(July 15, 2013 at 10:42 am)Consilius Wrote: Everything that happens in our universe has a cause. Our understanding of cause and effect comes from every single one of our experiences on this planet, and everywhere else in our universe.
How, then, can the vessel of all cause and effect itself not follow the laws of cause and effect?

Because the law applicable in something doesn't necessarily apply to it.

But the parts of anything are what MAKE UP what it is. The whole doesn't have an element unique to its parts, because the whole IS the parts.

(July 16, 2013 at 12:38 am)Consilius Wrote: But the parts of anything are what MAKE UP what it is. The whole doesn't have an element unique to its parts, because the whole IS the parts.

....Annnnddd that's a fallacy of composition you're making.

(July 16, 2013 at 12:40 am)MindForgedManacle Wrote:

(July 16, 2013 at 12:38 am)Consilius Wrote: But the parts of anything are what MAKE UP what it is. The whole doesn't have an element unique to its parts, because the whole IS the parts.

....Annnnddd that's a fallacy of composition you're making.

What he said.

This would be a fallacy of composition if cause an effect was relevant to a single aspect of the universe. The problem here is that cause and effect is relevant to ALL aspects of the universe, which are ALL that the universe is.
Here's a practical example. I build a machine from entirely iron parts. The functioning machine will be entirely iron and, therefore, iron itself.

(July 16, 2013 at 1:43 am)Consilius Wrote: This would be a fallacy of composition if cause an effect was relevant to a single aspect of the universe. The problem here is that cause and effect is relevant to ALL aspects of the universe, which are ALL that the universe is.
Here's a practical example. I build a machine from entirely iron parts. The functioning machine will be entirely iron and, therefore, iron itself.

This just shows your ignorance of the fallacy.

The fallacy of composition arises when one infers that something is true of the whole from the fact that it is true of some part of the whole (or even of every proper part). For example: "This fragment of metal cannot be fractured with a hammer, therefore the machine of which is built entirely of such fragments cannot be fractured with a hammer."

Hence, once again, you are wrong.

If the stuff that joins the fragments can be fractured with a hammer, the machine will be able to be fractured with a hammer.
If the joints of these fragments are as unbreakable as the fragments themselves, the machine will not be able to be fractured.
The ability of our machine to be fractured comes from an element of it that CAN be fractured. A whole is only as good as its worst part.

(July 16, 2013 at 3:02 am)Consilius Wrote: If the stuff that joins the fragments can be fractured with a hammer, the machine will be able to be fractured with a hammer.
If the joints of these fragments are as unbreakable as the fragments themselves, the machine will not be able to be fractured.
The ability of our machine to be fractured comes from an element of it that CAN be fractured. A whole is only as good as its parts.

Incorrect. The joint may be unfracturable as well, the machine could still be fractured.

The bondage of joint and fragment must be unbreakable. If any fragment is separable from its joint, the joint has broken and is therefore breakable. The interconnection between all parts of the machine need to be unbreakable for the machine to be truly unbreakable. This linkage is also a part of what machine is.

(July 16, 2013 at 4:41 am)Consilius Wrote: The bondage of joint and fragment must be unbreakable. If any fragment is separable from its joint, the joint has broken and is therefore breakable. The interconnection between all parts of the machine need to be unbreakable for the machine to be truly unbreakable. This linkage is also a part of what machine is.

What linkage? Linkage was never part of the machine because I didn't put it there. Everything that is in the machine, however, is unbreakable.