It sounds to me like you are confounding the concepts of "logic" "science" and "truth".
Logic is simply a tool that is used to prove the validity of conclusions. It allows humans to use formal statements to show how the relationship between assertations to make valid assumptions.
Science is a tool for analyzing emperical observations, making assumptions about those observations, then verifying that those assumptions correctly predict future observations.
Truth is a spiritual concept that cannot be measured through either science or logic.
Appeal to clarificationlynn_pJanuary 18 2007, 01:18:19 UTC
Perhaps I sould have stated that there exists a breakdown in classical logic. My frame of reference is admittedly bound in another touchy term...reality, and my assertion is that classical logic doesn't always lead to truth (from a Materialst standpoint), that classical logic can be inconsistent with reality
( ... )
Re: Appeal to clarificationgalbinus_caeliJanuary 18 2007, 02:21:29 UTC
I can disagree with nothing that you are saying. The problem comes when people try to apply classic logic in situations where it does not apply. The most obvious one is human emotion. Logic cannot reliably predict how people are going to react emotionally to a paticular situation, no matter how carefully the circumstances are controlled. What we call "reality" is another. If we are talking about a finitely bounded subset of reality ("here", "now" and "at human scale") classic logic works perfectly. but as you expand that set to the edges of the universe, or the ends of time, or the infinitly small, all the rules change.
I mentioned some things to you when I got to see you the previous month, but as you are looking for thought intensive comments ( as per Jimi's post ) I thought id take another look, with my thinking cap at full throttle.
I largely agree with many if not most of your premises. So many of my comments are attempts to polish or refine certain points you have made.
I agree with the sentiment if not the wording of "internal contradictions/inconsistencies" in refrence to Logic. It is true that Logic fails at producing an arrow to the truth, however the idea has been growing in my mind for some time, that we can not expect it to in the first place, as it was never its job to. Logic is consistent (and largely internally so), however it is incomplete in assertaining the truth. [ The wording here is dilliberate to bring it in line with Godel's incompleteness theorem and to avoid the problems of claiming that the rules of validity are in and of themselves invalid, for such a thing is treaturous. ] The deffinition of soundness itself illustrates
( ... )
Yeah I did read it :-p Which is why I said it is arguable. There exists a large class of halting problem casses in which human beings can conclude the outcome and that pure algorithms seem uncapable of. The limiting factor of the case the wikipedia sites is time. Their exists halting-problems which humans have yet to predict the final outcome on, because they rely on algorithms that may be unsolvable, but have not been proven so yet. So it may just be a factor of time.
While defined, certain imaginary numbers are sources for random or unpredictable data in their decimal form. Specifically Transcendental Numbers are often used as the basis for random seed data for crypgraphy. While definitions exist for transcendental numbers the exact value of said number seems not to be well defined. Also "open questions" of irrational numbers seem to be relatively ill-defined. The value of "Pi minus e" is not known to be rational or irational, it's exact value is unknown and thus seems to be to some extent un-defined.
I always hate it when people bow out due to lack of knowledge...
Especially on subjects I dont think I am incredibly knwoledgable on. Makes me feel like im cheating somehow.
Although I still wonder if irreducible randomness neccisarily is equatable to chaos or anti-order...
Especially as the randomness seems static, when it comes to odd numbers and math. Its not that the values are moving chaoticaly, its just that their values can not be known to the nth degree...
Comments 16
Reply
Logic is simply a tool that is used to prove the validity of conclusions. It allows humans to use formal statements to show how the relationship between assertations to make valid assumptions.
Science is a tool for analyzing emperical observations, making assumptions about those observations, then verifying that those assumptions correctly predict future observations.
Truth is a spiritual concept that cannot be measured through either science or logic.
Reply
Reply
Reply
I largely agree with many if not most of your premises. So many of my comments are attempts to polish or refine certain points you have made.
I agree with the sentiment if not the wording of "internal contradictions/inconsistencies" in refrence to Logic. It is true that Logic fails at producing an arrow to the truth, however the idea has been growing in my mind for some time, that we can not expect it to in the first place, as it was never its job to. Logic is consistent (and largely internally so), however it is incomplete in assertaining the truth. [ The wording here is dilliberate to bring it in line with Godel's incompleteness theorem and to avoid the problems of claiming that the rules of validity are in and of themselves invalid, for such a thing is treaturous. ] The deffinition of soundness itself illustrates ( ... )
Reply
(The comment has been removed)
Reply
(The comment has been removed)
Reply
(The comment has been removed)
Especially on subjects I dont think I am incredibly knwoledgable on. Makes me feel like im cheating somehow.
Although I still wonder if irreducible randomness neccisarily is equatable to chaos or anti-order...
Especially as the randomness seems static, when it comes to odd numbers and math. Its not that the values are moving chaoticaly, its just that their values can not be known to the nth degree...
Reply
c ув http://kurtizanka.com.ua
kurtizanka.com.ua
Reply
Leave a comment