Author:
Wade A. Tisthammer
|
[
Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
Previous Message
]
Date Posted: 05/ 2/04 3:11pm
In reply to:
Damoclese
's message, "what a bounty" on 04/29/04 2:25pm
>>
>>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.
There's also the evidence in the universe at the present moment. We are right now not outside time. That seems obvious.
>>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?
It does imply that the universe would have to traverse all the time of the past to get to the present.
>>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.
Are you abandoning logic because of this belief of yours?
>As
>I've said time and again, there is no reason that the
>universe has to operate in a way WE define it
Depends on what you mean by "define it." Obviously merely declaring the world to be flat won't make it true, but some things are logically necessary truths. No matter how long we look, we'll never find a round square for instance, since such a thing cannot possibly exist.
>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.
Except that's an incorrect application of logic. The fault is not in mathematics itself. One apple falling aside another, having a total of two apples, is a correct application. If however one of the apples were blasted into bits when it hit the ground, we can't say that 1 + 1 = 2 is a mathematically correct description here.
>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.
How so? Whether or not trinitarian monotheism is correct, it is at least logically consistent and does not violate any mathematical or logical laws.
>>>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?
Get correct information.
>What sort of mystical yardstick do you use
>in this situation to determine whether or not the
>premise is false?
No mystical yardstick, just logical thinking.
>>In regards to how a valid argument can fail to be
>>sound, that is logically impossible.
>
>Logically impossible, but true concerning reality.
If it is logically impossible it cannot be true in reality. To be otherwise would be, well, illogical.
>>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 could prove it to you if you wish.
>>>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?
Except that you're once again misapplying logic. The law of excluded middle does not say or imply that something has to be a particle or wave. Rather, the law of excluded middle says that for any proposition p, p and ~p exhaust all possibilities. (As long as you use a valid proposition and apply this rule correctly.)
>>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.
How so?
>We have no
>basis for assuming time follows neat mathematical
>rules.
If the past is infinite it must at least fit the definition of infinite. That's all I was saying here.
>>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
I'm not putting forth any particular model of physics here. I'm just saying what necessarily results from the definition of "infintie age." If the universe had an infinite past and yet was not infinitely old, then the past wouldn't be infinite in the first place.
>>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
Precisely.
>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 did, for one. I pointed out that this is not a valid proposition. It is neither true nor false. So what is your point here? What "problem" does the self-referential statement have anyway?
>>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.
Yes so. Allow me to demonstrate. (Note: the first premise is true by definition.)
- (S => (T & V)) & ((T & V) => S)
============
- ~S & V (conditional proof assumption)
- ~S (2, simplification)
- (T & V) => S (1, simplification)
- ~(T & V) (3, 4 modus tollens)
- ~T or ~V (5, DeMorgan's laws)
- V (2, simplification)
- ~~V (7, double negation)
- ~T (8, 6 disjunctive syllogism)
- (~S & V) => ~T (2, 9 conditional proof)
So if a deductively Valid argument is not Sound, then at least one premise is not True. Hence my question of which premise is false and why.
>It can fail the test of reality
But then if the deductively valid argument does not produce a true conclusion in reality, then a premise must still be false.
[
Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
Previous Message
]
|
Feedback: 