A question for deep thinkers and simple thinkers!
Forums › General Discussion › A question for deep thinkers and simple thinkers!-
₳ʉ₲ʉṣϮḭ₦ê (₳ⓑ€) wrote:
Google didn't say that was the 3rd law. What I quoted is a reason why the 3rd law doesn't work.Mystery wrote:
No google blew it. The law of excluded middle states that a statement that is made is either true or false. If the truth of a proposition is unknown then its a argument from ignorance.For the 3rd law, google says it better than I could:
"Many modern logic systems reject the law of excluded middle, replacing it with the concept of negation as failure. That is, there is a third possibility: the truth of a proposition is unknown." (A false dilemma.) -
Mystery wrote:
₳ʉ₲ʉṣϮḭ₦ê (₳ⓑ€) wrote:
You can't just set aside physics. Physics is as relevant as mathematics here.💋Karma💋 wrote:
If you wanted to go into physics then this is the wrong forum because I am not a expert of physics and I doubt than anyone here is. We are talking about the laws of logic.₳ʉ₲ʉṣϮḭ₦ê (₳ⓑ€) wrote:
Take two math classes and call me in comfy with contradictory terms. It isn't 😜Mr. Brown fails to on his ability to
Sure and I'm not (completely). You couldn't do math if 1+1 didn't equal 2. But if I knew more about physics then I would talk all about it. But as far as I'm concerned without the laws of logic being true you could not do physics much less make any theories- I believe this idea that physics out rule logic is foolishness.
-
I believe a photon is matter and also is not matter.
So does everyone else. It's not an argument in ignorance, (more on that later), but it is a breakdown in "it is what it is and isn't what it isn't."
(An argument in ignorance should not be a fallacy. Ignorance is a fundamental part of discovery. "Unknown" is a valid state. Ask any algebra teacher.)
These laws have a time and very specific domain in which they SEEM to fit what we think is reality. When they fail, you have to come up with yet another fallacy.
This model is so full of 3000 year old holes, I could beat you over the head with them all day long.
-
Mystery wrote:
And I told you that there are two different senses. Two different respects as Aristotle puts it. So yes it is.₳ʉ₲ʉṣϮḭ₦ê (₳ⓑ€) wrote:
It hasn't been debunked.bye🎵 wrote:
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 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?
Aristotle says:
""one cannot say of something that it is and that it is not in the same respect and at the same time". [note Aristotle's use of indices: 'respect' & 'time']" -
Mystery wrote:
What other senses of wrong in are there? Is it wrong to use circular reasoning? LolIn what sense do you mean "wrong?" What is the point of it? It doesn't prove anything.
-
bye🎵 wrote:
So absolutes do exist.₳ʉ₲ʉṣϮḭ₦ê (₳ⓑ€) wrote:
Yes, I am. It is bizarre to believe that a man-made framework governs reality. I do not require any rules, laws, postulations, multiplication tables or shopping lists to be sure, either. I am wired to think this way. It is apparent to all of us naturally.bye🎵 wrote:
Are you absolutely sure about that?...Because you realize that reality is just as governed by fight club rules as Aristotle's rules of logic.
It's not.
Does this govern your reality?:
The first law of logic is that Augustine is an unreliable source of information.
No, it does not. But it is a valid observation, and could pass any arbitrary test I would throw at it. It must be truth then. It is as valid as Aristotle's observations.
Thank you.
-
I see no reason why you need the 3 laws of logic being discussed here to do physics.
-
₳ʉ₲ʉṣϮḭ₦ê (₳ⓑ€) wrote:
Morally wrong, ethically wrong, "logically" wrong, etc. Wrong in what sense?Mystery wrote:
What other senses of wrong in are there? Is it wrong to use circular reasoning? LolIn what sense do you mean "wrong?" What is the point of it? It doesn't prove anything.
-
I have a headache
-
₳ʉ₲ʉṣϮḭ₦ê (₳ⓑ€) wrote:
It's a thought experiment so it can't be debunked.Mystery wrote:
And I told you that there are two different senses. Two different respects as Aristotle puts it. So yes it is.₳ʉ₲ʉṣϮḭ₦ê (₳ⓑ€) wrote:
It hasn't been debunked.bye🎵 wrote:
For An example in one sense the cat is alive and in another sense the cat is dead which still violates the 2nd law...Schrödinger's cat is both dead and alive, violating the second law of logic, yet can be mathematically proven to be true.
Aristotle says:
""one cannot say of something that it is and that it is not in the same respect and at the same time". [note Aristotle's use of indices: 'respect' & 'time']" -
I never said absolutes don't exist, you simpleton!
To the contrary.
I said Aristotle's laws of logic are not absolute, nor universal.
This cannot be debated. It is absolute. Quantum mechanics prove these laws to be unreliable. This isn't new. People have been disgusted with Aristotle's laws for centuries.
Learn physics. It might help you stand up.
-
bye🎵 wrote:
Are you absolutlely sure about that?I never said absolutes don't exist, you simpleton!
To the contrary.
I said Aristotle's laws of logic are not absolute, nor universal.
This cannot be debated. It is absolute. Quantum mechanics prove these laws to be unreliable. This isn't new. People have been disgusted with Aristotle's laws for centuries.
Learn physics. It might help you stand up.
-
₳ʉ₲ʉṣϮḭ₦ê (₳ⓑ€) wrote:
Absolutely. Classical logic is broken.bye🎵 wrote:
Are you absolutlely sure about that?I never said absolutes don't exist, you simpleton!
To the contrary.
I said Aristotle's laws of logic are not absolute, nor universal.
This cannot be debated. It is absolute. Quantum mechanics prove these laws to be unreliable. This isn't new. People have been disgusted with Aristotle's laws for centuries.
Learn physics. It might help you stand up.
-
Mystery wrote:
Is that true?₳ʉ₲ʉṣϮḭ₦ê (₳ⓑ€) wrote:
Google didn't say that was the 3rd law. What I quoted is a reason why the 3rd law doesn't work.Mystery wrote:
No google blew it. The law of excluded middle states that a statement that is made is either true or false. If the truth of a proposition is unknown then its a argument from ignorance.For the 3rd law, google says it better than I could:
"Many modern logic systems reject the law of excluded middle, replacing it with the concept of negation as failure. That is, there is a third possibility: the truth of a proposition is unknown." (A false dilemma.) -
Argument of ignorance.
-
bye🎵 wrote:
Then you believe in absolutes then. Thanks₳ʉ₲ʉṣϮḭ₦ê (₳ⓑ€) wrote:
Absolutely. Classical logic is broken.bye🎵 wrote:
Are you absolutlely sure about that?I never said absolutes don't exist, you simpleton!
To the contrary.
I said Aristotle's laws of logic are not absolute, nor universal.
This cannot be debated. It is absolute. Quantum mechanics prove these laws to be unreliable. This isn't new. People have been disgusted with Aristotle's laws for centuries.
Learn physics. It might help you stand up.
-
₳ʉ₲ʉṣϮḭ₦ê (₳ⓑ€) wrote:
False. Demonstrably.They are called the nature of the laws. It's how we can do science, math and everything else that requires a mind to give it it's meaning.... Its a constant meaning. A=A and never B. That is a true statement... But by faith be trust in our validity of this truth. But if this truth is absolute then regardless of our validity, the statement is still true... But there is still a mind to make it still exist even we cease to exist.
Lepton=Lepton and simultaneously Lepton=quark.
AND ICING ON THE CAKE: Direction and location may also contradict.
Not true?
-
bye🎵 wrote:
You believe it's false? Then you have to carry the laws of logic to make that kind of statement. It only proves you need it also proving my point that they are solidly consistent.₳ʉ₲ʉṣϮḭ₦ê (₳ⓑ€) wrote:
False. Demonstrably.They are called the nature of the laws. It's how we can do science, math and everything else that requires a mind to give it it's meaning.... Its a constant meaning. A=A and never B. That is a true statement... But by faith be trust in our validity of this truth. But if this truth is absolute then regardless of our validity, the statement is still true... But there is still a mind to make it still exist even we cease to exist.
Lepton=Lepton and simultaneously Lepton=quark.
AND ICING ON THE CAKE: Direction and location may also contradict.
Not true?
-
bye🎵 wrote:
Argument of ignorance.
-
₳ʉ₲ʉṣϮḭ₦ê (₳ⓑ€) wrote:
Aristotle would have said no. The example given on Google is:Mystery wrote:
Is that true?₳ʉ₲ʉṣϮḭ₦ê (₳ⓑ€) wrote:
What I quoted is a reason why the 3rd law doesn't work.Mystery wrote:
The law of excluded middle states that a statement that is made is either true or false. If the truth of a proposition is unknown then its a argument from ignorance."Many logic systems reject the law of excluded middle, replacing it with negation as failure. That is, there is a third possibility: the truth of a proposition is unknown." (A false dilemma.)
"A classic example illustrating the difference is the proposition: "It is not safe to cross the railroad tracks when a train is coming". One should not deduce it is safe to cross the tracks if one doesn't know a train is coming." -
Define "true."
-
So much heresy and so little time! If absolutes are not absolute then they could not exist in reality. Now when brown gives me a "refutation" he has to use the laws of logic to not only come up with a analogy he has to use them to confirm his statement is even true! Here is a man that says we need to set logic aside because it isn't absolute to go on using logic to make his argument! Mr brown you lost before you started
-
YOU wrote:
In what sense do you mean "wrong?" What is the point of it? It doesn't prove anything.
-
If you believe that the immaterial laws of logic, mathematics, science, and absolute morality are up to the individual, then it would be perfectly alright for anyone to come up with their own laws in these matters. Not only would these alternate laws be common, they would have to be 'right' since there would be no universal standard to evaluate their correctness. Not only could no conflict ever be resolved, there would be no conflicts since everyone would be right.
We know however that this is simply not the case. In base ten mathematics, when you add 2 + 2, you expect the correct answer to be 4, and would not accept a different answer as being correct from someone who lived down the street, or in Bangkok. You would not accept that child molestation would be right anywhere in the universe.
You deny that laws of logic, mathematics, science and absolute morality, are universal yet you base your life on their universality. Unless you reconsider your stand on this matter, your road to this thread is over.
-
YOU wrote:
I see no reason why you need the 3 laws of logic being discussed here to do physics.
-
What a bafoon!
Reason exists without the formal construct of logic.
Absolutes exist.
You are absolutely annoying, and foolish to put your faith in classical logic.
You never refute my statements that quantum mechanics contradict Aristotle.
Probably because you are a fool.
Is a photon a particle and a wave at the same time in the same sense? Yes. Is it neither at the same time? Yes.
Tell me how your absolute and universal laws of logic deal with this problem.
-
Morality is not universal you piece of camel excrement.
Any idiot knows this. Where have you been?
-
(phew! One day down... 30 to go!)
-
Man... Read faster. Get to the end of the page you are on and admit that it is accepted widely that classical logic breaks down at the quantum level. So it can't be universal, nor absolute.
Like I'm playing cards with my sister's kids or somethin'!
-
Mystery wrote:
In every sense mystery.₳ʉ₲ʉṣϮḭ₦ê (₳ⓑ€) wrote:
Morally wrong, ethically wrong, "logically" wrong, etc. Wrong in what sense?Mystery wrote:
What other senses of wrong in are there? Is it wrong to use circular reasoning? LolIn what sense do you mean "wrong?" What is the point of it? It doesn't prove anything.
![[][]](https://turfwarsapp.com/img/app/ajax-forbutton.gif)
Purchase Respect Points NEW! · Support · Turf Map · Terms · Privacy
©2021 MeanFreePath LLC