Nothing makes sense
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
29-01-2014, 12:48 PM
RE: Nothing makes sense
(29-01-2014 06:23 AM)houseofcantor Wrote:  
(29-01-2014 03:05 AM)Phil Hill Wrote:  Your a fucking idiot. Go fuck yourself and build your strawman with an impressionable 3 year old that you can convince.

Edit : just noticed the American crack so go die you fucking condescending bigot.

Fucking Chippy. Making friends again, I see. Big Grin

Generalisations exist for a reason. To be fair I've met some cool Americans but they're usually from New York.

You can work on the assumption that there's a low probability that someone is not going to be the same as others you've met, but unless you have the time or need to bother, why would you?

South Africans are another example of this.

Empirical data and all that.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
29-01-2014, 01:39 PM
RE: Nothing makes sense
(29-01-2014 04:23 AM)Free Thought Wrote:  
(29-01-2014 02:21 AM)DLJ Wrote:  I suspect that some respondents are (perhaps deliberately) overlooking the non-literal intent of the OP.

Drinking Beverage

"non-literal"?

Why would somebody go through the trouble of making a statement without the intent of being taken at literal meaning?

Why is there such a need for seemingly non-direct speech and confusing communication!?

Can I remind you, just for future reference, that there are a handful of people on TTA who do not have Asperger syndrome.

Dodgy

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
29-01-2014, 03:07 PM (This post was last modified: 29-01-2014 03:20 PM by Free Thought.)
RE: Nothing makes sense
(29-01-2014 01:39 PM)DLJ Wrote:  
(29-01-2014 04:23 AM)Free Thought Wrote:  "non-literal"?

Why would somebody go through the trouble of making a statement without the intent of being taken at literal meaning?

Why is there such a need for seemingly non-direct speech and confusing communication!?

Can I remind you, just for future reference, that there are a handful of people on TTA who do not have Asperger syndrome.

Dodgy

That doesn't mean they have to go about communicating in a non-obvious and illiterally intended way...

The people closely associated with the namesake of female canines are suffering from a nondescript form of lunacy.
"Anti-environmentalism is like standing in front of a forest and going 'quick kill them they're coming right for us!'" - Jake Farr-Wharton, The Imaginary Friend Show.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
29-01-2014, 08:54 PM
RE: Nothing makes sense
(29-01-2014 02:18 AM)donotwant Wrote:  Can you tell me how 3 laws of logic(identity, non contradiction and excluded middle). Can be false?
That's where rationality comes from.

Agree - if you cannot communicate to someone these 3 laws of logic and they still don't get it there is little hope for them (or they are just being annoying).

It is not possible to deny or refute the law of contradiction & identity. Everything including their denial presupposes their truth.
From this we derive the excluded middle and all of mathematics.
Even before 1+1=2
We have 1=1
A=A


I did once try and read Principia Mathematica by Bertrand Russell & whitehead but fell asleep before the end, so I might still have something to learn about 1+1=2

A wise man proportions his belief to the evidence -
David Hume


[Image: images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRhOs7rUrS5bRKvWS7clR7...gNs5ZwpVef]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
29-01-2014, 09:44 PM (This post was last modified: 30-01-2014 06:30 PM by Chippy.)
RE: Nothing makes sense
(29-01-2014 02:54 AM)Phil Hill Wrote:  No asshole, picking up one rock is one rock. No numeric system was mentioned. Maybe if I had said single rock in each hand you would have used your brain.

Also you stupid, over-opinionated, ignorant shithead, handling rocks doesn't constitute a deductive proof that the expression '1+1=2' is true. Just as Pythagoras' Theorem can't be proven true by referencing a single instance (or multiple instances) of a right-angled triangle so neither can any instantiation of the equality '1+1=2' serves as a proof. Playing with two rocks or your two shriveled testicles cannot yield a deductive proof of the abstraction that the equality '1+1=2' expresses.

What your dumb ass can't comprehend is that '1+1=2' is an abstraction and a formalism just as a^2 + b^2 = c^2 is also an abstraction and a formalism. There is no '1+1=2' in the universe unless you are a Platonist. Two rocks or two of anything are not the abstraction '1+1=2'.

Before shooting off your oversized and disengaged brain try educating yourself on a topic. Ignoramus.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
29-01-2014, 09:57 PM
RE: Nothing makes sense
(29-01-2014 08:54 PM)Baruch Wrote:  Agree - if you cannot communicate to someone these 3 laws of logic and they still don't get it there is little hope for them (or they are just being annoying).

It is not possible to deny or refute the law of contradiction & identity. Everything including their denial presupposes their truth.
From this we derive the excluded middle and all of mathematics.

Baruch, this is true only of classical logic. I agree that most of the known universe conforms to classical logic but it is not true that classical logic is inviolable. There is at least one non-classical logic that violates each of the three fundamental laws of classical logic. Paraconsistent logics--for example--violate the law of non-contradiction.

Non-classical logics exist as a response to the deficiencies of classical logic. They have been created to help solve real problems. Not all knowledge domains conform to classical logic. Most do--and that is why classical logic is indispensable--but it is false to believe that classical logic represents some sort of logical absolute. It doesn't.

Most of the logic of a geographic information system (GIS) is classical but the heart of it--the spatial logic--is non-classical. Classical logic is incapable of handling coordinates that fall on boundaries--it is incapable of even representing a spatial coordinate that falls on a boundary. A many-valued logic not only can elegantly represent a coordinate that falls on a boundary it also permits logical inference in these perverse cases.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Chippy's post
29-01-2014, 11:51 PM
RE: Nothing makes sense
Those other logics don't work without these absolutes either. Besides without em you can't have ANY truth statements at all.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
30-01-2014, 02:58 PM
RE: Nothing makes sense
(29-01-2014 09:57 PM)Chippy Wrote:  
(29-01-2014 08:54 PM)Baruch Wrote:  Agree - if you cannot communicate to someone these 3 laws of logic and they still don't get it there is little hope for them (or they are just being annoying).

It is not possible to deny or refute the law of contradiction & identity. Everything including their denial presupposes their truth.
From this we derive the excluded middle and all of mathematics.

Baruch, this is true only of classical logic. I agree that most of the known universe conforms to classical logic but it is not true that classical logic is inviolable. There is at least one non-classical logic that violates each of the three fundamental laws of classical logic. Paraconsistent logics--for example--violate the law of non-contradiction.

Non-classical logics exist as a response to the deficiencies of classical logic. They have been created to help solve real problems. Not all knowledge domains conform to classical logic. Most do--and that is why classical logic is indispensable--but it is false to believe that classical logic represents some sort of logical absolute. It doesn't.

Most of the logic of a geographic information system (GIS) is classical but the heart of it--the spatial logic--is non-classical. Classical logic is incapable of handling coordinates that fall on boundaries--it is incapable of even representing a spatial coordinate that falls on a boundary. A many-valued logic not only can elegantly represent a coordinate that falls on a boundary it also permits logical inference in these perverse cases.

Chippy - are you being fuzzy ?????? Confused Huh Consider

It is true that there is non-classical logic, what is debatable is whether this is a useful heuristic tool for humans living in an uncertain world or whether there is a "realism" to these non classical logics such as fuzzy logic.

The question is :- Are non-classical logics "ontologically real" or are they due to our "epistemic uncertainly" as humans or limitations due to our symbolic language being imprecise.
At the end of the day the logic is as good as the symbolic language we use to make propositions with.

One needs to beware from the extreme positions - both on the postmodernist relativists and logical-empiricists like Wittgenstein's early work Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus (and Vienna circle) -
[not sure how much you know about the history of this debate.]

The post modernists would have you believe logic is relative to culture or individuals - at least at the extreme end of the scale.
The logical-empiricists would have you believe that our language can be perfected into some absolute symbolism fitting some absolute logical definitions and if something doesn't fit this then it is nonsense (hence trashing ethics & much of humanities into emotional feelings)

However like I said one has to beware because fuzzy logic may just be a short hand when we have limited probabilistic data sets with difficult "true/false" boundaries.
However we know that the universe *IS* made up of discrete packets of information without "a continuum" based on notions such as Planck's constant were even space-time comes in discrete packets NOT an infinite continuum - hence this supports a classical logic - there are boundaries where the law of identity holds strong & well defined mathematically.

Things get a little complicated with quantum mechanics - and cannot go into it here - have to be brief otherwise I will be writing all night
.
Does two electrons being in the different places at the same time but acting as one superposition violate the law of contradiction ?
Does not being able to measure the velocity and location of a individual subatomic particle like an electron violate the law of identity and just leave us in probabilistic darkness ?
I don't think anyone knows the exact answers to these questions - but for starters one is following the law of identity very strictly by defining the probabilities, particles, surrounding influences and mathematical relations - even though one does not have "discrete" answers to exact velocity, momentum or location.

It could be that these quantum effects are OUR epistemological limitations due to photons & other environmental factors disrupting the quantum superposition's and causing de-coherence to occur. Therefore WE have an epistemological knowledge barrier regardless of how accurate our instruments are by the very nature we are interfering with the experiments - it doesn't follow that logic is being violated in an ontological "absolute" universal sense.
Of course we are limited to know about the ontology because our epistemology is limited - hence a skeptic might claim the ontological logic is violated (of course they cannot know this either)

In any case - regardless of the answer to some of the quantum puzzles, we can practically use the profoundly accurate predictions from quantum mechanics - and this suggests that it follows the laws of contradiction & identity in the pragmatic sense. From the fact is the science works and can be described in mathematical language even if probabilistic - we can infer that it follows the same logical principles as absolutes in all possible universes.

To emphasize the point.
The law of contradiction & identity cannot be refuted.

To say "the law of contradiction is wrong" is to make an identity statement.
To refute the law of identity is to presuppose identity in the very statement AND make an identity statement.

If the law of contradiction is wrong, then it is also right and perhaps an orange.
- basically you end up with nonsense. Square circles. 1+1=4 etc You cannot debate someone who denies these. Its a non starter.

Don't get mixed up with redefining axioms such as the identity of a triangle having three sides adding up to 180 degrees and then finding out Euclid got his axioms wrong due to non-Euclidian geometry. Euclid's axioms as a law of identity still hold 100% in 2D space - Euclid was just unaware how the context of 3D space or 4D space-time changes the relations - in accordance with laws of identity & contradiction.

Perhaps the same thing applies to quantum mechanics once we better understand the foundations of particle physics or some grand unified theory. Eg if reality was some 11 dimensional mathematical construct as its "true identity" then all will follow logically from the widest, most universal foundational ontology (I an no expert is string theory and this will end up being speculative but mathematically elegant even if in principle might not be able to be empirically confirmed - hence on the borders of science and more philosophical)

A wise man proportions his belief to the evidence -
David Hume


[Image: images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRhOs7rUrS5bRKvWS7clR7...gNs5ZwpVef]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Baruch's post
30-01-2014, 03:15 PM
RE: Nothing makes sense
(29-01-2014 09:44 PM)Chippy Wrote:  
(29-01-2014 02:54 AM)Phil Hill Wrote:  No asshole, picking up one rock is one rock. No numeric system was mentioned. Maybe if I had said single rock in each hand you would have used your brain.

Also you stupid, over-opinionated, ignorant shithead, handling rocks doesn't constitute a deductive proof that the expression '1+1=2' is true. Just as Pythagoras' Theorem can't be proven true by referencing a single instance (or multiple instances) of a right-angled triangle so neither can any instantiation of the equality '1+1=2' serves as a proof. Playing with two rocks or your two shriveled testicles cannot yield a deductive proof of the abstraction that the equality '1+1=2' expresses.

What your dumb ass can't comprehend is that '1+1=2' is an abstraction and a formalism just as a^2 + b^2 = c^2 is also an abstraction and a formalism. There is no '1+1=2' in the universe unless you are a Platonist. Two rocks or two of anything) are not the abstraction '1+1=2'.

Before shooting off your oversized and disengaged brain try educating yourself on a topic. Ignoramus.

I would prefer the Aristotelian instantiation of 1+1=2 as in having two testicles but the 1+1=2 is a universal (nevertheless mind independent, but part of the underlying patters of the universe) .
That neither are the numbers "empirical" as in 'Phil Hill' naive realism comments [savaged by Chippy] and neither do they exist is some platonistic (or Divine) "separate" reality.

In some sense mathematical abstractions can be just models we create in our minds as approximations from our anthropocentric view (eg Newtonian equations are not "ontologically real") The best metaphor for this is "the map (abstractions) are not the territory (ontological reality) "

However at some point if the map becomes so accurate, detailed & all encompassing it actually becomes the territory and both are indistinguishable (and of course mind independent as the mind is only a limited narrow anthropocentric part of reality).
As for humans, I don't think it is possible to reach this - because of our inherent anthropocentric vantage point and being by definition PART (a very tiny part) of the whole (whole as in all of existence or the universe in its totality)

A wise man proportions his belief to the evidence -
David Hume


[Image: images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRhOs7rUrS5bRKvWS7clR7...gNs5ZwpVef]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Baruch's post
30-01-2014, 07:59 PM
RE: Nothing makes sense
(30-01-2014 02:58 PM)Baruch Wrote:  The question is :- Are non-classical logics "ontologically real" or are they due to our "epistemic uncertainly" as humans or limitations due to our symbolic language being imprecise.

Boundary-related problems appear to be ontologically real rather epistemic artefacts. There is no additional information that can make a boundary condition disappear. If a coordinate that represents some real data happens to fall on a spatial boundary then that is really all that can be said of the matter. If we need to make a decision based on which region our coordinate falls and we abide by the law of the excluded middle then we are stuck; if we have failed to even think of this possibility our software can crash or it could corrupt our database. If we have considered the possibility then what do we do? How do we preserve the fact of the indeterminancy of the coordinate? If we arbitrariliy assign it to one of the two regions then we are actually losing information which may cause us to unintentionally obscure a pattern.

If we instead acknowledge that the law of the excluded middle is hurting us rather than helping us he can construct a many-valued logic that will enable us to not only represent these boundary conditions but also to make inferences about them. Enter fuzzy logic.

As far as I can see the law of the excluded middle does not hold for a subset of spatial data and this is intrinsic to the data rather than a product of our ignorance.

This example is but one of many where the laws of classical logic either fail or are a hindrance because a better logic models a particular slice of reality.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Chippy's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: