- #126

Hurkyl

Staff Emeritus

Science Advisor

Gold Member

- 14,916

- 19

Just curious how you justify the '=' in your statement, not to mention how logic alone can take you from description to prediction.logic (=math)

- Thread starter Mentat
- Start date

- #126

Hurkyl

Staff Emeritus

Science Advisor

Gold Member

- 14,916

- 19

Just curious how you justify the '=' in your statement, not to mention how logic alone can take you from description to prediction.logic (=math)

- #127

- 3,762

- 2

You are contradicting yourself. When will you see the contradiction. Let me spell it out for you:Originally posted by Alexander

Not exactly. I would say, from empirical property "being able to exist" and "being able not to exist".

The origin of fundamental logical/mathematical entities "0" and "1" (false/true, no/yes, etc) - as I pointed many times over - comes simply from labeling (nicknaming) existence as "1" ( or "true", or "yes", etc) and labeling lack of it as "0" (or "false", "no", etc).

Therefore, anything existing obeys logic (and math which is just a complex form of logic) just by definition of logic.

Existence is logic, so to speak.

First you said that the origin of logic is the labeling of the states of phenomena (which I agree with), then you said that everything existing obeys logic. This is a contradiction.

- #128

- 3,762

- 2

MathOriginally posted by Alexander

Description can't predict. Math can.

- #129

- 3,762

- 2

Prediction is just a form of description (particularly, the one that pertains to things that haven't happened yet).Originally posted by Sting

True, a description can't predict but I can see where mathematics both describes and predicts.

- #130

Tom Mattson

Staff Emeritus

Science Advisor

Gold Member

- 5,500

- 8

That is false. With mathematics, we can describe:Originally posted by Alexander

Description can't predict. Math can.

1. Physical states.

2. Time evolution of physical systems.

If we can accurately describe a physical state at one spacetime point, and if we can accurately describe the time evolution, then we can accurately describe the physical state at any spacetime point, including those in the future.

That sort of description is called a prediction.

- #131

- 479

- 0

You are talking about presence and absence. How can you label something that does not exist?? And then use as justification to fundamentals of logic itself? Absence or lack 'of it' presupposes existence of it and thus at least imaginable presence. And what does my absence from a party has to do with fundamentals and 'obeying logic'?Originally posted by Alexander

The origin of fundamental logical/mathematical entities "0" and "1" (false/true, no/yes, etc) - as I pointed many times over - comes simply from labeling (nicknaming) existence as "1" ( or "true", or "yes", etc) and labeling lack of it as "0" (or "false", "no", etc).

Therefore, anything existing obeys logic (and math which is just a complex form of logic) just by definition of logic.

Where is the glue between 'existence' and 'obeying logic'??

Besides, what makes "0" fundamental logic/math entity? What makes "false" entity at all? Fundamental to math and logic is equivalence, '=' sign, validation operator. All else is endless crusade to get that '=' sign somewhere with maximum bang effect. Shuffling nicknames left and right doesn't make a reality, its just tailoring a suit to a shape of it. You are saying that suit makes a Man. Most say that suit fits a Man, and many suits fit.

- #132

- 156

- 2

Yes, as soon as I posted that, I realized the ambigious nature of that statement (but the headache is gone and I can at least think logically )Prediction is just a form of description (particularly, the one that pertains to things that haven't happened yet).

- #133

- 3,762

- 2

Imagine how that would be compounded if you andOriginally posted by Tom

The multiplicity of these threads is getting troublesome. I have already addressed the following comment, but not even I can find where!

- #134

- 3,762

- 2

Originally posted by Sting

Yes, as soon as I posted that, I realized the ambigious nature of that statement (but the headache is gone and I can at least think logically )

It happens to the best of us (which is why it has yet to happen to me ).