Robvalue is Floating in the Ether of Abstract Systems
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
18-10-2017, 01:58 PM
RE: Robvalue is Floating in the Ether of Abstract Systems
Science is a "method".
It has steps.
The words "logical" and "foundation" appear in none of the steps.

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein God has a plan for us. Please stop screwing it up with your prayers.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Bucky Ball's post
18-10-2017, 02:00 PM
RE: Robvalue is Floating in the Ether of Abstract Systems
(18-10-2017 01:42 PM)Grasshopper Wrote:  
(18-10-2017 01:33 PM)Naielis Wrote:  LOL but that's not actually adding 2+2 that's just saying we don't add the B cube that doesn't fit in. So it's 2+1=3. Am I missing something?

You are missing the way he defines the operation. Let's put it in slightly different terms. Let the box be a pitcher (or any container) with a capacity of, say, 3 quarts. Let A and B represent volumes of water that are poured into the pitcher, and C represent the resulting volume of water in the pitcher at the end of the operation. You can actually pour 2 quarts into the pitcher, and then pour another 2 quarts, and the pitcher will end up with 3 quarts of water in it, not 4, even though 4 were poured. This is all non-intuitive, but perfectly logical. The point being that the way we normally define addition is not the only way to do so. Mathematics is all about definitions. This kind of thing is standard procedure in modern algebra (also known as abstract algebra), and it teaches us valuable things about how mathematical structures work.

Your problem is that your mind is rigidly stuck on the usual definition of addition, and you are unable to imagine any other. The concept of addition (or any other mathematical operation) is more flexible than that.

Ok so with this example, I won't even deny that it's perfectly logical. What I do reject, however, is the application of the addition operator here. I don't think it makes sense to say you added two sets of two and got three. Instead, because the capacity was reached on the pitcher, the fourth quart never counted. That is to say that because the system is defined as the pitcher, the things we are adding are in that system. Yes you poured 4 quarts, but that's not what goes into the equation concerning the water in the pitcher. This is why units are extremely important. If the result of 3 came from the addition of the 2 quarts, then they would have the same units. But they don't. The two sets of two quarts have a unit of quarts poured whereas the quarts in the pitcher are quarts in the pitcher. The reason you get a flawed result is because the application of the operator is completely wrong. It seems that anytime people try to show examples of traditional or intuitive math failing in the real world, the problem is not actually in the math; instead, it's in the application of terms to the real world. The way in which we plug things into the equation matters just as much as the abstract operations we do to that equation.

"I think part of the appeal of mathematical logic is that the formulas look mysterious - you write backward Es!" - Hilary Putnam
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
18-10-2017, 02:02 PM
RE: Robvalue is Floating in the Ether of Abstract Systems
(18-10-2017 01:58 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  Science is a "method".
It has steps.
The words "logical" and "foundation" appear in none of the steps.

I'm sorry, but that's incredibly dense of you to say. The foundation of science lies in the preconditions of the ideological commitments that allow for each step to be reasonable. The fact that Francis Bacon didn't write the word "foundation" has nothing to do with this and that seems like a cheap attempt to win the argument quickly.

"I think part of the appeal of mathematical logic is that the formulas look mysterious - you write backward Es!" - Hilary Putnam
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
18-10-2017, 02:03 PM
RE: Robvalue is Floating in the Ether of Abstract Systems
(18-10-2017 01:47 PM)Grasshopper Wrote:  This kind of thinking is not restricted to egghead mathematicians, by the way. I was browsing through a book by Kripke about Wittgenstein (both philosophers) in which a similar example was given, of a mathematical operation defined in such a way that it matched our intuitive notions up to a certain point, but failed to do so beyond that point.

I'd love to see that example, but I sure there is a misapplication of variables or terms somewhere.

"I think part of the appeal of mathematical logic is that the formulas look mysterious - you write backward Es!" - Hilary Putnam
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
18-10-2017, 02:05 PM
RE: Robvalue is Floating in the Ether of Abstract Systems
(18-10-2017 02:02 PM)Naielis Wrote:  
(18-10-2017 01:58 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  Science is a "method".
It has steps.
The words "logical" and "foundation" appear in none of the steps.

I'm sorry, but that's incredibly dense of you to say. The foundation of science lies in the preconditions of the ideological commitments that allow for each step to be reasonable. The fact that Francis Bacon didn't write the word "foundation" has nothing to do with this and that seems like a cheap attempt to win the argument quickly.

Bullshit. "Unreasonable" experiments that seem to defy logic are done all the time. Don't be sorry. Just give us the reference for the "foundation of science" you asserted.
What is *cheap*, is your denying you contradicted yourself, failing to justify your use of the logic system you use, and failing to counter the examples you were given. There is NOTHING in science that says a result has to appear to be "logical".

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein God has a plan for us. Please stop screwing it up with your prayers.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Bucky Ball's post
18-10-2017, 02:07 PM
RE: Robvalue is Floating in the Ether of Abstract Systems
(18-10-2017 02:00 PM)Naielis Wrote:  
(18-10-2017 01:42 PM)Grasshopper Wrote:  You are missing the way he defines the operation. Let's put it in slightly different terms. Let the box be a pitcher (or any container) with a capacity of, say, 3 quarts. Let A and B represent volumes of water that are poured into the pitcher, and C represent the resulting volume of water in the pitcher at the end of the operation. You can actually pour 2 quarts into the pitcher, and then pour another 2 quarts, and the pitcher will end up with 3 quarts of water in it, not 4, even though 4 were poured. This is all non-intuitive, but perfectly logical. The point being that the way we normally define addition is not the only way to do so. Mathematics is all about definitions. This kind of thing is standard procedure in modern algebra (also known as abstract algebra), and it teaches us valuable things about how mathematical structures work.

Your problem is that your mind is rigidly stuck on the usual definition of addition, and you are unable to imagine any other. The concept of addition (or any other mathematical operation) is more flexible than that.

Ok so with this example, I won't even deny that it's perfectly logical. What I do reject, however, is the application of the addition operator here. I don't think it makes sense to say you added two sets of two and got three. Instead, because the capacity was reached on the pitcher, the fourth quart never counted. That is to say that because the system is defined as the pitcher, the things we are adding are in that system. Yes you poured 4 quarts, but that's not what goes into the equation concerning the water in the pitcher. This is why units are extremely important. If the result of 3 came from the addition of the 2 quarts, then they would have the same units. But they don't. The two sets of two quarts have a unit of quarts poured whereas the quarts in the pitcher are quarts in the pitcher. The reason you get a flawed result is because the application of the operator is completely wrong. It seems that anytime people try to show examples of traditional or intuitive math failing in the real world, the problem is not actually in the math; instead, it's in the application of terms to the real world. The way in which we plug things into the equation matters just as much as the abstract operations we do to that equation.

No, you're still not getting it. The result is not "flawed". It is perfectly consistent with the operation of addition as Robvalue defined it. This is not your mother's addition. He is defining a new operation that is consistent with our intuitive understanding of addition up to a point, but not beyond that point -- just as Wittgenstein did. You need to let go of your stubborn insistence that addition must be one thing and only that one thing.

Likewise, in base 3, 2+2=11. This is not flawed or incorrect. It is just using different rules than the ones you're familiar with.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Grasshopper's post
18-10-2017, 02:13 PM
RE: Robvalue is Floating in the Ether of Abstract Systems
(18-10-2017 02:05 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  Bullshit. "Unreasonable" experiments that seem to defy logic are done all the time. Don't be sorry. Just give us the reference for the "foundation of science" you asserted.
What is *cheap*, is your denying you contradicted yourself, failing to justify your use of the logic system you use, and failing to counter the examples you were given. There is NOTHING in science that says a result has to appear to be "logical".

Ok let me explain this in the simplest way possible. It is impossible for you to go about testing reality without assuming the Law of Identity is true. So if you get a result from science that you interpret as falsifying the Law of Identity, it must be false. Otherwise the scientific enterprise can't even get off the ground. I'm trying to show you that logic is indispensable to science. You can't do science without assuming it. So by agreeing with illogical results, you contradict yourself, leaving you in an absurd worldview.

"I think part of the appeal of mathematical logic is that the formulas look mysterious - you write backward Es!" - Hilary Putnam
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
18-10-2017, 02:18 PM
RE: Robvalue is Floating in the Ether of Abstract Systems
(18-10-2017 02:07 PM)Grasshopper Wrote:  No, you're still not getting it. The result is not "flawed". It is perfectly consistent with the operation of addition as Robvalue defined it. This is not your mother's addition. He is defining a new operation that is consistent with our intuitive understanding of addition up to a point, but not beyond that point -- just as Wittgenstein did. You need to let go of your stubborn insistence that addition must be one thing and only that one thing.

Likewise, in base 3, 2+2=11. This is not flawed or incorrect. It is just using different rules than the ones you're familiar with.

But it is faulty to say that, because you redefine the addition operator, that implies that the result you will get contradicts traditional operators and their usage. What's at stake here is whether Robvalue can show that in a traditional operating method, 1+1=3. If you shift operators, yes you can get any result you want. But the previous example Robvalue gave was counting two oranges. Or, as he would say it, one orange and another orange together. He's saying it's possible to get three. And I'm saying that the proper application of math here would be to use the traditional addition operator. So you can't ever get three.

"I think part of the appeal of mathematical logic is that the formulas look mysterious - you write backward Es!" - Hilary Putnam
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
18-10-2017, 02:25 PM
RE: Robvalue is Floating in the Ether of Abstract Systems
I am still waiting for someone to address my main point in the video. I've asked now multiple times and yet you all seem to be avoiding it like the plague. I'll ask again: given this understand of the world, where all abstract thought has no bearing on reality, how do you escape doing what you purport to condemn? How do you escape pushing your abstract systems on reality? I gave the example of empiricism before. Robvalue said in the video that instead of pushing our abstract systems on reality, we test our abstract systems against reality. But the problem is to claim that you can test anything against reality, you have to have established that you are even able to determine things about reality at all. And that's idea is just another abstract concept. There's no reason for you to believe you can determine things about reality other than the fact that you think it to be indispensable to your reasoning. So isn't that just push your abstract system onto reality? Furthermore, for every case where you try to corroborate your abstract systems with reality, all you will be able to do is corroborate one abstract system with another. Ergo, Robvalue's understanding of abstract systems is self-contradictory and, subsequently, absurd.

"I think part of the appeal of mathematical logic is that the formulas look mysterious - you write backward Es!" - Hilary Putnam
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
18-10-2017, 02:28 PM (This post was last modified: 18-10-2017 11:01 PM by Bucky Ball.)
RE: Robvalue is Floating in the Ether of Abstract Systems
(18-10-2017 02:13 PM)Naielis Wrote:  
(18-10-2017 02:05 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  Bullshit. "Unreasonable" experiments that seem to defy logic are done all the time. Don't be sorry. Just give us the reference for the "foundation of science" you asserted.
What is *cheap*, is your denying you contradicted yourself, failing to justify your use of the logic system you use, and failing to counter the examples you were given. There is NOTHING in science that says a result has to appear to be "logical".

Ok let me explain this in the simplest way possible. It is impossible for you to go about testing reality without assuming the Law of Identity is true. So if you get a result from science that you interpret as falsifying the Law of Identity, it must be false. Otherwise the scientific enterprise can't even get off the ground. I'm trying to show you that logic is indispensable to science. You can't do science without assuming it. So by agreeing with illogical results, you contradict yourself, leaving you in an absurd worldview.

1. You can stop your patronizing crap, Nails. It's YOU that's obviously needs things made simple. You think that's how "philosophers" act.

2. The wave/particle DUALITY falsifies your Law of Identity, (which is nothing but a weak crappy way to make it look like you haven't totally LOST this argument).

You STILL have not justified your logic system, nor have you refuted the example put to you.

NO scientist in the real world gives ONE SHIT about your idiotic "Law of Identity", and NEVER ONCE references it in any scientific paper. They publish RESULTS. If they appear to be illogical has NO BEARING. They are what they are.

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein God has a plan for us. Please stop screwing it up with your prayers.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like Bucky Ball's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: