Can you ever be certain that you are reasoning correctly?

[Trevor Salyzyn]

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 not believe in truth. Everything you believe may as well be false.

[Fujaro]

What you don't realize is that euclidean geometry still holds, even in GR under certain conditions. Complete in the sense of being able to describe, scientificaly model all that we can currently measure, of course not.

Euclidean geometry only holds as an approximation.

In the same way E = mc^2 is an approximation, correct.

And you say euclidean geometry still holds. Which universe are you talking about? Do you have the luxury of a separate one? Or do you prefer local truths for universal ones?

It still holds, as I said, under certain conditions. Perhaps you should ask me which conditions I meant. Oh no, that would mean you have to read what I'm writing. Can't have that.

It's very hard for you to credit your opponent when he is right, isn't it.
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 solar system.
Why is it that you are allowed to restrict your statements to your likings while at the same time you demand that my statements can have no restrictions or are called fltout wrong (such as my statement on GIT)? You must be higher in rank.

[Fujaro]

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 not believe in truth. Everything you believe may as well be false.

Praise the lord and amen to that. You have given yourself another fine reason to belief in the myth you create yourself. Have a nice life.

[Diebert van Rhijn]

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 solar system.

Well, you said Euclidean geometry was turned down which is something entirely different than saying it's less accurate in approximating, which you suddenly say now, which is what I laid out earlier in the discussion. You just don't see it, do you? Interesting.

It's not that I disagree with most of what you state, it's just that you seem terrible imprecise and scattered in how to express it. Also you have a problem reading my points carefully. Relax!

Anyway, you're right in claiming this is a religious forum in some aspects. If you only want to discuss science and external proof and not wanting to get into existential matters, fine but there are way better places to do so, I'd say.

[Fujaro]

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 solar system.

Well, you said Euclidean geometry was turned down which is something entirely different than saying it's less accurate in approximating, which you suddenly say now, which is what I laid out earlier in the discussion. You just don't see it, do you? Interesting.

It's not that I disagree with most of what you state, it's just that you seem terrible imprecise and scattered in how to express it. Also you have a problem reading my points carefully. Relax!

Anyway, you're right in claiming this is a religious forum in some aspects. If you only want to discuss science and external proof and not wanting to get into existential matters, fine but there are way better places to do so, I'd say.

In the context of scientific advancement euclidean geometry being turned down means just one thing: it's application to reality is rejected. It doesn't mean that the logical structure of euclidean geometry based on its axioma's is turned down as such. It shows that not all of it's axiomas hold in the reality that science is investigating.

There are ideas you bring up I do find interesting but I think we need a format cleansed of the emotional stuff. In the follow up of this I will sincerely refrain from personal attack and just will see where that leads us in debate. I'll just wish you a fruitful debate.

[David Quinn]

Perhaps you and Diebert should have a proper debate about it in the Crucible.

-

[Diebert van Rhijn]

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 any scientific discipline. It's not about how to map the universe with which tool.

I'm not gonna engage anymore into some further tiresome exposure of a mind that's just not capable of arguing very well. I don't think you're even aware that what you try to say is not in dispute here. You're just very bad in saying it, incredibly sloppy in reading what the other has to say and cannot take any valid criticism on board.

No way I'd bring that into the Crucible!

[Think]

i like how everyone laugh's at scientology, but nostradamus pretty much nailed us all on that one.

lets enjoy our time before 2012, hahaha.

[Kevin Solway]

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.

for they are about every proof that can be written out on paper in a non- infinite sequence of statements that can be labeled to the natural numbers.

Yet the theorem excludes all purely logical statements.

That affects pretty much every theory in physics today. Also outside first order logic (where the theorem is valid) there is no definite proof that there is another kind of logic that is complete and consistent.

Pure logic is complete and consistent. eg, A=A.

So, the right conclusion here seems to be that Gödel has dealt a serious blow to the idea that reality ever in an absolute sense can be captured in logic.

Even if Gödel's idea was true in the absolute sense, which it obviously isn't, he would be contradicting himself.

That is, if what he is saying is true, and that reality can never be captured in logic, then that very same idea must necessarily be false, since it is seeking to capture reality in logic.

Hawking has concluded on basis of Gödel's Incompleteness Theorem (GIT) that no ultimate theory of reality can ever be found.

He has a very narrow, specialized meaning when he talks about "theory of reality".

Is your existence a logical truth?

The truth that I exist is a logical truth.

[Fujaro]

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 any scientific discipline. It's not about how to map the universe with which tool.

I'm not gonna engage anymore into some further tiresome exposure of a mind that's just not capable of arguing very well. I don't think you're even aware that what you try to say is not in dispute here. You're just very bad in saying it, incredibly sloppy in reading what the other has to say and cannot take any valid criticism on board.

No way I'd bring that into the Crucible!

It's a pity you just can't stay clear of ad hominem attacks.

Well, I gladly would have accepted David's offer. But now I will have to look for other opponents in debate that perhaps are inclined to a more content oriented argumentative approach. That's allright with me.

I still wish you fruitfull discussions here and luck.

[Diebert van Rhijn]

Fair enough, Fujaro.

This whole forum's modus operandi is kind of "ad hominem" oriented as it doesn't exclude the person behind the ideas. Necessarily so because the topics are often revolving around ego, delusions, attachments, motivations, all personal stuff that often hides behind a lot of words. Even discussions around science become edgy -sort of bleeding over, I suppose.

One parting shot: my advice before you'd engage here with other science buffs - as there are a few, would be for you to read up on Kurt Gödel and perhaps also Alfred Tarski. What you have to look for is the difference between the notions of formal definability of proof and the formal undefinability of truth, both which gave way to the notion of incompleteness. For every system this means that axioms will get their truth value from a higher order system, as they of course have to be asserted by some means.

The implications are that the axioms will be by definition the self-evident truth that makes the logical system possible. The truth is the higher reality from any perspective within the model.

This leads to the existential meta-logical statement that truth is life, the 'undefinable' reality if you will.

[Fujaro]

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 very common logical formalism that is part of logic. By all means, GIT was devised by Gödel to tackle the logical problem Hilbert stated some years earlier. If you say there is a more 'pure' logic that GIT does not apply to, then please define that logic so we can see were Gödel went wrong.

That affects pretty much every theory in physics today. Also outside first order logic (where the theorem is valid) there is no definite proof that there is another kind of logic that is complete and consistent.

Pure logic is complete and consistent. eg, A=A.

But there is no known proof for that. If you are of different opinion, then please show it to me.

So, the right conclusion here seems to be that Gödel has dealt a serious blow to the idea that reality ever in an absolute sense can be captured in logic.

Even if Gödel's idea was true in the absolute sense, which it obviously isn't, he would be contradicting himself.

That is, if what he is saying is true, and that reality can never be captured in logic, then that very same idea must necessarily be false, since it is seeking to capture reality in logic.

Gödel formulated his theorem not in terms of 'truth' but in terms of 'provability' thereny circumventing the Liar's paradox for the theorem itself. But this means that arithmetic truth and arithmetic provability are not co-extensive and the First Incompleteness Theorem follows.

Hawking has concluded on basis of Gödel's Incompleteness Theorem (GIT) that no ultimate theory of reality can ever be found.

He has a very narrow, specialized meaning when he talks about "theory of reality".

So what is your broader definition of reality?

Is your existence a logical truth?

The truth that I exist is a logical truth.

So this logical truth won't last another 200 years? Strange, I thought you meant pure absolute logic.

One of the questions to be answered if you want to know if we ever can be certain about something is the following: is there a specific domain that the question is about? Maybe it is about logical truth, maybe it is about the physical world we perceive, maybe it is about language and thought or maybe it is about the thing we call "I". Some might even suggest that it is about a hidden underlying reality, the supernatural if you like. I'll posit that a certain truth (also called absolute or ultimate truth) must be complete in and consistent with all of reality. For a statement X to be a candidate absolute truth we must know it's applicability to all of these domains that are part of reality for only if we can name all its restrictions in reality, it can be called complete. There are only two roads left: A) explicitly addressing the applicability of the alleged truth to all possible domains of reality or B) explicitly naming all domains and conditions for which the alleged truth is known to hold. A is not possible without knowing reality beforehand, B means that the truth is not a priori applicable in every domain of reality.

In logic and mathematics, logical truths are called universal truths when they can be shown to be true under de assumption of the given axiomas. It should be observed that this logical universality is quite different from the absoluteness defined above. This can be confusing because it means that a universal logical truth isn't complete in the sense as described above. It does not fully specify its applicability or its restrictiveness in other realms of reality than the logical realm. In short this means that in order to call a statement X an absolute truth about reality we have to know all context that is relevant for the statement in reality or we have to explicitly exclude that context by explicitly specifying a domain of its known application. This means that it is not enough to know that a logical truth Y is based on axioma say A1 and A2, but that we also should be able to answer the question about it's applicability to (for example) the physical realm. Can it or can it not be mapped to the physical world? If yes, it is also applicable in that realm, if no, it has no meaning in that realm.

So in short to have a universal logical truth means a truth that is universally applicable in the logical realm, it has a priori no bearing on other parts of reality.

Pure logic is complete and consistent. eg, A=A.

Well, it's complete in the logical realm but does in the physical realm hold the following for A ~ electron?:

electron wave function = electron particle

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 by reality. As Friedmann already noticed, "When you say you understand QM, you don't understand it".

[brokenhead]

So in short to have a universal logical truth means a truth that is universally applicable in the logical realm, it has a priori no bearing on other parts of reality.

Perhaps you are more articulate than I, Fujaro, but this is what I have been trying to point out to David and Kevin. Dan already seems to know this.

[Trevor Salyzyn]

Perhaps you are more articulate than I, Fujaro, but this is what I have been trying to point out to David and Kevin. Dan already seems to know this.

I'm hoping you're being sarcastic when you called it articulate. You quoted a run-on sentence that says something a priori about reality, and which simultaneously tries to defend the position that nothing can be known a priori about reality.

Sentences like that one give me a headache. Well, when I bang my head into the wall after reading it, I get a headache, but same deal. Perhaps you didn't appreciate my motivation for not taking anything Fujaro says seriously, but this is the same guy who called deductive logic a myth that I created.

[David Quinn]

So in short to have a universal logical truth means a truth that is universally applicable in the logical realm, it has a priori no bearing on other parts of reality.

Perhaps you are more articulate than I, Fujaro, but this is what I have been trying to point out to David and Kevin. Dan already seems to know this.

I think you're misrepresenting Dan there.

If one uses definitions and concepts that necessarily apply to all parts of reality, including the empirical realm, then one's logical reasoning will indeed apply to all parts of reality. It cannot help but do so.

For example, if you define a "thing" to be any form (i.e. any portion of reality), then whatever information you garner from reasoning about "things" will necessarily apply to all phenomena in Nature, without exception.

Thus, the neat division that Fujaro is arguing for is a false one. Granted, creating such a division is the fashionable thing to do in intellectual circles at the moment - he has obviously absorbed the dogma well - but it is still false nonetheless.

-

[brokenhead]

For example, if you define a "thing" to be any form (i.e. any portion of reality), then whatever information you garner from reasoning about "things" will necessarily apply to all phenomena in Nature, without exception.

Yes, David. This statement is logically true. It is also meaningless. Your ability to think in one dimension is as astonishing as it is suffocating.

[David Quinn]

For example, if you define a "thing" to be any form (i.e. any portion of reality), then whatever information you garner from reasoning about "things" will necessarily apply to all phenomena in Nature, without exception.

Yes, David. This statement is logically true. It is also meaningless. Your ability to think in one dimension is as astonishing as it is suffocating.

You're not seeing the point I'm making. It certainly isn't meaningless, nor is it one-dimensional.

-

[Trevor Salyzyn]

Yes, David. This statement is logically true. It is also meaningless. Your ability to think in one dimension is as astonishing as it is suffocating.

How what David's counter-example meaningless? It was something that Fujaro would consider false -- and that you considered true. It attacks the belief that it is impossible to reason about things in general, a belief which is a defining feature of paraconsistent logic: it is certainly a meaningful statement.

[Kevin Solway]

define 'pure logic'.

It is logic that doesn't depend on empirical uncertainties. It is self-evident truth (which is to say that it is self-evident to those few human beings who are capable of logical thinking)

For example, "A thing is itself, and not other than itself" is an example of pure logic. It is a restatement of A=A.

please define that logic so we can see were Gödel went wrong.

Gödel himself didn't go wrong, so long as we take his arguments in context. It is only those who think of themselves as his supporters who go wrong.

Pure logic is complete and consistent. eg, A=A.

But there is no known proof for that.

It is a self-evident truth. The only way you can "prove" something is by using logic, so for this reason purely logical statements cannot be "proven". Logic is self-evidently true.

Gödel formulated his theorem not in terms of 'truth' but in terms of 'provability'

That's right. So Gödel proved, with pure logic, that he cannot prove his own idea.

Hawking has concluded on basis of Gödel's Incompleteness Theorem (GIT) that no ultimate theory of reality can ever be found.

He has a very narrow, specialized meaning when he talks about "theory of reality".

So what is your broader definition of reality?

When Hawking speaks of a "theory of reality" he is speaking of specific, measurable, demonstrable, causal links between different parts of reality. But reality isn't like that. You can't find specific, measurable, demonstrable, causal links between different parts of reality. That's reality, and that is my broader definition of reality.

Is your existence a logical truth?

The truth that I exist is a logical truth.

So this logical truth won't last another 200 years? Strange, I thought you meant pure absolute logic.

The truth that I exist right now will indeed last forever. I don't know whether I will exist a moment from now.

I'll posit that a certain truth (also called absolute or ultimate truth) must be complete in and consistent with all of reality. For a statement X to be a candidate absolute truth we must know it's applicability to all of these domains that are part of reality for only if we can name all its restrictions in reality, it can be called complete. There are only two roads left: A) explicitly addressing the applicability of the alleged truth to all possible domains of reality or B) explicitly naming all domains and conditions for which the alleged truth is known to hold. A is not possible without knowing reality beforehand, B means that the truth is not a priori applicable in every domain of reality.

Let's take the truth that a thing is itself, and not other than itself. Is it consistent with all of reality? Yes it is. We don't need to enumerate all the things in reality to establish this fact.

Can it or can it not be mapped to the physical world? If yes, it is also applicable in that realm, if no, it has no meaning in that realm.

Can the law of identity (A=A) be mapped onto the physical world? Yes it can. In the physical world, a thing is necessarily always itself, and is never other than itself.

Pure logic is complete and consistent. eg, A=A.

Well, it's complete in the logical realm but does in the physical realm hold the following for A ~ electron?:

electron wave function = electron particle

You have to ask yourself whether that referenced by the words "electron wave function" and "electron particle" are identical in every possible way. If the words refer to the same thing, then A=A applies, otherwise it doesn't. If you're not absolutely clear what the things are that you're talking about, then you can't begin to think logically about them.

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 by reality.

My understanding is that an electron doesn't behave as a wave and a particle at the same time. In which case they are not identical, for if they were identical they would occur at the same time.

[Jamesh]

My understanding is that an electron doesn't behave as a wave and a particle at the same time. In which case they are not identical, for if they were identical they would occur at the same time.

IMO, it is some of the content or parts or an electron, that behave more wavelike when affected by what is not the particle in certain circumstances.

All things have wavelike content emanating from them, as that is the fundamental nature of the release, through external interference or natural particle decay, of the expansionary force.

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 by reality.

The engima is created by the false presumption of the existence of fundamental particles. They simply do not exist, except as an illusion. All parts of all things are causal in themselves, which means that the actual and total content of all things exists in wave form. The appearance of particles, and all things actually, rests upon the "equality" of opposing forces, which creates a temporary statis as the forces partly cancel each other out, however the portion that is not cancelled out acts in a wave form surrounding or emanating from the object.

[Fujaro]

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 by reality.

My understanding is that an electron doesn't behave as a wave and a particle at the same time. In which case they are not identical, for if they were identical they would occur at the same time.

Does A=A say something about time then.......?

When an electron at moment t1 is mapped to A, it should be mapped at moment t2 to A, shouldn't it? Or the identity law is meaningless for every (possibly still hidden) dimension can introduce something like A(x) isnotidenticalwith A(y). Maybe the electron is conscious and decides at t2 not to be an electron anymore???

PS: haven't much time to post now, but I will come back to you

[Shahrazad]

Jamesh,

The engima is created by the false presumption of the existence of fundamental particles. They simply do not exist, except as an illusion. All parts of all things are causal in themselves, which means that the actual and total content of all things exists in wave form. The appearance of particles, and all things actually, rests upon the "equality" of opposing forces, which creates a temporary statis as the forces partly cancel each other out, however the portion that is not cancelled out acts in a wave form surrounding or emanating from the object.

Where do you get this from? I assume you are not a world-renowned physicist.

[Iolaus]

Where do you get this from? I assume you are not a world-renowned physicist.

No, but he has been pondering these things for years and I for one truly enjoy the quality of his thought.

I think the physicists and cosmologists are all wrong on a number of points, so his mystical revelations are as viable as any.

So James, whence do you suppose these forces arise, which give the impression of particles from their interaction?

[brokenhead]

You have to ask yourself whether that referenced by the words "electron wave function" and "electron particle" are identical in every possible way. If the words refer to the same thing, then A=A applies, otherwise it doesn't. If you're not absolutely clear what the things are that you're talking about, then you can't begin to think logically about them.

This is a pretty simple example of the crux of the issue. An electron is a "thing." Yet the electron behaves at time T1 as a wave, and at time T2 as a particle. All electrons do this, without exception. You, the investigator, decide whether the electron manifests as a wave or whether it manifests as a particle. It exists, yet when you study it to ascertain that it exists, or for any other reason, such as merely to observe or utilize it, you must make a choice as to which manifestation you wish the electron to take. At that moment of ascertainment, it does not and cannot exist in both manifestations. So, at that moment, does A=A, when either the wave or the particle attribute does not exist, and we have said all electrons possess both attributes? The electron has never been other than an electron.

[brokenhead]

They simply do not exist, except as an illusion.

Yes, well, it's all illusion, then, isn't it? Yet as we are all constrained to deal with our maya, we might as well study it and see how it behaves.