step #4.

I don't really see the point in arguing with you about this any further. Clearly you are mixing metaphysical arguments with physical arguments willy-nilly without acknowledging the difference between them.

You don't. Just because you think you can imagine such a place doesn't mean that it has to be "possible".

Verify it for yourself, imagine.

Just because you think you can imagine something doesn't mean that your imagination doesn't contain logical contradictions.

Many people believe that they can imagine a "Perfect Circle" or even a line that is an actual continuum. But in truth you really can't imagine either one of those things because they both require logical contradictions in order to exist ANYWHERE, even within your imagination.

So just because you think you can imagine something doesn't mean that the thing you believe to be imagination can actually exist without logical contradictions.

I noticed you still haven't addressed my challenge re: the truth value of conditional statements.

I don't recall seeing your challenge.

I posted the TRUTH TABLE for conditional statements. What more do you want?

There's only ONE WAY a conditional statement can be false. There are THREE ways it can be true. So be very careful when you assume the truth of a conditional statement because there are three ways it can be true.

You can find the truth table for conditional statements anywhere:

Here's one: