A question for deep thinkers and simple thinkers!
Forums › General Discussion › A question for deep thinkers and simple thinkers!-
It can not derive "truth" statements in the strictest sense of the word.
When science deals with "truth", we use it in the understanding that the truth is out subjective analysis of objectively derived data.
When critical analysis using logic deals with "truth", it deals with what can be inferred using logical principals, hopefully using robust evidence as the basis for said logic.
Both science, and logic can not gain an "absolute" answer; what we get are answers that are of such a high degree of confidence, to call them anything else but "true" for the purposes of a practical answer would be perverse.
-
₳ʉ₲ʉṣϮḭ₦ê (₳ⓑ€) wrote:
Do you understand the laws to be terminology rather than transendents? If you are then you are limiting this as terminology which isn't true in its ontology.
Transcendent? Is this a special pleading? On what basis do you believe these "laws" are "transcendent"?
-
₳ʉ₲ʉṣϮḭ₦ê (₳ⓑ€) wrote:The laws are conceptions that reflect reality. They are not just a bunch of asserted propositions or views. Are you aware that they are conceptions?
I think you mean principals. If you did, I've mentioned that a few times now.
If you didn't, your question doesn't make much sense. I understand these "laws" of logic are conceptual, and I understand these "laws" are used to interpret reality; I thought I had made my position on this clear earlier, too.
There is of course the possibility that I've misinterpreted your statement, and that what you're actually saying is that the "laws" themselves are supposed to be a reflection of how the truth-value of an assertions in the universe can be logically derived.
As I said, poor choice in words given the nature of the subject and the subtleties that need to be accurately addressed.
-
₳ʉ₲ʉṣϮḭ₦ê (₳ⓑ€) wrote: To have communication you assume the laws of logic to carry it. So do you use logic to have communication now? So now you affirm the laws of logic?
Be precise. What are you asking me? Odds are, the answer lies on most of the previous 12 pages of posts.You are ever-so crudely attempting to trap me in some kind of semantic loophole. Your words are intentionally vague, ambiguous, misleading, and inadequate.
You embarrass yourself every time you do that "AH-HA! SO YOU CONTRADICT YOURSELF!" bullshit after each of my posts without adequately explaining yourself.
-
Dunning-Kruger?
-
I suspect someone is doing a theology course. About as useful and relevant to reality as a "degree" in Homeopathy or Chakra Healing.
-
Bayani:
I bow to you. Unlike me, you seem to be an extremely good critical thinker, and can consisely state your position.
Me, I'm just sparring with an inferior opponent for fun and profit.
-
bye🎵 wrote:
Bayani:
I bow to you. Unlike me, you seem to be an extremely good critical thinker, and can consisely state your position.
Me, I'm just sparring with an inferior opponent for fun and profit.
Thanks, but I still consider myself relatively new to "actual" critical thinking.
I'm looking in to your Quantum paradox posed to Augustine. :p
-
My understanding is that due to the Heisenberg uncertainty principal, particles can have multiple states, direction, and position at the same time.
The difference between momentum and position requires non-newtonian math to account for. This math allows for wave-particle duality, particle-particle duality, and basically a!=a and a=b are possible, invalidating the law of contradiction.
To be fair, perhaps the law would have been worded differently if Aristotle had any clue about the world of the very small.
-
So.... Laws (which are codified by man) are subject to the error and ignorance inherent in man.
"Laws" in science cannot mean "natural properties" that can be discovered, but imply instead a man-made approximation of observed natural properties, and recorded or otherwise retained to predict natural outcomes.
I think this is plain English, and Augustine chooses to change the meaning of "law" at will. He calls natural properties, codified rules, and God's word, and his every utterance "law".
-
I remember when we use to speak English in this country.
-
ㄖ ㄩ Ց Ϊ ㄹ wrote:
And I remember when grammar has meaning.I remember when we use to speak English in this country.
(just pickin! :)
-
Bayani wrote:
Wikipedia:Dunning-Kruger?
'Dunning and Kruger were awarded the 2000 Ig Nobel Prize in Psychology for their report, "Unskilled and Unaware of It: How Difficulties in Recognizing One's Own Incompetence Lead to Inflated Self-Assessments".'I've never heard of this. I'm afraid I'm a little bit country, and I'm a little bit rock 'n roll. I feel so unsure of myself.. What if this is talking about me? Wait...
HAHAHA!
-
bye🎵 wrote:
Everything you just said was a strawman. Did you not read anything I've said? You deny logic. How are we to have a logical conversation if you dismiss the laws of logic?So.... Laws (which are codified by man) are subject to the error and ignorance inherent in man.
"Laws" in science cannot mean "natural properties" that can be discovered, but imply instead a man-made approximation of observed natural properties, and recorded or otherwise retained to predict natural outcomes.
I think this is plain English, and Augustine chooses to change the meaning of "law" at will. He calls natural properties, codified rules, and God's word, and his every utterance "law".
-
bye🎵 wrote:
So you don't use logic to determine the scientific method?So.... Laws (which are codified by man) are subject to the error and ignorance inherent in man.
"Laws" in science cannot mean "natural properties" that can be discovered, but imply instead a man-made approximation of observed natural properties, and recorded or otherwise retained to predict natural outcomes.
I think this is plain English, and Augustine chooses to change the meaning of "law" at will. He calls natural properties, codified rules, and God's word, and his every utterance "law".
-
₳ʉ₲ʉṣϮḭ₦ê (₳ⓑ€) wrote:
So they do exist. Then you now affirm the 2nd law of logic?
Your reading comprehension, or lack of it, staggers the mind.
I put my faith in reality over man-made frameworks written thousands of years ago by a man that couldn't even think up a tooth brush.
I believe in quantum paradox, which provides the required evidence that the 2nd law is not universal.
Read what I just said without assuming I said anything else, and you know where I stand.
-
₳ʉ₲ʉṣϮḭ₦ê (₳ⓑ€) wrote:
This is exactly what you said:Mystery wrote:
Right. "not just"₳ʉ₲ʉṣϮḭ₦ê (₳ⓑ€) wrote:
You said they are not "just a bunch of...views," but concept is a synonym for view.Mystery wrote:
Now would you agree?₳ʉ₲ʉṣϮḭ₦ê (₳ⓑ€) wrote:
Concept:Are you aware that they are conceptions?
1. a general notion or idea...Did you mean that I said something like "there are not a bunch of propositions or views". What was my assertion? They are conceptions, they are transendent.
₳ʉ₲ʉṣϮḭ₦ê (₳ⓑ€) wrote:
The laws are conceptions that reflect reality. They are not just a bunch of asserted propositions or views. Are you aware that they are conceptions?
-
Conceptions are views.
-
₳ʉ₲ʉṣϮḭ₦ê (₳ⓑ€) wrote:
Everything I just said here lays down a language framework so you will stop being so sloppy with your terms.bye🎵 wrote:
Everything you just said was a strawman. Did you not read anything I've said? You deny logic. How are we to have a logical conversation if you dismiss the laws of logic?So.... Laws (which are codified by man) are subject to the error and ignorance inherent in man.
"Laws" in science cannot mean "natural properties" that can be discovered, but imply instead a man-made approximation of observed natural properties, and recorded or otherwise retained to predict natural outcomes.
I think this is plain English, and Augustine chooses to change the meaning of "law" at will. He calls natural properties, codified rules, and God's word, and his every utterance "law".
-
₳ʉ₲ʉṣϮḭ₦ê (₳ⓑ€) wrote:
I thought this was a straw man. Why are you now relying as if I said anything at all about the scientific method?bye🎵 wrote:
So you don't use logic to determine the scientific method?So.... Laws (which are codified by man) are subject to the error and ignorance inherent in man.
"Laws" in science cannot mean "natural properties" that can be discovered, but imply instead a man-made approximation of observed natural properties, and recorded or otherwise retained to predict natural outcomes.
I think this is plain English, and Augustine chooses to change the meaning of "law" at will. He calls natural properties, codified rules, and God's word, and his every utterance "law".
-
₳ʉ₲ʉṣϮḭ₦ê (₳ⓑ€) wrote:
Um, no, quantum physics really doesn't & Brown isn't lying.bye🎵 wrote:
Quantum mechanics assumes the laws of logic. Unless you don't know what quantum mechanics are. Then you claim you know something you don't know which is lying.Still waiting on your answer to the quantum mechanics dilemma...
-
Augustine: I never mentioned this in my little resume, (while I still wait for yours), but I am in fact an atheist.
You are obviously speaking from what I would call a separate reality.
To once again answer your question:
The laws of logic are not built into reality.
The laws of logic are not universal.
The laws of logic are not absolute.
The laws of logic are not bestowed on us from God.
The laws of logic only exist on paper and in human thought.
If you have any further questions, please speak with my receptionist.
-
Seriously, though...
Please Augustine. Tell us what you do all day, where you have been, how old you are... I think most of us are curious.
How did you learn all this stuff?
-
My friend, to have disagreements, to call something perverse to make statements to work the scientific method you have to assume your position correct before you state it. It isn't a strawman. Brown makes the assertion that logic doesn't exist to have absolutes. But when absolutes are determined and he makes a defense of his assertion he judges his comment by the 3 laws of logic. To make assertions you have to know truth and to know truth it has to reflect conceptions that govern them. These laws of logic are not man made they are just observed by man conceptions of reality. When we call them "laws" nevertheless does it discount their existance. They are absolutes.
-
bye🎵 wrote:
I assumed you to be atheist. You don't know anything. ;)Augustine: I never mentioned this in my little resume, (while I still wait for yours), but I am in fact an atheist.
You are obviously speaking from what I would call a separate reality.
To once again answer your question:
The laws of logic are not built into reality.
The laws of logic are not universal.
The laws of logic are not absolute.
The laws of logic are not bestowed on us from God.
The laws of logic only exist on paper and in human thought.
If you have any further questions, please speak with my receptionist.
-
Mystery wrote:
I'm sorry but I made a Wrong one there. The one trying to prove quantum mechanics assumes the laws of logic or else they aren't looking to prove anything.₳ʉ₲ʉṣϮḭ₦ê (₳ⓑ€) wrote:
Um, no, quantum physics really doesn't & Brown isn't lying.bye🎵 wrote:
Quantum mechanics assumes the laws of logic. Unless you don't know what quantum mechanics are. Then you claim you know something you don't know which is lying.Still waiting on your answer to the quantum mechanics dilemma...
-
Bayani wrote:
Because you can find the law of non contradiction under a rock or can you measure it's mass. But it holds true in every where.₳ʉ₲ʉṣϮḭ₦ê (₳ⓑ€) wrote:
Do you understand the laws to be terminology rather than transendents? If you are then you are limiting this as terminology which isn't true in its ontology.
Transcendent? Is this a special pleading? On what basis do you believe these "laws" are "transcendent"?
-
₳ʉ₲ʉṣϮḭ₦ê (₳ⓑ€) wrote: I assumed you to be atheist. You don't know anything. ;)
I assumed you to be wacko, so I knew that much. I wasn't always an atheist. I have formal study of the Christian bible over several years. I recognize your arguments and refuse to play your twisted game. I substitute my own.You don't know God. You have blind faith in God. Otherwise, provide logical proof that God exists. If you can't do that with God's own laws, well. Make your own judgement.
-
₳ʉ₲ʉṣϮḭ₦ê (₳ⓑ€) wrote:
(*except in particle physics)Bayani wrote:
Because you can find the law of non contradiction under a rock or can you measure it's mass. But it holds true in every where.₳ʉ₲ʉṣϮḭ₦ê (₳ⓑ€) wrote:
Do you understand the laws to be terminology rather than transendents? If you are then you are limiting this as terminology which isn't true in its ontology.
Transcendent? Is this a special pleading? On what basis do you believe these "laws" are "transcendent"?
-
bye🎵 wrote:
Then you can not make any objections when I say then they are universal. See what I'm talking about? With out the law of non contrdiction being assumed in your assertion you cant defend anything that contradict it. It can not be true and false at the same time and the same way. But if you assert that it can then it can not be either true or false. Basic logic.₳ʉ₲ʉṣϮḭ₦ê (₳ⓑ€) wrote:
So they do exist. Then you now affirm the 2nd law of logic?
Your reading comprehension, or lack of it, staggers the mind.
I put my faith in reality over man-made frameworks written thousands of years ago by a man that couldn't even think up a tooth brush.
I believe in quantum paradox, which provides the required evidence that the 2nd law is not universal.
Read what I just said without assuming I said anything else, and you know where I stand.
![[][]](https://turfwarsapp.com/img/app/ajax-forbutton.gif)
Purchase Respect Points NEW! · Support · Turf Map · Terms · Privacy
©2021 MeanFreePath LLC