Can you ever be certain that you are reasoning correctly?

[Diebert van Rhijn]

Hey there Ryan, my-sucker ;)

I have always felt that A=A, and 1 + 1 = 2 are not all that useful it and of themselves as teaching tools. You need context, definitions, which implies analyzing reality in some focused capacity, and acquiring knowledge that can be reflected back upon reality.

1+1=2 is really not that useful normally but in this case it suddenly became useful. And it's not the first time I see people failing to realize how it's a matter of definition, how the numbers logically refer to sets or categories and therefore a division. Nothing more than our mind is doing already. As such it demonstrates and becomes useful depending on context of the discussion. In this discussion it already has proven its value as Fujaro stumbled over it without realizing his error. Alex is another one I saw not understanding how 1+1 actually works. I think not many people do, really, so it shouldn't be seen as insult. We grow up with the equation and have an image in our mind that is seeing it as just a disconnected floating device of some kind.

This is why an in depth analysis of human behavior is much more effective as a teaching tool to reason, then trying to get someone to understand A=A because it is just a generalized abstraction that doesn’t point to anything in particular.

It's a bit like the difference between reading a whole book of Nietzsche or studying a Zen koan. It really depends on the context to estimate how helpful it can be. For example ones response to Nietzsche's style, dramatic prose or contemporary bias could make it more difficult to have any beneficial effect. Same with studying human behavior, one will hit all kinds or issues with morality and subjectivity embedded in context and as such might distract and block any discovery of underlying deeper issues.

In general though I really cannot take anyone serious who keeps arguing that A=A is not valid in some cases. It's a quick way to flush out deep seeded ignorance.

I suspect the entire purpose of A=A is that certain writers are trying to convey the consistency and predictability of the causal world, which is in affect - the law of identify.

It's more like a way to acknowledge the subjectivity of mind by contrasting it with an unshakable absolute.

[Fujaro]

In general though I really cannot take anyone serious who keeps arguing that A=A is not valid in some cases. It's a quick way to flush out deep seeded ignorance.

Of course not. You hate new viewpoints that counter your religion. But anyone who does some thinking demands arguments for the applicability of logic to reality.

According to Einstein (a complete idiot not to be taken seriously as far as Diebert is concerned):

The skeptic will say: "It may well be true that this system of equations is reasonable from a logical standpoint. But this does not prove that it corresponds to nature." You are right, dear skeptic. Experience alone can decide on truth. ... Pure logical thinking cannot yield us any knowledge of the empirical world: all knowledge of reality starts from experience and ends in it.

Science proceeds from facts to laws to theories by the process called induction. Induction includes pattern-recognition, tinkering, creative guessing and that elusive "insight". It is not a process of deductive logic. Mathematics however IS a process of deductive logic. It is the deductive link between theories and experimental facts. Because of this, some non-scientists think that mathematics and logic are used to "prove" scientific propositions, to deduce new laws and theories, and to establish laws and theories with mathematical certainty. But this idea is false.

Thinking logic is a priori applicable to reality is lacking the insight that deduction and induction are radically different in nature. The bottom line is that logic alone can tell us nothing new about the real world. The same goes for mathematics, as Albert Einstein observed: "Insofar as mathematics is exact, it does not apply to reality; and insofar as mathematics applies to reality, it is not exact."

[Fujaro]

1+1=2 is really not that useful normally but in this case it suddenly became useful. And it's not the first time I see people failing to realize how it's a matter of definition, how the numbers logically refer to sets or categories and therefore a division. Nothing more than our mind is doing already. As such it demonstrates and becomes useful depending on context of the discussion. In this discussion it already has proven its value as Fujaro stumbled over it without realizing his error. Alex is another one I saw not understanding how 1+1 actually works. I think not many people do, really, so it shouldn't be seen as insult. We grow up with the equation and have an image in our mind that is seeing it as just a disconnected floating device of some kind.

Ho ho ho, you are the one that is positing that logic can in an absolute sense be applied to reality. That you can infer true knowledge about reality from logic alone. The example with liquids shows clearly that carefull analysis is needed beforehand.

Then why are you claiming abolute knowledge about reality here:
"But how and that we are perceiving - that's a story we can know, for 100%, from inside out."

Be a man and supply the arguments for this. You owe Albert.

[Fujaro]

Another great example of why the application of logic and mathematics to reality is not an a priori truth, is non-euclidean geometry. Indeed for a very long time it was thought that euclidean geometry with its axiomas is abolute and holds in reality. Its application to reality only was limited by the fact that we cannot draw circles and lines with absolute precision in reality. But then Einstein, using non-euclidean geometry provdided by Minkowski, proved it to be wrong in a more fundamental way. In reality space is curved by mass meaning that not all axiomas of Euclid's geometry hold in reality. The general view of science nowadays is that we live in a non-euclidean universe!

But then again mathematical universality is easily entangled with universal universality:

Mathematical knowledge is obtained by Proofs, consisting of generally valid and certain conclusions. Mathematical statements are not verified by experiments or social agreements, but they are logically deduced from basic assumptions. This method guarantees the universal applicability of mathematical results: whenever a mathematical statement can be mapped into the physical reality then it holds true.

Has anybody noticed how emptyhanded Diebert comes to the discussion? There is not even an attempt to explain the applicability of logic to reality and there is not one clear cut example for his claim on absolute truth in knowing how we perceive.

[Trevor Salyzyn]

Fujaro: why are you taking a scientist's advice on a philosophic issue? It is a flat-out Appeal to Authority. Einstein is quite clearly dealing with things outside of his range of specialization, and his claims here are no better than a bloke off the street.

Logic can and does make positive claims about reality, including those untestable laws upon which empirical science is based. The law of non-contradiction, derived from self-identity, is one of these. It is certain that if a given scientific theory is not internally consistent, it is a false theory. From this innocuous positive claim, an infinite number of theories are automatically dead in the water, completely impossible. There's an invisible pink unicorn in my garage.

There is only one exception to the law of non-contradiction, and it is not in physics. (It is through the law of non-contradiction that it can be divined that q.m., for instance, is not a complete theory, and will need to be replaced by another one.) This single exception occurs when a logical proof deals with its own truth, as in the statement "this sentence is false".

Good enough of a rebuttal for you?

[Diebert van Rhijn]

Fujaro: "...that you can infer true knowledge about reality from logic alone."

It's interesting that you haven't discovered yet what I was talking about here, perhaps it's just too simple and unassuming. I was talking about absolute knowledge, the nature of knowledge itself, not relative knowledge about some reality or construct. The distinction seems lost on you. usually it takes some religious conviction to not see the obvious right in front of you.

And pleeeese give up the attempts to educate me about science. The last one who tried was claiming that planes were curved in non-euclidean space! At least you are less dumb than that! Or are you? Euclidean geometry is not wrong but only the ones who took it as absolute reality. Just like you are wrong by saying "In reality space is curved..." as this is exactly the same error as the ones believing Euclidean geometry was 'reality'. Anyway Euclid's 5th axiom was never self-evident to start with so doubtfully could be called a true axiom.

We don't appear to have any significant disagreement about the meaning and use of science and I would be surprised if you could tell me something I don't already know. Maybe I could tell you one or two new things but perhaps another time!

[Fujaro]

Fujaro: why are you taking a scientist's advice on a philosophic issue? It is a flat-out Appeal to Authority. Einstein is quite clearly dealing with things outside of his range of specialization, and his claims here are no better than a bloke off the street.

Logic can and does make positive claims about reality, including those untestable laws upon which empirical science is based. The law of non-contradiction, derived from self-identity, is one of these. It is certain that if a given scientific theory is not internally consistent, it is a false theory. From this innocuous positive claim, an infinite number of theories are automatically dead in the water, completely impossible. There's an invisible pink unicorn in my garage.

There is only one exception to the law of non-contradiction, and it is not in physics. (It is through the law of non-contradiction that it can be divined that q.m., for instance, is not a complete theory, and will need to be replaced by another one.) This single exception occurs when a logical proof deals with its own truth, as in the statement "this sentence is false".

Good enough of a rebuttal for you?

Hello Trevor,

Well if I had not given examples for the statements I made, you could have argued that it all is an appeal to authority. But I gave several examples. Examples you don´t simply wave away with an appeal to unnamed authorities in a proclaimed specialized field, which in fact is also a (more concealed) appeal to authority. Should Gödel the logician certify as an authority? You know of course that Einstein and Gödel were close friends for a considerable period of time. Gödel showed that logical formalism cannot be complete and consistent at the same time. How then can it say something absolute about reality? If there is some real simple answer to this question please let me know, but I expect it not to be the case since the literature on this topic is quite considerable. Also (even without Gödel's theorem) it is possible to have internally consistent theories that are incomplete.

I acknowledge that logic can and does make positive claims about reality but only tentative ones and not without validation in the real world. This even applies to the law of self-identity. For you can posit that an electron is a particle. But quantum mechanics shows that an electron at the same time can be wavelike in nature. One could ask then, what has happened to this law of identity that states that nothing can be someting else than itself? If you have a good advice for me here I am very interested about it and with me a fairly large community of philosophers that have pondered on this question. From it springs a whole spectrum of philosophies on quantum mechanics ranging from the Copenhagen Interpretation to loop quantum gravity. Not a thing that is easily swept under the rug with appeal to more specialized authorities.

But lets make some things clear about where I stand first, for this may all too soon give you the wrong idea about where I stand. I am not a mystic free riding on the back of quantum mechanics proclaiming the demise of logic, reason and science. Logic, reason and science are all the tools we have for any knowledge at all. That is my personal opinion. The validation of science and reason is in what is achieved with it. Just look in modern hospitals and you'll get the idea. The aplication of logic and reason to reality is validated by its usefullness and aptness to build very accurate models of reality from. But it is based on tentative truths both in the empirical sense and in the logical sense. Thus, I am a strong proponent of reason and logic but when the A-word (~ Absolute) hits the air, my bullshit detectors are on. The pink unicorn isn't in your garage I'm sure, because next to absolutely sure there is something like probable which is in most cases sure enough for me.

So I gave you non-euclidean geometry, the incompleteness theorem of Gödel, the dual nature of electrons, curved space, M-brane theory, A=A in the light of unknown dimensions, the application of addition rules to fluids and Newtonian mechanic versus General Relativity. I can go on with the incompleteness of Zermel-Franckl set theory, Bayesian probability logic and other examples. So frankly, no I don't think my answer is sufficiently addressed by Diebert or you because all you do is stating a claim. You don't supply any logic or reason why what you state should be true (appeal to logic by sheer will?) and you haven't addressed a single example I gave.

[Ryan Rudolph]

Diebert,

In general though I really cannot take anyone serious who keeps arguing that A=A is not valid in some cases. It's a quick way to flush out deep seeded ignorance.

I don’t use the A=A symbolism in my writing, so perhaps you could tell me what are the most common instances you have seen of people denying A=A is some cases, could you provide a common example?

It's more like a way to acknowledge the subjectivity of mind by contrasting it with an unshakable absolute.

What are you saying? To illustrate the fact that things always appear as they are, independently of what the mind imagines, hopes or garbles them to be?

[Fujaro]

Fujaro: "...that you can infer true knowledge about reality from logic alone."

It's interesting that you haven't discovered yet what I was talking about here, perhaps it's just too simple and unassuming. I was talking about absolute knowledge, the nature of knowledge itself, not relative knowledge about some reality or construct. The distinction seems lost on you. usually it takes some religious conviction to not see the obvious right in front of you.

So your self proclaimed silence ban has been lifted for a moment?

Well Diebert,

You still don't seem to get the point. I am not disagreeing with you that absolute knowledge in itself is absolute. That would be pretty stupid aint it? I am disagreeing that humans at this moment have access to universal abolutes that hold in every realm, be it the conceptual logic one or reality. Have you solved Gödel's puzzle yet? Fine, just let me know how you did it and we can round up this pseudo debate.

And pleeeese give up the attempts to educate me about science. The last one who tried was claiming that planes were curved in non-euclidean space! At least you are less dumb than that! Or are you? Euclidean geometry is not wrong but only the ones who took it as absolute reality. Just like you are wrong by saying "In reality space is curved..." as this is exactly the same error as the ones believing Euclidean geometry was 'reality'. Anyway Euclid's 5th axiom was never self-evident to start with so doubtfully could be called a true axiom.

I give you education about science? Your interpretation Diebert. Next you won't allow me to give examples on basis of the fact that you know everything already. The arrogance is indeed very very deep. Just simply rebut the examples with your almighty omnicience. Should be easy if I may trust your word on it.

And as for non-euclidean geometry: it can only be earmarked as the latest tentative truth on geometry in our universe. And this you should have deduced yourself from my earlier remarks that all scientific truths are tentative truths. I did not ever present non-euclidean geometry as the only and absolute answer to the question. Just read my postings!

We don't appear to have any significant disagreement about the meaning and use of science and I would be surprised if you could tell me something I don't already know. Maybe I could tell you one or two new things but perhaps another time!

It is very clear to me that you are absolutely certain about this.

[Trevor Salyzyn]

For you can posit that an electron is a particle. But quantum mechanics shows that an electron at the same time can be wavelike in nature. One could ask then, what has happened to this law of identity that states that nothing can be someting else than itself? If you have a good advice for me here I am very interested about it and with me a fairly large community of philosophers that have pondered on this question.

It's a mishandling of the law of self-identity to consider this an invalidation of it; rather than showing a flaw in logic, it reveals a flaw in knowledge.

The aplication of logic and reason to reality is validated by its usefullness and aptness to build very accurate models of reality from.

Logic is incredibly useful, but it is only the foundation. I agree that logic by itself does not give a person the specialist knowledge to work in any situation: however, no specialist knowledge would be possible in the first place without logic.

I don't think my answer is sufficiently addressed by Diebert or you because all you do is stating a claim.

It's a simple claim, though. Going at a flat-out run through a bunch of specialist fields does not alter the simple fact that all these fields require a basic grasp of logic. You can trivialize it if you like, since most people learn these fundamentals in grade school. But why trivialize something that's necessary for everything else? Logic has its uses, and although a highly trained logician is more likely to be teaching classes in the humanities than performing surgery, who cares?

You don't supply any logic or reason why what you state should be true (appeal to logic by sheer will?) and you haven't addressed a single example I gave.

Your examples are irrelevant. They're just more data in the pot, and I think they're blinding you to something that's really fucking obvious. Besides, providing a logic or reason for accepting logic is absurd. By asking for a logic or reason you are already assuming as true what I'm going to offer you. It's pretty circular if you ask me, and I don't like wasting my breath defending something you know. If you don't accept that you already know it, then you simply lack insight.

[Fujaro]

For you can posit that an electron is a particle. But quantum mechanics shows that an electron at the same time can be wavelike in nature. One could ask then, what has happened to this law of identity that states that nothing can be someting else than itself? If you have a good advice for me here I am very interested about it and with me a fairly large community of philosophers that have pondered on this question.

It's a mishandling of the law of self-identity to consider this an invalidation of it; rather than showing a flaw in logic, it reveals a flaw in knowledge.

And why is that Trevor? What IS the identity of an electron? Should it be Copenhagen, Transactional Interpretation or LQG? And btw, this isn't a multiple choice question, according to your Law of Identity. The one thing can only be one.

The aplication of logic and reason to reality is validated by its usefullness and aptness to build very accurate models of reality from.

Logic is incredibly useful, but it is only the foundation. I agree that logic by itself does not give a person the specialist knowledge to work in any situation: however, no specialist knowledge would be possible in the first place without logic.

I agree.

I don't think my answer is sufficiently addressed by Diebert or you because all you do is stating a claim.

It's a simple claim, though. Going at a flat-out run through a bunch of specialist fields does not alter the simple fact that all these fields require a basic grasp of logic. You can trivialize it if you like, since most people learn these fundamentals in grade school. But why trivialize something that's necessary for everything else? Logic has its uses, and although a highly trained logician is more likely to be teaching classes in the humanities than performing surgery, who cares?

Dear Trevor, I am not doubting or trivializing the usefullness of reason and logic. The problem is this: to declare that logic and reason always are applicable to the real world IS NOT A LOGICAL STEP ITSELF.

You don't supply any logic or reason why what you state should be true (appeal to logic by sheer will?) and you haven't addressed a single example I gave.

Your examples are irrelevant. They're just more data in the pot, and I think they're blinding you to something that's really fucking obvious. Besides, providing a logic or reason for accepting logic is absurd. By asking for a logic or reason you are already assuming as true what I'm going to offer you. It's pretty circular if you ask me, and I don't like wasting my breath defending something you know. If you don't accept that you already know it, then you simply lack insight.

Please Trevor, there is a difference between major philosophical issues with QM and 'more data in the pot'. Bring on the arguments for the examples I give and don't hide in some empty generic refutal. If you have the balls to do it, that is.

[Ryan Rudolph]

Fujaro,

This even applies to the law of self-identity. For you can posit that an electron is a particle. But quantum mechanics shows that an electron at the same time can be wavelike in nature. One could ask then, what has happened to this law of identity that states that nothing can be someting else than itself? If you have a good advice for me here I am very interested about it and with me a fairly large community of philosophers that have pondered on this question. From it springs a whole spectrum of philosophies on quantum mechanics ranging from the Copenhagen Interpretation to loop quantum gravity. Not a thing that is easily swept under the rug with appeal to more specialized authorities

.

If one maintains faithful to the law of self-identity with the particle example, one could simply change the definition to what identify means. Identify doesn’t have to signify one linear visual property, but it could take on multi-dimensional visual properties. For instance: ‘A’ as a particle or thing would be defined as behaving like a particle and a wave, while taking on the dual appearance of both a particle and a wave.

Who knows, perhaps even deeper in the quantum world, a thing could take on dozens of appearances, but the unique spatial arrangements of those appearances might be applicable to only that thing. Perhaps in the future our technology will eventually reach a state of complexity that “particles” as things could be perceived with both their known appearances simultaneously. And a complete view of the particle will be seen for the first time.

If you apply that reasoning to the situation, then we haven’t actually seen a particle yet in its true observable form. In actuality, our view of the particle is based on fuzzy half-truths derived from indirect empirical data collected from insufficient instruments, combined with intuition. That is probably why the some of the best quantum physicists have collectively agreed to describe the particle as a fuzzy ball of energy probabilities. That is the best appearance our instruments can give us at this time.

So the limitation of A=A is that describing a thing’s essence is totally dependent on the human sensory perception framework, combined with the limitations of our latest scientific instruments. So in that sense, A=A as a generalized abstraction cannot be totally absolute in itself, it must be total relative and subject to an ever changing subjective mind.

[Fujaro]

Fujaro,

This even applies to the law of self-identity. For you can posit that an electron is a particle. But quantum mechanics shows that an electron at the same time can be wavelike in nature. One could ask then, what has happened to this law of identity that states that nothing can be someting else than itself? If you have a good advice for me here I am very interested about it and with me a fairly large community of philosophers that have pondered on this question. From it springs a whole spectrum of philosophies on quantum mechanics ranging from the Copenhagen Interpretation to loop quantum gravity. Not a thing that is easily swept under the rug with appeal to more specialized authorities

.

If one maintains faithful to the law of self-identity with the particle example, one could simply change the definition to what identify means. Identify doesn’t have to signify one linear visual property, but it could take on multi-dimensional visual properties. For instance: ‘A’ as a particle or thing would be defined as behaving like a particle and a wave, while taking on the dual appearance of both a particle and a wave.

The quantum thing goes even further than that Ryan. In the double slit experiment the same electron travels through both slits simultaneously! The identity has become a duality.

If you apply that reasoning to the situation, then we haven’t actually seen a particle yet in its true observable form. In actuality, our view of the particle is based on fuzzy half-truths derived from indirect empirical data collected from insufficient instruments, combined with intuition. That is probably why the some of the best quantum physicists have collectively agreed to describe the particle as a fuzzy ball of energy probabilities. That is the best appearance our instruments can give us at this time.

If our knowledge at this moment is shown to be incomplete in a later stage, this only shows that logic (deductive in nature) can not be applied to reality in a straightforward logical way.

[Trevor Salyzyn]

And why is that Trevor? What IS the identity of an electron? Should it be Copenhagen, Transactional Interpretation or LQG? And btw, this isn't a multiple choice question, according to your Law of Identity. The one thing can only be one.

An electron is an electron. That's what self-identity means. It's very simple. If you don't know what an electron is, that's not the fault of logic.

The problem is this: to declare that logic and reason always are applicable to the real world IS NOT A LOGICAL STEP ITSELF.

Of course not. There is a point where you realize that not using logic and reason when approaching the real world is not going to be valuable in any way whatsoever. You could call it a leap of faith if you must, except it's more of a leap away from faith. Those who don't use logic only have faith.

Please Trevor, there is a difference between major philosophical issues with QM and 'more data in the pot'. Bring on the arguments for the examples I give and don't hide in some empty generic refutal. If you have the balls to do it, that is.

It wasn't empty or generic. There are no major philosophic issues with QM. There are problems with QM when, for instance, an pseudophilosopher looks at a probability graph and makes the mistake of believing that quantum phenomena are not caused (or caused by randomness). But inevitably all problems with QM are caused by the weaknesses in an imperfect theory, not weaknesses in logic. Logic is used to recognize where QM needs work, to determine where and how the theory fails to accurately describe reality.

The paradoxes of QM are no more a refutation of logic than Xeno's paradox is. It took over 2 millenia to resolve Xeno's paradox, but the answer (calculus) was not illogical.

[Fujaro]

For Trevor and just before hitting the sack:
"Although today this question is of special interest to philosophers of physics, many physicists continue to show a strong interest in the subject."
Source: Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics

[Ryan Rudolph]

Fujaro,

The quantum thing goes even further than that Ryan. In the double slit experiment the same electron travels through both slits simultaneously! The identity has become a duality.

Well, I agree that in one sense, a thing is not truly divided from other things, but perhaps the behavior of the electron splitting into two was a forced behavior, meaning the path of the electron was so restricted that it was forced to separate into two energy entities, and then it became one again after it moved through the restricted pathways.

In the everyday existence of that electron, it would probably keep its shape and appearance as it bounced off things, and reacted with other things. In one sense, everything is undivided, but in another sense, there are separate things relating and interacting with each other.

If our knowledge at this moment is shown to be incomplete in a later stage, this only shows that logic (deductive in nature) can not be applied to reality in a straightforward logical way.

I don’t quite follow what you are hinting at here, perhaps you might put it another way.

My main point is that the conscious advancement of Logic/Reason/Science aims to give us an ever increasing clearer/detailed picture of reality, and I don’t believe this process will ever stop, It will continue expanding into both the macro and micro indefinitely. For instance: technology will continue to make it easier for consciousness to perceive and understand everything.

[Diebert van Rhijn]

I am disagreeing that humans at this moment have access to universal abolutes that hold in every realm

But you're not supplying the reasoning yet. Universal absolutes hold in every realm by definition. This cannot be tested or discovered, there would be no time for it! It can only be logically arrived at. And then what? Nothing, as the truth you arrived at now was already the case, so nothing new.

all scientific truths are tentative truths. I did not ever present non-euclidean geometry as the only and absolute answer to the question. Just read my postings!

No, you wrote: "In reality space is curved". So for you reality is the same as scientific truth, that is: tentative? Fair enough, but at the same time you wrote: "Just look around you. Did you notice the world? Well that's the world I mean". And you called that the real world.

Now back to your original: "The applicability of logical statements in the realm of reality isn't beyond doubt". Can't you see you're mixing the terms 'reality' and 'real world' in a confusing manner? While I define such reality purely as a logical construct without the means to know anything beyond the construct, there's just no way to get around it. That means the logic underpinning all of that constitutes an absolute. Truth is the higher (absolute) notion!

The issue of Gödel I answered you already in another thread how his work is an argument for as well against Platonic types of thinking. Haven't seen anything from you that came close to countering it.

[Trevor Salyzyn]

Fujaro: so, there's flaws in QM, and some scholars investigate it. That's not a problem with logic at all, nor is it a problem with philosophy. It's a problem with physics. The theory of QM has holes, and they have been well-documented by philosophers.

It doesn't go against what I said at all. These problems will persist as long as QM is considered a decent theory; when it is replaced (if not by string theory, then by another one), these problems will be resolved and replaced by the problems of the next theory. As far as problems go, it hardly catches my attention as a particularly challenging one: QM is wrong for many reasons. The biggest flaw is that some interpretations suggest a non-deterministic universe. So it's known that this highly useful theory is wrong for sure.

[Diebert van Rhijn]

The quantum thing goes even further than that Ryan. In the double slit experiment the same electron travels through both slits simultaneously! The identity has become a duality.

No such thing! What is measured is the behavior of a wave function. It's still one identity! It's not behaving as particle and wave at the same time (that is: it's not traveling through both slits and traveling through only one).

[tek0]

Yeah the big wigs with all the influence and technologically backed agendas have this stuff in spades by now.


http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/20 ... 163255.htm


Those stoners in india have just returned from their latest Bhang shop break and found some great information from the local gossips.


http://www.indiadaily.com/editorial/19774.asp

Someone please stop putting flouride in these guy's curry

Just ask Alex jones he is a modern day spirtual guy.



Yes a bloke like me may be a state of the art hunting and gathering machine but let's face it certain groups in society with their world banking and everything have sort of changed the game to if not a higher level.

Than at the very least they have modified that code into something that is accessible mainly to them and their benefactors.

Can you blame them...


While the rest of us sit here and squable over philisophical points that while in one sense valid, totally fall under a likely outdated form of human reasoning in that they do not follow the path currently being set by other members of our species.

These champions are slowly being modified to fit the ever changing stance our species faces toward the "off earth" cosmic shit out there and we are left in the dust or thoughtfully included near the climax.


So basically stop trippin and love who you can before it all changes.

Alex Jones for president baby YEaah!

yes I edit alot cause I am typically drunk and it takes me a few passes to understand wtf I was trying to say.

[Fujaro]

Fujaro wrote:I am disagreeing that humans at this moment have access to universal abolutes that hold in every realm

But you're not supplying the reasoning yet. Universal absolutes hold in every realm by definition.

No, when mathematicians say they have a universal absolute they mean that it is absolute in the logical realm not in the physical realm (see my quote from the Bonn institute that speaks in a few sentences of universal absolutes and discredit its application a priori to the physical world in the last sentence). This is because mathematicians and logicians are keenly aware that stepping from the logic to the physical isn’t a logical step itself.

all scientific truths are tentative truths. I did not ever present non-euclidean geometry as the only and absolute answer to the question. Just read my postings!

No, you wrote: "In reality space is curved". So for you reality is the same as scientific truth, that is: tentative? Fair enough, but at the same time you wrote: "Just look around you. Did you notice the world? Well that's the world I mean". And you called that the real world.

I agree the phrase isn’t exact. In science it is common however to speak in this way about reality, for the simple reason that communication becomes very tiresome when in every sentence the disclaimer about the tentative nature of the statemenst should be supplied. At the same time however it is recognized that speaking in this way means nothing absolute. This is core to philosophy of science and standard in every undergraduate course in physics. With the given quote a physicist generally takes a relative position: on empirical grounds euclidean geometry is turned down in favor of non-euclidean geometry as described by GR.

Now back to your original: "The applicability of logical statements in the realm of reality isn't beyond doubt". Can't you see you're mixing the terms 'reality' and 'real world' in a confusing manner? While I define such reality purely as a logical construct without the means to know anything beyond the construct, there's just no way to get around it. That means the logic underpinning all of that constitutes an absolute. Truth is the higher (absolute) notion!

You are describing the quest that the Logical Positivist undertook at the beginning of the 20th century. It ended with Gödel. First order logic in itself cannot be complete and consistent at the same time.

The issue of Gödel I answered you already in another thread how his work is an argument for as well against Platonic types of thinking. Haven't seen anything from you that came close to countering it.

Please supply a link to the particular posting where you have rebutted Gödel's Theorem and I will gladly look into it.

Btw, I appreciate your willingness to walk the road some further with me after you classified me as a troll and spoke a ban. But there is no free lunch here. I expect some open mindedness in this debate instead of the rather hostile attempts to silence me with your appeal to bluff. Keep to the matter and off the person and you will encounter likewise. What about Victor Danilchenko? I reckon he was dragged out with tar and feathers by the defenders of the myth of The Absolute? It doesn't seem there has been any development in the direction of enlightenment here since the podcast on the nature of things. Some rigorous rebuttals should be available of the shelf here since that talk. Perhaps he met the scorn and contempt of the self proclaimed geniuses that have a hotline with The Absolute and decided to move on to less religious places? Just a wild guess, of course.

[Fujaro]

Fujaro: so, there's flaws in QM, and some scholars investigate it. That's not a problem with logic at all, nor is it a problem with philosophy. It's a problem with physics. The theory of QM has holes, and they have been well-documented by philosophers.

One simple question Trevor: are you absolutely certain that logical truths say anything absolute about the real world?

And yes there are limits to QM, and these limits are well known (for very small timescales and spatial distances QM does not hold) but they are not related to the bigger questions about an electron moving through two slits at the same time. QM is a theory that very accurately describes the physical world and it is tested very thoroughly.

It doesn't go against what I said at all. These problems will persist as long as QM is considered a decent theory; when it is replaced (if not by string theory, then by another one), these problems will be resolved and replaced by the problems of the next theory. As far as problems go, it hardly catches my attention as a particularly challenging one: QM is wrong for many reasons. The biggest flaw is that some interpretations suggest a non-deterministic universe. So it's known that this highly useful theory is wrong for sure.

So you are saying that scientific truths using very rigorous logic and mathematics are tentative? Welcome aboard.

And please observe that I am not defending some wishy washy fabulation on causality with QM. The current scientific view is that QM describes a highly deterministic universe. Please let me know how you can be absolutely certain that it must be deterministic, though. Have you spoken to god lately?

[Kevin Solway]

Gödel's Theorem is valid within the narrow parameters it sets for itself, but it doesn't apply to pure logic.

[Kevin Solway]

are you absolutely certain that logical truths say anything absolute about the real world?

It's not clear what you mean by the "real world", and I doubt that you are clear about it in your own mind.

By "real world", I think you mean the empirical world, which is the world about which we are uncertain of everything.

But if my uncertainty, or my existence, is part of the real world, and my logic tells me that I am certainly uncertain, or that I certainly exist, then my logical truths tell me something about the real world.

[Fujaro]

Fujaro wrote:The quantum thing goes even further than that Ryan. In the double slit experiment the same electron travels through both slits simultaneously! The identity has become a duality.

No such thing! What is measured is the behavior of a wave function. It's still one identity! It's not behaving as particle and wave at the same time (that is: it's not traveling through both slits and traveling through only one).

A very common misconception is to identify the electron with its wave function (and an associated probability distribution function). Pretty basic QM really, showing your claim of knowledge on the subject is rather shaky. The two are not the same. For instance it cannot describe electron behaviour that is described by quantum electro dynamics (QED) and it does not take into account gravitation. So neither the wavefunction nor QED are identical to the electron. They are precise, quantitative conceptual tools that are used to describe electrons. And protons, and neutrons, and pions, well what have you.