| Subject: what a bounty |
Author:
Damoclese
|
[
Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
Previous Message
]
Date Posted: 04/29/04 2:25pm
In reply to:
Wade A. Tisthammer
's message, "Illogical to abandon logic." on 04/29/04 12:47pm
>
>Except our universe clearly does not exist outside of
>time. We are here right now. So again, you haven't
>come up with any real alternatives.
Our being here right now is not indicative of anything about the nature of the universe except for right here and right now. You have failed to substaintiate your claims other than to appeal to the universe as it is now, and make inferences that that must be how it always has been and will be.
>
>>>
>
>It does in one sense of its definition. The "past" is
>all that time before the present.
Fine. Let's assume that. Does it say anything about how or what we have to do to get to now on its own?
>
>I more than "feel" that 2 + 2 = 4, I more than "feel"
>that hairless men can't have hair. I perceive it
>logically.
I doubt that in the end evalution that it comes down to anything more than your brain intuitively "feeling" that those things are right. That's a good thing, since that's what it's been programmed to do from thousands of years of evolution.
However, it's important to realize that despite how strongly we feel anything, our feelings have little influence on how things operate external to us. As I've said time and again, there is no reason that the universe has to operate in a way WE define it, because our senses harvest the information and create reality for us.
2+2 seems straight forward enough, but then, even in the situation of biology we can quickly envision scenarios where two cells fuse together, or three cells fuse together providing us a scenario in which 1+1 = 1. Of course, I shouldn't have to tell you that, since your christian background doubtlessly exposed you to the trinity, which violates any mathematical thinking in the first place.
>
>
>
>>It could be that the
>>argument is simply fed imperfect information.
>
>In which the only possible result of its failure to be
>sound would be a false premise.
How do you go about finding a false premise when the information you've got in the first place is inaccurate? What sort of mystical yardstick do you use in this situation to determine whether or not the premise is false?
>
>>or that logic simply has limitations
>
>In regards to how a valid argument can fail to be
>sound, that is logically impossible.
Logically impossible, but true concerning reality.
>
>Some necessary truths are easy to spot, e.g. the only
>way a valid argument can fail to be sound is if it has
>at least one false premise.
I don't regard that as a necessary truth. I regard that as a "defined truth" and that makes a world of difference.
>>Wave particle duality makes little sense.
>
>Perhaps it makes little sense to you, nonetheless it
>violates no logical laws.
If the only options are for something to be particle or wave, (your favorite law of excluded middle) then it surely does. Don't you think?
>
>Infinite means being greater than any preassigned
>value however large. Now how does this beg what
>question?
It begs it when it is applied to time. We have no basis for assuming time follows neat mathematical rules.
>
>An infinite past means the universe is of infinite
>age. Again, how does this beg what question?
Because again, we have no basis for saying that the universe as concerning time follows any concise mathematical models, particularly over vast amounts of time.
>
>Logicians have already dealt with statements like
>those. The above is not a valid proposition. For
>instance, "You there!" is neither true nor false, but
>is vacuous in terms of truth-values. The same with
>your sentence. And again, no laws of logic are
>violated.
You there is not a statement about truth in the first place, and having read copious material on the matter, I can safely say that self-referentiality has not been satisfactorally dealt with by any logician with which I'm aware with the exception perhaps of Godel via his incompleteness theorem. Now, maybe you'd care to tell me which logician it is that's so neatly resolved this for all of philosophy and logic?
>
>I didn't say there were not any limits to what could
>be proven logically. Nonetheless, the only way the
>Tristram Shandy argument can fail to be sound is if
>there is a false premise. That can be proven.
Not so. It can fail the test of reality, and if it does, then it fails to be useful which any good logician could testify to.
[
Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
Previous Message
]
| |
Feedback: 