08 Feb 08
Originally posted by FreakyKBH
According to your analogy, it stands to reason that such and such will happen, given the rules of said universe. Whether it happens or not, whether we know it or not, we have the ability to reason regarding eventualities, possibilities, impossibilities, reality and etc.
It happens (there are two, then five apples on the ground) whether or not there is a reasonable
individual to notice or comment on it. There are five apples.
In a soul-less universe, there is only action and reaction; logic is the monopoly of the soul-ed.
If x then y is action and reaction; it is also logic. Souls have nothing to do with it, except in
as much as they observe it.
Nemesio
08 Feb 08
Originally posted by FreakyKBHYou clearly do not understand the concept of abstraction (or mathematics).
Your suspicions are incorrect. Numbers are abstract in that they can be considered without an attachment to a particular physical reality; what makes numbers part of reality is that there is anything to count in the first place. They merely stand as representative of anything.
Numbers do not by default stand as a representative of anything. They do not require anything to count for them to be meaningful. In fact your assumption that they are used for counting is way off the mark. The Real numbers are not used for counting at all, because it is by definition and uncountable set!
My suspicion was definitely correct, that you were making the error of assuming that if something can happen then it is a requirement. An abstraction can be used to clarify a specific case, but it does not require even one single specific case for it to exist as a valid abstraction.
08 Feb 08
Originally posted by NemesioIf x then y is action and reaction; it is also logic. Souls have nothing to do with it, except in as much as they observe it.
Originally posted by FreakyKBH
According to your analogy, it stands to reason that such and such will happen, given the rules of said universe. Whether it happens or not, whether we know it or not, we have the ability to reason regarding eventualities, possibilities, impossibilities, reality and etc.
It happens (there are two, then fiv ...[text shortened]... also logic. Souls have nothing to do with it, except in
as much as they observe it.
Nemesio[/b]
Souls have everything to do with it. Logic is a process of thinking, not the action itself.
08 Feb 08
Originally posted by twhiteheadYou clearly do not understand the concept of abstraction (or mathematics).
You clearly do not understand the concept of abstraction (or mathematics).
Numbers do not by default stand as a representative of anything. They do not require anything to count for them to be meaningful. In fact your assumption that they are used for counting is way off the mark. The Real numbers are not used for counting at all, because it is by defini ...[text shortened]... e, but it does not require even one single specific case for it to exist as a valid abstraction.
You clearly have no understanding that without reality, abstraction and numbers are meaningless. There must be something before there can be an abstraction or a number.
They do not require anything to count for them to be meaningful.
Are they describing some aspect of reality? A rule, a law? Then they are dependent upon something. They stand for something that is concrete and for others as though they were.
In fact your assumption that they are used for counting is way off the mark.
That's gotta be the most ridiculous statement I have ever read in the two years I've been frequenting these threads. Congratulations. Just for your enlightenment, here's a few definitions on the concept, to keep you from embarassing yourself so publicly in the future.
From dicitionary.com:
2. the sum, total, count, or aggregate of a collection of units, or the like...
From Wiki:
A number is an abstract idea used in counting and measuring.
From Wolfram MathWorld:
Wherever possible in this work, the word "number" is used to refer to quantities which are integers, and "constant" is reserved for nonintegral numbers which have a fixed value.
08 Feb 08
Originally posted by FreakyKBHNot true.
You clearly have no understanding that without reality, abstraction and numbers are meaningless. There must be something before there can be an abstraction or a number.
Are they describing some aspect of reality? A rule, a law?
No they aren't.
That's gotta be the most ridiculous statement I have ever read in the two years I've been frequenting these threads.
Read it again in context.
From Wolfram MathWorld:
Wherever possible in this work, the word "number" is used to refer to quantities which are integers, and "constant" is reserved for nonintegral numbers which have a fixed value.
And what does that have to do with the discussion? Once again, you show your tendency to use references that are either irrelevant or intended to mislead. In fact, it goes against the point you were trying to make.
08 Feb 08
Originally posted by FreakyKBHLogic is (among other things) a statement of causality. 'If x then y' is a logical statement regarding
Logic is a process of thinking, not the action itself.
the relationship of x on y, and that statement is true regardless of whether a soul observes and
articulates it or not. Logic is not the action nor the reaction, merely the expression of the action's
relationship to the reaction. If no thinking thing observes it, it remains a logical truth.
Nemesio
08 Feb 08
Originally posted by NemesioIf no thinking thing observes it, it remains a logical truth.
Logic is (among other things) a statement of causality. 'If x then y' is a logical statement regarding
the relationship of x on y, and that statement is true regardless of whether a soul observes and
articulates it or not. Logic is not the action nor the reaction, merely the expression of the action's
relationship to the reaction. If no thinking thing observes it, it remains a logical truth.
Nemesio
To whom, exactly?
08 Feb 08
1 edit
Originally posted by twhiteheadNot true.
Not true.
Are they describing some aspect of reality? A rule, a law?
No they aren't.
That's gotta be the most ridiculous statement I have ever read in the two years I've been frequenting these threads.
Read it again in context.
From Wolfram MathWorld:
Wherever possible in this work, the word "number" is used to refer to q evant or intended to mislead. In fact, it goes against the point you were trying to make.
Well, since you said so, it must be true. Sheesh.
No they aren't.
More absurdities from that world inside your head where rules aren't rules and there are no boundaries because nothing is really there, after all.
Read it again in context.
The context surrounding your silliness doesn't change the silliness one iota. You claim that numbers aren't for counting. What else can be said?
And what does that have to do with the discussion?
Well, for one, the quote contains the word "quantities," which, to my limited vocabulary, infers some type of a count. I dunno. Maybe it's just me.
In fact, it goes against the point you were trying to make.
If you want people to take you seriously, you must first try to be serious.
09 Feb 08
Originally posted by FreakyKBHThank you for that clear post. I think I am starting to understand your claims better now.
In your response, you use the concrete (tangible/physical) to characterize how one arrives at the abstract, which is essentially what we are driving at.
In fact, you (or anyone else) would be hard pressed to describe anything abstract without the illustrative use of concrete physical items. We must point to our physical experience in order to re ...[text shortened]... h they are based, by virtue of the fact that there exists no physical manifestation of the same.
In your response, you use the concrete (tangible/physical) to characterize how one arrives at the abstract, which is essentially what we are driving at.
In fact, you (or anyone else) would be hard pressed to describe anything abstract without the illustrative use of concrete physical items. We must point to our physical experience in order to reference any abstract thought.
Okay, but then is what you are "driving at" really anything of much interest in this discussion? This would only show that in order for us to proceed via abstraction to abstract ideas it requires an associated metaphysics of conrete objects that we first consider; or, relatedly, that our talk about the abstract would have to reference concrete examples. Again, I stress that even if successful this only concerns possible methods by which we can come to consider and communicate abstract ideas. It does not, as far as I see, have implications concerning the actual constitutive nature of the referents of those abstract ideas (the abstracta themselves) -- supposing they even have referents!
Going back to the earlier example, why should we think the existence of redness (supposing such a thing exists) has any dependence on the existence of red concreta? If you believe such a thing as redness exists, do you think it would thereby cease to exist if all red concrete objects ceased to exist?
such things as justice, free will, love, peace and etc., these abstractions can only be understood in light of non-physical, non-concrete experience
Do you have any support for this claim? And just so I understand what you mean, what are some examples of non-physical experience?
09 Feb 08
2 edits
Originally posted by NemesioHey Nemesio. I just wanted to clarify this one point. One has to be really careful about interpreting the "If...then..." in terms of either causality or logical implication. In general, neither interpretation is correct in first-order logic. The "if...then..." material conditional is a truth-functional connective in that the truth value of the conditional is completely determined by the truth values of the individual components (the truth values of the antecedent and consequent). But one "price" to be paid for truth functionality is that a true conditional can nevertheless show basically total disconnect between the content of its components. What I mean is, consider an example like "If Hillary Clinton is running for president of the United States, then the RMS Titanic sank in the year 1912." That's a true conditional because the antecedent and consequent are true (or, really, just because the consequent happens to be true); but the two parts are pretty much totally unrelated and don't bear any resemblance to a statement of causality or logical implication. We could even have examples of true conditionals that lose touch with our intuition and interpretations of normal talk like "If the moon is made of green cheese, then Abraham Lincoln was an alien from Mars". That's a true conditional because the antecedent is false. So there's a price to be paid for truth functionality, and one should not interpret the "if...then..." conditional in terms of causality (although that is often how considerations of causality are discussed in everyday talk).
Logic is (among other things) a statement of causality. 'If x then y' is a logical statement regarding
the relationship of x on y
Otherwise, I'm right with you in this thread.
EDIT: This is assuming you were refering to the material conditional. There are other 'if...then...' that operate differently, like the counterfactual, the indicative, etc.
10 Feb 08
Originally posted by LemonJelloIf you believe such a thing as redness exists, do you think it would thereby cease to exist if all red concrete objects ceased to exist?
Thank you for that clear post. I think I am starting to understand your claims better now.
In your response, you use the concrete (tangible/physical) to characterize how one arrives at the abstract, which is essentially what we are driving at.
In fact, you (or anyone else) would be hard pressed to describe anything abstract without the illustrative ...[text shortened]... m? And just so I understand what you mean, what are some examples of non-physical experience?
The operative word phrase is "ceased to exist." Without color in the first place, there could be no speculation or consideration of the color red--- or any other color, for that matter. Without some relative antecedent, something that the concept considered is like, there is nothing to consider.
All breakthroughs have essentially been the suggestion of one person saying, in essence, what if thus and such actually behaves more like x than the current understanding that it behaves like y, with both x and y being knowns.
And just so I understand what you mean, what are some examples of non-physical experience?
How a person feels about some particular situation, for instance, or any other reaction which does not result in physical manifestations.
10 Feb 08
Originally posted by NemesioIf no thinking thing observes it, it remains a logical truth.
Logic is (among other things) a statement of causality. 'If x then y' is a logical statement regarding
the relationship of x on y, and that statement is true regardless of whether a soul observes and
articulates it or not. Logic is not the action nor the reaction, merely the expression of the action's
relationship to the reaction. If no thinking thing observes it, it remains a logical truth.
Nemesio
Another comment on this statement.
This is akin to the 'tree falling in the forest' argument. The logic of whether or not the tree made a sound is the monopoly of the mind. Creating a vacuum wherein no measurements or observations are possible does not exclude the logical thinking of the mind.
However, without the mind--- regardless of observation, action or etc.--- logic is an impossibility. Logic is a branch of philosophy. Philosophy requires thinking. Thinking requires a mind.
11 Feb 08
Originally posted by FreakyKBHAnd shoes are not for kicking a foot ball. Just because you can kick a football with a shoes does not define its purpose or cause shoes to non-exist if football goes out of fashion. See who looks silly now?
The context surrounding your silliness doesn't change the silliness one iota. You claim that numbers aren't for counting. What else can be said?
11 Feb 08
2 edits
Originally posted by FreakyKBH
This is akin to the 'tree falling in the forest' argument. The logic of whether or not the tree made a sound is the monopoly of the mind.
If a rock falls to the hard ground on a faraway planet with an atmosphere but no life forms,
it does make a sound. The sound goes unobserved, of course. The sound has no meaning,
of course. The sound doesn't impact anything, of course. But it makes a sound.
There is also (at least) one rock on the ground. The number of rocks is unobserved, has
no meaning, and doesn't impact anything, of course. But there is still one.
The rock is also a rock (logical identity, A=A). It can never not be itself. This identity is unobserved,
meaningless, and has no impact, but it remains true, even if every life form in the entire universe
ceases to exist. The form A=~A can never exist.
However, without the mind--- regardless of observation, action or etc.--- logic is an impossibility. Logic is a branch of philosophy. Philosophy requires thinking. Thinking requires a mind.
No, the observation and articulation of logical truths is a branch of philosophy...thinking...mind.
Logical truths don't require a mind; they just don't have any meaning without one.
That's like saying sound requires an ear. It doesn't. On a planet with deaf creatures, sound is
still being made, they just have no concept of it. Similarly, I'm sure there are many things
that exist in the physical world of which I have no concept (like funky light waves or low-frequency
sounds). They still 'are' regardless of whether I acknowledge them.
Nemesio
11 Feb 08
Originally posted by LemonJelloI'm somewhat out of my depth on the niceties of logic and became careless. Thanks for the
Hey Nemesio. I just wanted to clarify this one point. ...
EDIT: This is assuming you were refering to the material conditional. There are other 'if...then...' that operate differently, like the counterfactual, the indicative, etc.
illustration. I should let you do the cooking in your kitchen.
Nemesio