A question for deep thinkers and simple thinkers!
Forums › General Discussion › A question for deep thinkers and simple thinkers!-
Mystery wrote:
Read my comment to turf reaper₳ʉ₲ʉṣϮḭ₦ê (₳ⓑ€) wrote:
I know that in the grand scheme of things I know very little.bye🎵 wrote:
We aren't talking about we don't know, we talking about what we DO know. Lol₳ʉ₲ʉṣϮḭ₦ê (₳ⓑ€) wrote:
We imagine them into existence in our minds. Imagination is hardly an absolute.What do you believe?
Do the Laws of logic exist and are they absolute?
There. That's as close to yes/no you will get from me.
Please feel free to consult your chart of logical fallacies. Imagination on paper is still make believe.
-
bye🎵 wrote:
I think you hit the nail on The head my friend.. But is it possible that these concepts could be given to reveal curtain things to us? Perhaps to conclude that we can do history or we can do science or mathematics?₳ʉ₲ʉṣϮḭ₦ê (₳ⓑ€) wrote: Smug and arrogance is irelavant to the issue.
Laws come only from man, and can be incorrect.
And making that accusation I'd say is pretty arrogant as well.Now I think what your doing is dividing the concept of "law" facultys with "absoluteness" how can you have a "law" without it being absolute? That is my question to you.
Which is why they stopped making laws in science long ago. They are man made and can be wrong. comprehension.
Logic and mathematics are no more real than a toy train set is an actual railroad.
Reality exists without us. Laws applied to reality do not.
-
Fundamental laws have existed in the beginning whenever that was. Laws have to exist in order to have progression and furthermore I agree that we don't know all the laws because that's where theories are based. Some absolute( logic). Logic is proven reliable outcome( faith). Individuals are always searching for, what is truth? Man has not created anything but only manipulated that which already existed.
The answer is , yes and No. -
Chaplin wrote:
Are you absolutely sure about that? Lol!Fundamental laws have existed in the beginning whenever that was. Laws have to exist in order to have progression and furthermore I agree that we don't know all the laws because that's where theories are based. Some absolute( logic). Logic is proven reliable outcome( faith). Individuals are always searching for, what is truth? Man has not created anything but only manipulated that which already existed.
The answer is , yes and No. -
If you believe that laws of logic do not exist, how do you make decisions about the most basic things in life? How do you decide which side of the road to drive on? How do you choose whether to drink water or poison for nourishment?
One interesting aspect of denying laws of logic, like the law of non-contradiction, is that since you DO NOT believe in laws of logic, you actually DO believe in laws of logic. If contradictions are allowed in your worldview then so is that one.
-
Laws come only from man, and can be incorrect.
Which is why they stopped making laws in science long ago. They are man made and can be wrong. comprehension.
👆👆 well put... -
Hehe aug you reply to me assuming I am somewhat familiar with some studies of this stuff- I have never read up on any of this at all... I am easily lost when you use phrases that are specific to philosophy... Good discussion though. My thoughts come only from my own life experiences.
-
💀Ƭʊ٣ғ🌹ཞ∉λ༲∉/⁀💀™ wrote:
Hey that makes sense my friend. I can see how these laws may appear to be man made because of their "terminology", nevertheless can we disagree that we use them on a daily basis. ^.^Hehe aug you reply to me assuming I am somewhat familiar with some studies of this stuff- I have never read up on any of this at all... I am easily lost when you use phrases that are specific to philosophy... Good discussion though. My thoughts come only from my own life experiences.
-
I will continue this thread to talk about the 2nd law of logic, the law of non contrediction. I will assert that this law is a good example of the laws being universal and absolute... And you wont need a philosophy class to know it either
-
₳ʉ₲ʉṣϮḭ₦ê (₳ⓑ€) wrote:
If you missed my point earlier, let me put it another way.I will continue this thread to talk about the 2nd law of logic, the law of non contrediction. I will assert that this law is a good example of the laws being universal and absolute... And you wont need a philosophy class to know it either
The rules of order for your little Mensa discussions do not universal laws make. Logic is a language tool; a tool created by man, and is as imperfect as it's creator.
This law can in no way be universal and absolute. Without man to apply it, it does not exist.
-
Schrödinger's cat is both dead and alive, violating the second law of logic, yet can be mathematically proven to be true.
Which sacred bullshit law is in error here?
-
bye🎵 wrote:
And that theory has been debunked because its still is under the law of non contrdiction. For An example in one sense the cat is alive and in another sense the cat is dead which still violates the 2nd law by raising two different sense thus making it a invalid theory. Read the definition of "the law of non contrediction" the cat can not be dead and alive in the same time or in the same way" and that assumes in every senseSchrödinger's cat is both dead and alive, violating the second law of logic, yet can be mathematically proven to be true.
Which sacred bullshit law is in error here?
-
bye🎵 wrote:
Then why cant I dismiss everything your saying as speaking about cake and not about logic? See if these laws did not exist as universal nor absolute then you could not make sense in anything that you say. It's contradictory because you don't live that way and neither do I₳ʉ₲ʉṣϮḭ₦ê (₳ⓑ€) wrote:
If you missed my point earlier, let me put it another way.I will continue this thread to talk about the 2nd law of logic, the law of non contrediction. I will assert that this law is a good example of the laws being universal and absolute... And you wont need a philosophy class to know it either
The rules of order for your little Mensa discussions do not universal laws make. Logic is a language tool; a tool created by man, and is as imperfect as it's creator.
This law can in no way be universal and absolute. Without man to apply it, it does not exist.
-
₳ʉ₲ʉṣϮḭ₦ê (₳ⓑ€) wrote: Then why cant I dismiss everything your saying as speaking about cake and not about logic? See if these laws did not exist as universal nor absolute then you could not make sense in anything that you say. It's contradictory because you don't live that way and neither do I
AHA! You said it! I do not have to follow your laws and you do not have to follow mine. The "laws" of logic are little more than Robert's Rules of Order. They are a 3000 year-old agreement to take certain rules as fact within a philosophical discussion, EVEN THOUGH THEY ARE NOT FACT. This is why they had to be documented and agreed to.In fact, quantum mechanics did not exist 3000 years ago, and the paradoxis created between general relativity and quantum mechanics frequently "disobey" the "laws" of logic.
You are a lump of wet come and gone in the blink of an eye. Go live life. 3000 year old rules obviously don't generate any new thought.
-
bye🎵 wrote:
Which cake do you like again?₳ʉ₲ʉṣϮḭ₦ê (₳ⓑ€) wrote: Then why cant I dismiss everything your saying as speaking about cake and not about logic? See if these laws did not exist as universal nor absolute then you could not make sense in anything that you say. It's contradictory because you don't live that way and neither do I
AHA! You said it! I do not have to follow your laws and you do not have to follow philosophical discussion, EVEN THOUGH THEY ARE NOT FACT. This is why they had to be documented and agreed to.In fact, quantum mechanics did not exist 3000 years ago, and the paradoxis created between general relativity and quantum mechanics frequently "disobey" the "laws" of logic.
You are a lump of wet come and gone in the blink of an eye. Go live life. 3000 year old rules obviously don't generate any new thought.
-
Interesting conversation, really. It's pity, that I can read it, but I can't discuss it. Fucking language barrier)
-
MacArrow wrote:
Well notice how bye says that we cant say the laws of logic are absolute yet he's making absolute statements... Victiously circular! HahaInteresting conversation, really. It's pity, that I can read it, but I can't discuss it. Fucking language barrier)
-
bye🎵 wrote:
Tuesday sleeps faster than sky eats banana monkey with blue₳ʉ₲ʉṣϮḭ₦ê (₳ⓑ€) wrote: Then why cant I dismiss everything your saying as speaking about cake and not about logic? See if these laws did not exist as universal nor absolute then you could not make sense in anything that you say. It's contradictory because you don't live that way and neither do I
AHA! You said it! I do not have to follow your laws and you do not have to follow mine. The "laws" of logic are little more than Robert's Rules of Order. They are a 3000 year-old agreement to take certain rules as fact within a philosophical discussion, EVEN THOUGH THEY ARE NOT FACT. This is why they had to be documented and agreed to.You are a lump of wet come and gone in the blink of an eye. Go live life. 3000 year old rules obviously don't generate any new thought.
-
₳ʉ₲ʉṣϮḭ₦ê (₳ⓑ€) wrote:
No "curtains" will be revealed here. 😜bye🎵 wrote:
I think you hit the nail on The head my friend.. But is it possible that these concepts could be given to reveal curtain things to us? Perhaps to conclude that we can do history, science, or mathematics?₳ʉ₲ʉṣϮḭ₦ê (₳ⓑ€) wrote: Smug and arrogance is irrelevant...making that accusation is pretty arrogant
Laws come only from man, and can be incorrect.Now I think what your doing is dividing the concept of "law" facultys with "absoluteness" how can you have a "law" without it being absolute?
Which is why they stopped making laws in science long ago. They are man made and can be wrong. comprehension.
Logic and mathematics are no more real than a toy train set is an actual railroad.
Reality exists without us. Laws applied to reality do not.
-
bye🎵 wrote:
Ever read The Dancing Wu Li Masters? That's a good book, despite it's age.₳ʉ₲ʉṣϮḭ₦ê (₳ⓑ€) wrote: Then why cant I dismiss everything your saying? See if these laws did not exist as universal nor absolute then you could not make sense in anything that you say. It's contradictory because you don't live that way and neither do I
AHA! You said it! I do not have to follow your laws and you do not have to follow mine. The "laws" of logic are little more than Robert's Rules of Order. They are a 3000 year-old agreement to take certain rules as fact within a philosophical discussion, EVEN THOUGH THEY ARE NOT FACT. This is why they had to be documented and agreed to.In fact, quantum mechanics did not exist 3000 years ago, and the paradoxis created between general relativity and quantum mechanics frequently "disobey" the "laws" of logic.
-
My point to bye is that you don't live your life illogically.... You socially have reason and rationality, understanding and use logic to Study knowledge if it's cooking to waking up in the morning, there isn't a time where we say "oh I think I'm going to set aside logic today" we don't live that way. At lease sane people don't. I hope bye can understand the point that he is irrational and circular when he makes absolute statements that absolutes don't exist.
-
You can call "bye," "brown;" it looks/sounds strange to call him "bye."
-
₳ʉ₲ʉṣϮḭ₦ê (₳ⓑ€) wrote: Tuesday sleeps faster than sky eats banana monkey with blue
Somehow, I don't think your idiocy stands up to public scrutiny as well as mine does.
There are Newton's "laws" that fall apart at CERN.
A photon is a particle and not a particle.
The "laws" of Aristotle apply only to those that believe they will never be contradicted.
If we live in multiple connected universes, it would seem that these laws of logic apply only to appearances, and not reality.
You cannot argue against this without assuming your laws are absolute and universal, which obviously is kind of up in the air.
-
And by the way.. I am logical. I simply do not subscribe to formalized constructs that attempt to supersede basic common sense with absolutes. I've made no circular argument here. Your rule book is simply incorrect. If you could put down your disproven, moldy, old theories, you might see that I make sense to most everyone here, while you, for one irrelevant reason or another... Do not.
-
bye🎵 wrote:
Blue loves bright shadows across cup refrigerators.And by the way.. I am logical. I simply do not subscribe to formalized constructs that attempt to supersede basic common sense with absolutes. I've made no circular argument here. Your rule book is simply incorrect. If you could put down your disproven, moldy, old theories, you might see that I make sense to most everyone here, while you, for one irrelevant reason or another... Do not.
-
bye🎵 wrote:
You haven't even come close to asserting your concept without self refuting yourself. "Absolutes don't exist"- is a absolute statement and is circular. If you cant see that behind the big words your using then God help us if you can't even use reason to prove your reason. Ad hominem isn't the way to go my friend. So please don't use offensive language. ThanksAnd by the way.. I am logical. I simply do not subscribe to formalized constructs that attempt to supersede basic common sense with absolutes. I've made no circular argument here. Your rule book is simply incorrect. If you could put down your disproven, moldy, old theories, you might see that I make sense to most everyone here, while you, for one irrelevant reason or another... Do not.
-
Brown, let me ask you a question here. Do you believe in the laws of logic?
-
Mystery wrote:
Not without logic we arent. But with it I think we All know where this is going.₳ʉ₲ʉṣϮḭ₦ê (₳ⓑ€) wrote:
No "curtains" will be revealed here. 😜bye🎵 wrote:
I think you hit the nail on The head my friend.. But is curtain things to us? Perhaps to conclude that we can do history, science, or mathematics?₳ʉ₲ʉṣϮḭ₦ê (₳ⓑ€) wrote: Smug and arrogance is irrelevant...making that accusation is pretty arrogant
Laws come only from can be wrong. comprehension.Now I think what your doing is dividing the have a "law" without it being absolute?
Logic and mathematics are no more real than a toy train set is an actual railroad.
Reality exists without us. Laws applied to reality do not.
-
₳ʉ₲ʉṣϮḭ₦ê (₳ⓑ€) wrote:
Absosmurfly not. No law of man exists in reality.Brown, let me ask you a question here. Do you believe in the laws of logic?
I did not say there are no absolutes. I said the laws of logic are absolutely not absolute.
If I haven't gained any of your trust and respect by now, then be gone with you. You parrot your laws some blowhard professor pushed on you without question, but cannot defend them against some idiot in a turfwars forum.
The laws of logic can be broken legitimately, and I have shown it to be true playing by your own rules. Is a photon a particle and not a particle?
-
bye🎵 wrote:
To be fair brown, you're hardly an idiot; I'd say quite far from being an idiot.₳ʉ₲ʉṣϮḭ₦ê (₳ⓑ€) wrote:
Absosmurfly not. No law of man exists in reality.Brown, let me ask you a question here. Do you believe in the laws of logic?
I did not say there are no absolutes. I said the laws of logic are absolutely not absolute.
If I haven't gained any of your trust and respect by now, then be gone with you. You parrot your laws some blowhard professor pushed on you without question, but cannot defend them against some idiot in a turfwars forum.
The laws of logic can be broken legitimately, and I have shown it to be true playing by your own rules. Is a photon a particle and not a particle?
![[][]](https://turfwarsapp.com/img/app/ajax-forbutton.gif)
Purchase Respect Points NEW! · Support · Turf Map · Terms · Privacy
©2021 MeanFreePath LLC