|
|
Post by Eugene 2.0 on Nov 25, 2021 16:21:48 GMT
Actually, doubting logic isn't an easy stuff. How would you doubt something if to doubt something you should prove what you've done? So, considering there is no logic, if this sentence is true, then there must be some proof about it. And if there is a proof about it - there is a proof that there is logic. Just think about, how to prove something without logic?
Another way to try to doubt it is to get rid of semantics. If I typed something p&¬p then it's supposed I've written something logically, but indeed that's not the whole answer: it can be that that note is just a name of my neighbour, i.e. the name of my neighbor is "p&¬p". The weird one, but not impossible.
So what can we do also? We just may forget about logic, not even mentioning it. It may be helpful, but I think there's also another interesting way. What if we were trying to specify each act? Indeed, who said that logic is under generality? I mean how logic wants to be something primary without explaining its appealing to the universalitiness? In other words, how logic explains its being universal?
To continue this doubt let's imagine that logic tells us about about sequences or lines, like this: b comes after a, 4 comes after 3, ... If logic talks about that, then what logic does is only some kind of descriptions about some sequences, and that's all. It is the same to say that logic responses for writing alphabets or number sequences. Considering the fact there might be numerous sequences, and among theme there might be as many as possible sefl-contradictory sequences, this means that, oops, logic may got some troubles.
|
|
|
|
Post by MAYA-EL on Dec 25, 2021 16:06:15 GMT
Nope none of that was fundamentally a fact that was all opinion and not even yours it's borrowed but nevertheless just opinion granted agreed upon opinion by many many people but just opinion. And you seem to get so hung up on contradictions as if they cannot exist yet people use them daily their contradictions they exist get over it they're real saying something always changes and that statement never changes is a contradiction but it can also be true at the same time as being a contradiction that's reality for you. As for the other points if I hand them to you you won't gain any wisdom yourself cuz you didn't find them and understand them yourself but even then you wouldn't even understand them they go over your head like usual. If contradictions can be true then anything goes and what I say can therefore be right and factual thus your disagreements are invalid. And again explain to me how there can be a multiplicity of phenomenon without a respective void....you keep avoiding this task. The symbols used in mathematics represent values, example being "2" represents a "value". Each time that mathematics is employed in application, there is a judgement as to where to assign which values, just like ethical judgements are judgements as to where to assign moral values. So all applied mathematics involves such value judgements, just like applied ethics involves moral judgements. so for something like theoretical mathematics, what some call pure mathematics, rules are introduced which define the values and describe how to apply them, as moral philosophy does the same with moral values. So all forms of mathematics involve value judgements, always. and you seem as if you have kind of (conveniently) forgotten that mathematics deals with values. Influenced by this ignorance, mathematics is distanced from "value", and given the appearance of objectivity |
|
|
|
Post by xxxxxxxxx on Jan 6, 2022 19:49:11 GMT
1. If I doubt everything thus I must doubt doubt therefore doubt self-negates; this self-negation is contradiction as it is self-opposition. - Sorry, where did you get this? David Hume's guillotine reads: "IS doesn't imply OUGHT TO". How can you claim that if this dog is grey, then this dog is necessary grey? If you doubt doubt then it might end differently. Cartesian version ends on "Cogito". I think you din't get my point. Honestly. You should read Kant further on this. I'll send you a link. 2. If there is no I until I doubt I then I is grounded in doubt; this doubt which necessitates the "I" can be doubted therefore the "I" self-negates. This self-negation is contradiction as it is self-opposition. - I agree with you on that if ther's no "I" until I doubt, then "I" is grounded in doubt, but I can't accept the logic behind it. You're saying further that ..."I" can be doubted, therefore (?) "I" self-negates, how that self-negation appears here? Even if this self-negation occurs, it means that you don't have the full view of that "I" (or just I). For instance, if a girl is crying, and a girl isn't crying both say about the same girl, then one of those propositions has to be truth, but if we cannot be sure whether this is a girl, then our discussion hasn't finished yet, and until a gender question hasn't been completed, we can't be certain about the logical value of these propositions. But, if we would take these or such propositions as the general cause for the all events exists and the general cause for the all events doesn't exist, then we would trap to the transcendental trap, because we cannot get rid of such question (on the one hand), while we cannot decide who's right (on the other), so until that the general cause is founded (it's never happened, but the research'll be always happening) the talk of this is transcendental.3. If everything changes this is an unchangeable fact thus not everything changes. If not everything changes then "everything changes" is a false statement. However if not everything changes how this is expressed in the fabric of being changes thus everything changes. Everything thus changes and does not change; reality is a contradiction. - Here may be a nog example it's true. But I think it can be reforumlated to the nex one:
Thesis: for any deity (a thing, or a complex) it's impossible to not change
a) if there's a thing that never changes this thing is unchangeable (doubting the thesis)
b) if there's an unchangeable thing there has to be a criterion for the unchangeable thing (the same is about changeable things)
c) if there are only changeable things, then there is no such a criterion, but among those things there are unchangeable things, then it's possible that among those things there is the criterion.
d) if there are at least two things: a changeable and unchangeable, then either their changeability is relative, or not; d1) if their relativity is on, then when one of this things is changing, the other is not; d2) if their relativity is off, then when one thing is changing, then the other is the unchangeable thing
e) if there more, than two things, then among them one thing is changeable, and one is unchangeable
f) but if there are any things there has to be at least two different types of things, then there has to be an unchangeable thing that produces the law of that criterion
g) if that one unchangeable of the rest things thing is a bearer of that criteria, then this thing is some kind of the main head, or a kingpin for the others. But this is impossible since hierarchy breaks those differences down.
Anyway, this may be say shortly:
1) if there are changeable and unchangeable things, then there is some kind of a law that prescripts this to be so;
2) the law that says that this must be so is not a changeable thing, or else it's not a law anymore
3) so that law has to predict the unchangeable thing! that is impossible.
4) so even this thesis that there has to be changeable and unchangeable things is a contradiction.1. If one is to doubt everything then one must doubt the act of doubt itself. This doubting of doubt results in belief given the absence of doubt is acceptance. The doubt of doubt is a self-negation of doubt.
2. "A girl cries and doesn't cry at the same time" can be grounded in context. She cries at the loss of her dog. She does not cry at having another dog. She may cry over one thing at a given time and not cry over another given thing at the same time. The act of crying is grounded in context given the act of crying points to another phenomenon in which it is connected; no phenomenon stands alone.
3. If there are changeable and unchangeable things then the laws which prescribe such things are both changeable and unchangeable to. Given change is the manifestation of one thing occurring in a given context then this context is multiplied to result in another context further resulting in another thing then change is multiplicity of contexts resulting in the multiplicity of the original being. Given context defines said law and contexts multiply then the contexts through which the law(s) exist multiply thus multiplying said laws given laws are defined through context. The multiplicity of laws is a multiplicity of being thus one law exists in contrast to another thus allowing for contradiction.
|
|
|
|
Post by xxxxxxxxx on Jan 6, 2022 19:56:26 GMT
If contradictions can be true then anything goes and what I say can therefore be right and factual thus your disagreements are invalid. And again explain to me how there can be a multiplicity of phenomenon without a respective void....you keep avoiding this task. The symbols used in mathematics represent values, example being "2" represents a "value". Each time that mathematics is employed in application, there is a judgement as to where to assign which values, just like ethical judgements are judgements as to where to assign moral values. So all applied mathematics involves such value judgements, just like applied ethics involves moral judgements. so for something like theoretical mathematics, what some call pure mathematics, rules are introduced which define the values and describe how to apply them, as moral philosophy does the same with moral values. So all forms of mathematics involve value judgements, always. and you seem as if you have kind of (conveniently) forgotten that mathematics deals with values. Influenced by this ignorance, mathematics is distanced from "value", and given the appearance of objectivity You did not reply directly to my assertion. If all is grounded in contradiction, and contradiction is justifiable, then by default what both you and I say are thus true at the same time.
1. If all values are grounded in perspective and perspective is defined through the context in which it is birthed then something exists beyond perspective thus objective truth exists.
2. Given the premise of all being grounded in perspective and perspectives clash then all is grounded in contradiction. If all is grounded in contradiction then all perspectives have a degree of truth in them given if something is grounded in contradiction then anything is justified.
3. If values are defined through the observer and a series of events defines the perspective of the observer, given said series of events is the context through which observation occurs, then values are the result of a deterministic chain of events which surrounded the observer. As such not everything is defined through perspective unless one takes the premise of all being as having a degree of awareness.
4. And again explain to me how there can be a multiplicity of phenomenon without a respective void....you keep avoiding this task.
|
|
|
|
Post by MAYA-EL on Jan 6, 2022 22:42:00 GMT
It took you all this time to come up with this?.
Blows my mind it just how on Earth you come up with your conclusions based off of what I say?
>>> If all is grounded in contradiction, and contradiction is justifiable, then by default what both you and I say are thus true at the same time.<<<
"All"? Why do you always make it an All or nothing thing? There's hardly anything that exists All or nothing everything is a mixture you should know that.
>>>1. If all values are grounded in perspective and perspective is defined through the context in which it is birthed then something exists beyond perspective <<<
Yes
>>>thus objective truth exists.<<<
"Truth" is something we humans made up as a way of understanding information.
>>>2. Given the premise of all being grounded in perspective and perspectives clash then all is grounded in contradiction. <<<
That would be your perspective and I could roll with that most of the time.
>>> If all is grounded in contradiction then all perspectives have a degree of truth in them given if something is grounded in contradiction then anything is justified.<<<
Yep sounds correct to me.
>>>3. If values are defined through the observer and a series of events defines the perspective of the observer, given said series of events is the context through which observation occurs, then values are the result of a deterministic chain of events which surrounded the observer. <<<
I like the way you worded that yes
>>>As such not everything is defined through perspective unless one takes the premise of all being as having a degree of awareness.<<<
You're losing me? If you define something you're altering it with language in order to make it understandable which would be a perspective and it would require us having awareness to contemplate that
>>>4. And again explain to me how there can be a multiplicity of phenomenon without a respective void....you keep avoiding this task<<<
First you have to prove to me that it exists it's just a concept in your head as far as I know and I live in reality where there's no voids only things even the very thought of there being avoid as a thing that's because there is no real void just the concept called avoid which is the thing
|
|
|
|
Post by xxxxxxxxx on Jan 13, 2022 22:06:23 GMT
It took you all this time to come up with this?. Blows my mind it just how on Earth you come up with your conclusions based off of what I say? >>> If all is grounded in contradiction, and contradiction is justifiable, then by default what both you and I say are thus true at the same time.<<< "All"? Why do you always make it an All or nothing thing? There's hardly anything that exists All or nothing everything is a mixture you should know that. >>>1. If all values are grounded in perspective and perspective is defined through the context in which it is birthed then something exists beyond perspective <<< Yes >>>thus objective truth exists.<<< "Truth" is something we humans made up as a way of understanding information. >>>2. Given the premise of all being grounded in perspective and perspectives clash then all is grounded in contradiction. <<< That would be your perspective and I could roll with that most of the time. >>> If all is grounded in contradiction then all perspectives have a degree of truth in them given if something is grounded in contradiction then anything is justified.<<< Yep sounds correct to me. >>>3. If values are defined through the observer and a series of events defines the perspective of the observer, given said series of events is the context through which observation occurs, then values are the result of a deterministic chain of events which surrounded the observer. <<< I like the way you worded that yes >>>As such not everything is defined through perspective unless one takes the premise of all being as having a degree of awareness.<<< You're losing me? If you define something you're altering it with language in order to make it understandable which would be a perspective and it would require us having awareness to contemplate that >>>4. And again explain to me how there can be a multiplicity of phenomenon without a respective void....you keep avoiding this task<<< First you have to prove to me that it exists it's just a concept in your head as far as I know and I live in reality where there's no voids only things even the very thought of there being avoid as a thing that's because there is no real void just the concept called avoid which is the thing 1. If everything is a mixture then everything is a contradiction, or more precisely a paradox, given a mixture is one thing combined with another thing that is not the aforementioned thing. >>> If all is grounded in contradiction, and contradiction is justifiable, then by default what both you and I say are thus true at the same time.<<< You say: ""All"? Why do you always make it an All or nothing thing? There's hardly anything that exists All or nothing everything is a mixture you should know that." But I later say: >>> If all is grounded in contradiction then all perspectives have a degree of truth in them given if something is grounded in contradiction then anything is justified.<<< Yet you say: "Yep sounds correct to me." 2. If truth is a way of understanding information and this is a true statement then this is a truth and we are left with a circular argument: understanding information results in truth, truth results in understanding information. Given understanding truth is understanding information the nature of truth is one of information thus truth and information are inseparable. To argue that truth is just the interpretation of information is in itself an interpretation of information. Given interpretation is grounded in contexts which determine it, ie we perceive based off of the context we where born into, then truth is exists through but is beyond interpretation given contexts determine truth thus truth is within context. 3. The clash of perspectives, resulting in perpetual contradiction, necessitates contradiction existing beyond perspective given to say things are not grounded in perspective (an absence of perspective) is a contradiction as well. This contradiction exists without perspective as it is rooted in an absence of perspective (ie to say something is not rooted in perspective is to point out an absence of perspective thus is not perspective). Assuming contradiction is the grounds of truth, given its universality, then truth includes but is beyond perspective given the contradiction of "everything being rooted in perspective" and "everything not rooted in perspective". 4. The deterministic chain is beyond perspective given it is a series of events which define the observer as existing outside of said observer given the observer not only results from said chain but does not observe it fully (ie events exist outside the field of observation). However if the universe is self aware then this deterministic chain is the universe observing itself thus the deterministic chain is part of a larger perspective. 5. The definition of a leaf in contrast to a tree is the universe defining itself without human language, thus definition without language is possible, however one can say that it is the language of the universe speaking through this very same definition given language and definition are inseparable. 6. Actually the burden of proof is on you as you keep saying void is a thing yet have not defined what this thing is without relegating it to an obscure definition of "concept". What is void as a concept? How can you prove void is just a concept, thus not real, when reality, according to you, is just a perspective therefore a concept? If everything is just perspective, therefore a concept, and concepts are not real then what is real? As to the "proof" of void: X having qualities not found in Y shows Y as having a respective void of certain qualities found in X, this is a void. An empirical example of this could be a horse and man; the man is void of the quality of four legs which is found in the horse, or the horse is void of the ability to do mathematics which is found in the man. This absence of qualities in one phenomenon relative to another is a void. Absence is void. A complete void is an absence of thingness thus cannot be observed except as a "no-thing"; given the totality of being be observed at one moment of past, present and future then there would be no clear cut definition demarcating one thing from another thus "no-thing" would be observed. "No-thing" is the totality of being as absent of definition. |
|
