Ontology and Logic

  • Thread starter protonman
  • Start date
  • #226
Tom Mattson
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
5,500
7
Protonman,

There have been many questions and counterarguments put to you that you have completely ignored. Furthermore, you just keep repeating the same points over and over again that have already been rebutted.

If you don't start answering some of those points, then this thread is going to go the way of all your other threads: It will be locked.
 
  • #227
278
0
Originally posted by Tom
Protonman,

There have been many questions and counterarguments put to you that you have completely ignored. Furthermore, you just keep repeating the same points over and over again that have already been rebutted.

If you don't start answering some of those points, then this thread is going to go the way of all your other threads: It will be locked.
Ask away.
 
  • #228
Tom Mattson
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
5,500
7
Originally posted by protonman
Ask away.
It has already been done.

The great thing about this medium of communication is that the entire discussion has been recorded. Go back through it and find all the questions and counterarguments that you refused to answer (or those that you answered with nothing other than, "You're stupid" or "You aren't qualified to take part in this discussion".)

If you won't (or can't?) answer them on logical terms, then this thread is finished.
 
  • #229
Nereid
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
3,367
1
Originally posted by protonman
Look Tom you have left the realm of the everyday world. I asked a kid today and it was obvious to him.

What you are seeking is a nature of an object that exists independent of its parts.

A cup is a cup because it fits the accepted definition of a cup. How else would you define a cup?
But isn't the most interesting part of physics today to do with that which is beyond 'the realm of the everyday world'?

For example, where are cups, fire, smoke, mountains, cars, chatbots, Tom, protonman, etc in the recent Hubble UDF image? In http://www.colorado.edu/physics/2000/applets/twoslitsa.html [Broken]? In solar neutrinos?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #230
Hurkyl
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
14,916
17
So, if you see an illusion and think it is smoke you have not perceived smoke so yes the inference would not be valid.
So, it would logically follow that we should be interested in seeking a way of verifying that our perceptions are accurate, would it not?
 
  • #231
278
0
Originally posted by Nereid
For example, where are cups, fire, smoke, mountains, cars, chatbots, Tom, protonman, etc in the recent Hubble UDF image? In http://www.colorado.edu/physics/2000/applets/twoslitsa.html [Broken]? In solar neutrinos?
What do you mean?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #232
1,569
1
i see a prism, a many sided wall. push through it, yall, and come to an agreement.
 
  • #233
Nereid
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
3,367
1
Originally posted by protonman
What do you mean?
Nereid: "How can you tell if your perception of smoke is mistaken (without checking that there's a fire)?

For example, here is an image of something which looks like smoke.

If it isn't smoke, what is it? How does one use 'logic' to determine its nature?"


protonman (Nereid's emphasis): "How do you know your car is your car? Because you remember that it is yours and you paid for it. Understanding smoke is not profound. If you know what smoke is you see it and from your memory you know it is smoke. You have a valid perception of it. If someone saw that image you showed and thought it was smoke they would be wrong because it is not smoke. This is what I have been saying all along. A valid perception is valid because the way it understands an object and the way the objects exists are in conformity."

What are the objects in the HUDF image, the Young two-slit experiment, the Super-Kamiokande image? Please explain how the conformity between 'the way the objects exist' and the understanding of the perception (of the object) is validated.
 
  • #234
278
0
Please explain how the conformity between 'the way the objects exist' and the understanding of the perception (of the object) is validated.
This question can not be answered in general. We need to look at specific cases.

How do you know your car is a car? Well you see it and in accordance with the definition of what a car is you understand it as a car.

If you see a man with long hair and think it is a woman this is not a valid perception. The way you know this is because you understand the what a woman is.
 
  • #235
Zero
Originally posted by protonman
This question can not be answered in general. We need to look at specific cases.

How do you know your car is a car? Well you see it and in accordance with the definition of what a car is you understand it as a car.

If you see a man with long hair and think it is a woman this is not a valid perception. The way you know this is because you understand the what a woman is.
This is weak logic, isn't it? How do you know that your definition of "car" is right? How do you know that you aren't mistaking a man for a woman?
 
  • #236
278
0
This is a general address to those interested. I am not responding directly or indirectly to Zero.

The definition of a car is what is understood by people on the everyday level.

You see a person far away with long hair think it is a woman. When the person gets closer you realize it is a woman. If you don't know what a woman is that is your problem. If you still are not convinced maybe you should look for a snatch.
 
  • #237
Nereid
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
3,367
1
Originally posted by protonman
This question can not be answered in general. We need to look at specific cases.

How do you know your car is a car? Well you see it and in accordance with the definition of what a car is you understand it as a car.

If you see a man with long hair and think it is a woman this is not a valid perception. The way you know this is because you understand the what a woman is.
Please explain how the conformity between 'the way the objects exist' and the understanding of the perception (of the object) is validated. I am interested in objects in the links I posted. For the purpose of avoiding general answers, let's take one of the objects in the HUDF image. To avoid choosing an object which may prove unsuitable for the purposes of clarity of explanation, please protonman, you choose the object.
 
  • #238
Zero
Originally posted by protonman
This is a general address to those interested. I am not responding directly or indirectly to Zero.

The definition of a car is what is understood by people on the everyday level.

You see a person far away with long hair think it is a woman. When the person gets closer you realize it is a woman. If you don't know what a woman is that is your problem. If you still are not convinced maybe you should look for a snatch.
Whoa....
did you just say what I think you said?!?
 
  • #239
278
0
For the purpose of avoiding general answers, let's take one of the objects in the HUDF image. To avoid choosing an object which may prove unsuitable for the purposes of clarity of explanation, please protonman, you choose the object.
Although it is not outer space but a picture of outerspace, I see outerspace in the picture. Since I know what outer space is my perception of what is in the picture and the reality of what is in the picture are in conformity.
 
  • #240
278
0
Obviously there was a typo.

You see a person far away with long hair think it is a woman. When the person gets closer you realize it is a man. If you don't know what a woman is that is your problem. If you still are not convinced maybe you should look for a snatch.

Zero is a joke. He is not serious.
 
  • #241
1,569
1
*pause

my friend marc was telling me about cartesian circles. i think this is one.

http://www.fordham.edu/gsas/phil/klima/PHRU1000/Ccircle.htm

there is a new effect i'd like to propose called the ripple effect. note how changes in tone effected the course of this thread. that's the ripple effect in effect, to the max, and in deed.

if you're a tenacious D fan, this is like the tribute to the greatest thread on this board, which is yet to come. but right now, this is my favorite thread on this board.

*unpause


did you feel that "wrinkle in time?"

oh, time, that's a can of worms. i think time is an illusion that can be controlled by your minds. call me Neo if you will, but i think we live in a computer simulation within a a computer simulation within a a computer simulation within a a computer simulation within a a computer simulation within a a computer simulation within a a computer simulation within a a computer simulation within a a computer simulation within a a computer simulation within a a computer simulation within a a computer simulation within a a computer simulation within a a computer simulation within a a computer simulation within a a computer simulation within a a computer simulation within a a computer simulation within a a computer simulation within a a computer simulation within a a computer simulation within a a computer simulation within a a computer simulation within a a computer simulation within a a computer simulation within a a computer simulation within a a computer simulation within a a computer simulation within a a computer simulation within a a computer simulation within a a computer simulation within a a computer simulation within a a computer simulation within a ... well, you get the idea.

the rabbit hole never ends, alice.

woah, dude! when i scroll up and down on the page, that makes it look like a borg cube. why are we trying to assimilate others into our way of thinking when we should be open to their way of thinking as well?

and that brings me back to nash's equilibrium theory. i think it should be a code of ethics as well: do what's best for yourself and the group, dude.

carry on.

admiral out.
 
Last edited:
  • #242
Zero
You know...someone here claimed to be a physics teacher and a student of Buddha...that someone shows traits of neither. Name-calling, vulgarity, anger, illogic....

Hey, Greg, Tom, somebody lock this crazy thing?
 
  • #243
Zero
Originally posted by protonman
No it is true because I am interested in serious conversation while Zero is not.
So that explains the name-calling and vulgarity?

Dude, there are pages upon pages of posts refuting your ability to conduct an actual conversation.

Answer a question, if you want to be taken seriously: is human perception always accurate?
 
  • #244
1,569
1
hellz, no! not in my opinion. that's blind faith. i believe zero has the best of intentions.
 
  • #245
Tom Mattson
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
5,500
7
I believe we are done here.
 

Related Threads for: Ontology and Logic

  • Last Post
Replies
10
Views
2K
  • Last Post
Replies
4
Views
4K
  • Last Post
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • Last Post
Replies
9
Views
2K
  • Last Post
6
Replies
148
Views
13K
  • Last Post
5
Replies
101
Views
11K
  • Last Post
Replies
10
Views
72K
  • Last Post
Replies
17
Views
8K
Top