GENIUS FORUMS

Trevor Salyzyn wrote:Fujaro, how do you define the word "reality"?

I've already defined it before, making use of Wittgenstein's suggestion:
Reality is all that is the case.

Tomas wrote:

Trevor Salyzyn wrote:Fujaro, how do you define the word "reality"?

No doubt. There's more-than-a-few windbags on this forum.


.

Another one that comes emptyhanded to the table.
Please explain me pure logically Tomas, how to map reality to logic with A=A alone?

Say you wanna map the spin state of the electron to A. Of course, as a true philosopher you have no prior knowledge of what the hell a spin state of an electron is, but someone suggested it at dinner and it somehow stuck on you. It has a nice ring to it somehow. So you do your mapping, but just as ...

There is no trivial intrinsic reason why one logical system should be preferred above another logical systems as underlying reality There are "sytems of logic", but logic itself (ie, A=A) is not one of them. Logic is used to create these systems of logic for use in specific areas of knowl...

@Kevin: As I understand it when you take A=A to map an electron in a snapshot, you want to be as sure as possible to use only 100% certified logic. Well, this imho can seriously be doubted for several reasons: a) First of all, the process of assigning an entity from reality to A is not in itself a l...

@Kevin:

The question then also is: Are you your logical 'I', or is the latter no less a presentation of things you perceive in reality like all other things.

Precisely, you must map every instance of the existence of the electron as a separate instance in order to uphold A=A and by doing this you render the use of A=A and all mathematics following grom it impossible. You deny the relation between the elecktron at t1 and t2. It's all different electrons....

Kevin wrote: “A thing at time t1 is not identical with a thing at time t2. To be identical they would have to exist in the same time and place.” Kevin wrote: “As I say, it's only speculation that thing A1 has any close causal connection with A2. And as a philosopher I'm not interested in mere specul...

@Kevin: Also you have hereby managed to deconstruct Descartes’ cogito ergo sum . For what must hold for an electron or any other particle, holds for a bunch of particles like your body. So the irrefutable holy absoluteness of the A=A mantra forces us to consider that the two instances of ‘I’ in the ...

A(x) is always identical with A(x), so the law of identity is still meaningful. If A=A is to be taken as a absolute universal truth, it must hold for every possible combination of t1 and t2, e.g. A(t1)=A(t2). A thing at time t1 is not identical with a thing at time t2. To be identical they would ha...

The instant creation and annihilation keep contradicting the A=A mantra Why? A=A doesn't say anything about how fast things are created and destroyed. You fabulated that the electron spring in and out of existence with this phrase: Kevin wrote: "t1 would be mapped to A1, and t2 would be mapped...

Kevin Solway wrote:A(x) is always identical with A(x), so the law of identity is still meaningful.

If A=A is to be taken as a absolute universal truth, it must hold for every possible combination of t1 and t2, e.g. A(t1)=A(t2).

"Everything always changes" is itself an immutable truth about reality, arrived at logically. So Diebert is right in pointing out that you are contradicting yourself. Fujaro is also contradicting himself in a similar manner. David, I am not positing that everything always changes. So I am...

Maybe it is the other way around. Don't map a certain logic (say pure logic) to reality, but instead, choose the logic that fits reality best. Paraconsistent quantum logics takes this approach.

Reality, in a more Taoist sense can be only truthfully described as having two aspects: the constant and the changing. Or the finite and the infinite. In the deepest sense they're always both and neither, therefore undefinable. It looks we have a reformulated logical truth here. A=A becomes: A is e...

Logic, therefore, is a subset of reality. The set of all possible logically true statements must therefore be a subset of all possible true statements. That is to say, a statement can be true a priori. Do you mean an a priori true statement as in: a fact residing in reality that cannot be deduced w...

Logic, therefore, is a subset of reality. The set of all possible logically true statements must therefore be a subset of all possible true statements. That is to say, a statement can be true a priori. Do you mean an a priori true statement as in: a fact residing in reality that cannot be deduced w...

David Quinn wrote:You have difficulty wrapping your mind around the notion of timelessness? For that is what an uncaused Nature essentially means - that it is timeless.

Well, there are other posibilities. It may be that time is like a loop. What'wrong with that? Don't you feel complete without a first cause?

Reality, in a more Taoist sense can be only truthfully described as having two aspects: the constant and the changing. Or the finite and the infinite. In the deepest sense they're always both and neither, therefore undefinable. It looks we have a reformulated logical truth here. A=A becomes: A is e...

Does A=A say something about time then.......? Logical truths are immutable, as David correctly points out. This is why they do not map to reality - exactly what you were saying - since in reality, everything always changes. Some degree of abstraction is always present. A=A is only true in the abst...

Well, the answer suggested by nature is that it does not hold, for the particle behaviour of an electron (for instance measured when scattering electrons in crystals) is quite different from the wave behaviour of an electron as measured in the double slit experiment. This is a real enigma offered b...

Gödel's Theorem is valid within the narrow parameters it sets for itself, but it doesn't apply to pure logic. Well the parameters aren't that narrow really If it excludes pure logic, which it certainly does, then its parameters are exceedingly narrow. Please define 'pure logic'. GIT applies to a ve...

Well Fujaro, how could this ever become a proper debate with someone who claims the application of Euclidean geometry to reality [in scientific sense] is "rejected"? It's already a disaster now as you just don't understand even the topic of the debate: that A=A is not in dispute within an...

I've told you myself with an example under which conditions the approximation works fine . It's not the whole story though, under those conditions. Under those conditions GR gives a better - albeit a more demanding - description of reality. Furthermore the universe does not stop at the edge of our ...

Truth comes before proof. That sounds familiar, something like: god is the first cause. Well OK you have a religion, so what? Okay, so you are the definition of a postmodernist. I should get a prize for calling it. There is literally no reason to talk to you, now that it has been established you do...