Logical Absolutes: let's try it again
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
26-11-2014, 03:49 PM
RE: Logical Absolutes: let's try it again
agreed I think. I'll add: we, as human individuals, may have agreeing perceptions and theories of what A "is" objectively, based on experience and empirical information (again based on our current experience on how to observe and gather information), but we don't know it all yet (or perhaps never will). In relative terms, science has been around for a small fraction of human existence for things humans have been observing since.. well our existence. So, A is A in the objective sense of our current human experience, and remains A until human experience changes, then A may not be A. Since everything is always changing, then outside of human constructs, A may never indeed ever be A. But, for now in this instant and for what we as humans can agree upon at this instant, A is A.

"Spirituality was born to help humans with their mere existence." - i made it up.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
26-11-2014, 03:56 PM
RE: Logical Absolutes: let's try it again
(26-11-2014 03:49 PM)lotsolint Wrote:  agreed I think. I'll add: we, as human individuals, may have agreeing perceptions and theories of what A "is" objectively, based on experience and empirical information (again based on our current experience on how to observe and gather information), but we don't know it all yet (or perhaps never will). In relative terms, science has been around for a small fraction of human existence for things humans have been observing since.. well our existence. So, A is A in the objective sense of our current human experience, and remains A until human experience changes, then A may not be A. Since everything is always changing, then outside of human constructs, A may never indeed ever be A. But, for now in this instant and for what we as humans can agree upon at this instant, A is A.

I don't think I could disagree more.

As cjlr pointed out, the statement is getting to the definition of existence. We may not understand what some specific 'A' really is or we may think we understand but be totally wrong or we may not know that 'A' exists at all or we may have it pegged correctly. What we know or feel about A is totally irrelevant because A is still whatever it is and our impression or understanding doesn't affect that. A remains A.

Atheism: it's not just for communists any more!
America July 4 1776 - November 8 2016 RIP
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
26-11-2014, 04:53 PM
RE: Logical Absolutes: let's try it again
In your last sentence how does A, the one "we know or feel about" relate to A, the one that "is"?

My point is that they are different, and we don't really know what to say about the latter one at this point, besides a belief, because we simply do not know.

"Spirituality was born to help humans with their mere existence." - i made it up.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
26-11-2014, 05:14 PM
RE: Logical Absolutes: let's try it again
(26-11-2014 04:53 PM)lotsolint Wrote:  In your last sentence how does A, the one "we know or feel about" relate to A, the one that "is"?

My point is that they are different, and we don't really know what to say about the latter one at this point, besides a belief, because we simply do not know.

You have to start somewhere and if we can't agree that something is what it is then we aren't going to get very far. When we get to a specific example if we disagree on attributes then as long as we agree that A is A we can let reality/existence be the final arbiter.

Atheism: it's not just for communists any more!
America July 4 1776 - November 8 2016 RIP
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
26-11-2014, 05:35 PM
RE: Logical Absolutes: let's try it again
That's why I feel that we may actually agree. For the sciences to evolve, which is a human construct for whatever the reality is, indeed you and I need to start somewhere, and that's when our human definition of A can be A. Beyond that, is as you say, up to whatever reality is, which we can not say for sure.

"Spirituality was born to help humans with their mere existence." - i made it up.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
26-11-2014, 05:47 PM
RE: Logical Absolutes: let's try it again
(26-11-2014 05:14 PM)unfogged Wrote:  
(26-11-2014 04:53 PM)lotsolint Wrote:  In your last sentence how does A, the one "we know or feel about" relate to A, the one that "is"?

My point is that they are different, and we don't really know what to say about the latter one at this point, besides a belief, because we simply do not know.

You have to start somewhere and if we can't agree that something is what it is then we aren't going to get very far. When we get to a specific example if we disagree on attributes then as long as we agree that A is A we can let reality/existence be the final arbiter.

Indeed; to say a thing is itself follows trivially from how we define "is". And that a thing is what it is - which is essentially just a way of asserting ontological inertia! - is, in and of itself, immaterial.

I can say to you, today, that "a star is a star". I can go back in time 2500 years (not really - but play along) and tell the first Roman I find that "astra est astra". True? Yes, trivially so. Meaningful? No. The understanding of my interlocutors would be so different as to be almost incomparable. And yet what a star actually is hasn't changed at all, if we do grant the assumption that the universe is possessed of a consistent external reality independent of any given human.

What I find so tedious is that special type of person who thinks it's - so help them - somehow profound to bang on about the "Law of Identity" and so forth. The idea of a "starting position" (for logic, philosophy, whatever) implies then going somewhere else, and from that "law" alone you can go precisely nowhere. Any meaningful continuation requires additional premises!

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
26-11-2014, 05:48 PM
RE: Logical Absolutes: let's try it again
(26-11-2014 05:35 PM)lotsolint Wrote:  That's why I feel that we may actually agree. For the sciences to evolve, which is a human construct for whatever the reality is, indeed you and I need to start somewhere, and that's when our human definition of A can be A. Beyond that, is as you say, up to whatever reality is, which we can not say for sure.

I'm not so sure we are even talking about the same thing. When you say "our human definition of A" you are no longer talking about the logical absolute "A is A". It looks to me like I'm finding your question confusing because you are conflating the concept of logic with the practical application of science and getting hung up on the fact that we don't normally know that we fully understand any given aspect of "reality". That may be true, but it is distinct from accepting that A is A.

Atheism: it's not just for communists any more!
America July 4 1776 - November 8 2016 RIP
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
26-11-2014, 09:05 PM
RE: Logical Absolutes: let's try it again
(26-11-2014 05:14 PM)unfogged Wrote:  
(26-11-2014 04:53 PM)lotsolint Wrote:  In your last sentence how does A, the one "we know or feel about" relate to A, the one that "is"?

My point is that they are different, and we don't really know what to say about the latter one at this point, besides a belief, because we simply do not know.

You have to start somewhere and if we can't agree that something is what it is then we aren't going to get very far. When we get to a specific example if we disagree on attributes then as long as we agree that A is A we can let reality/existence be the final arbiter.

My apologies, I'm not on the computer often enough to keep to the conversation as consistently as you guys are but I was reading up to here and wanted to jump in:Identity in logic is important in establishing a concept and keeping that concept consistent, but again, i'm not sure I see how A=A establishes these two necessities for thinking. A=A at best seems like an attempt to establish any symbol for use in defining an idea but saying something is what it is sounds redundant, why is it more significant in establishing identity than establishing that something IS? For the sake of consistency?

Instead of A=A, why not simply "A" ? Where we provide a symbol as the foundational stepping stones of any logical thought. All logical thinking has to do with coupling concepts with other concepts or real world information. I'd suspect the first steps in people creating a language involved doing something arbitrary and tying it to something else in the real world. Perhaps a location or an animal, whatever. And by invoking that action again, the intent would be for someone else to recall what the invoked action referred to.

Maybe I'm not even making sense at this point, I'm probably going to take another look at the video i was provided earlier. My point in this thread was, after making sure I understood correctly that the laws of logic were axioms, to question if the axioms provided are actually the proper foundations and whether or not the implications of A=A means something foundational to thought that I'm still not picking up.

It's only a debate if both parties are willing to let each other's opinions change their own.
If you aren't willing to change in light of learning more about what you fight for, what the hell are you doing expecting the other party to want to change?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
26-11-2014, 11:11 PM
RE: Logical Absolutes: let's try it again
Actually my background in mathematics doesn't really make use of the local absolutes listed above, but are more rooted in set theory and possibly stoicism.

Check out:

(6:25)

Give me your argument in the form of a published paper, and then we can start to talk.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
27-11-2014, 09:15 AM
RE: Logical Absolutes: let's try it again
(26-11-2014 09:05 PM)le_bard Wrote:  why is it more significant in establishing identity than establishing that something IS?

Well, that depends on what the meaning of IS is...Big Grin

You are trying to take the axiom and apply it further down the proof and trying to make A=A mean a whole lot more than it does. As an axiom is needs to be extremely basic so that it provides a simple, self-evident truth that can be agreed on.

Before you can establish that something IS you have to establish what identity means.

Atheism: it's not just for communists any more!
America July 4 1776 - November 8 2016 RIP
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: