As for premise 1, by imagine a contradiction/something, I mean entirely mentally represent what is meant by it, as apposed to uttering a string of symbols alleged to mean something.
I can imagine the sentences: "This sentence is false" (which btw has an indeterminate truth value), "It is raining and it is not the case that it is raining", but cannot imagine what they mean as there they have no meaning there to imagine. And if the language were altered so that they meant something, then they would no longer be contradictions.
You have probably ran into people who believe that "If something can't be imagined, the it is a contradiction". That of course is a fallacy. We can only draw a picture of 4-d beings onto our 2-d mental visual canvases as we as a 2-d person can draw a picture of a cube onto her 1-d mental canvas. We cannot imagine the universe as described by various competing physics theories but these are not contradictions.
Any way, You can imagine the existence of contradictory sentences (there existence is not a contradiction) but you cannot imagine what they mean as they are meaningless. Thus it premise 1 that "If something is a contradiction, then it is not imaginable" follows, and from that A>B -> ~B>~A; "If something is imaginable, then it is not a contradiction" follows. Notice that that is not the same as the fallacy A>B -> B>A "If something can't be imagined, then it is a contradiction". My argument does not prove (and was never intended to prove) that space exist, only that there is no contradiction in it existing; The universe could have existed even had there been no God or other life to observe it (and may very well have done just that before the first inhabitants evolved even if there are other universes).
I'll get around to that, but don't hold your breath, I must sleep now for my 4 Grave Yard shift over the weekend, and I'm behind in class, That a pretty big part of why I'm not here too often.QuantumTroll wrote:Tell us more about your 4 irreducible substances. That sounds very interesting.