What Are the Limits of Logical Arguments in Ontology?

[phoenixthoth]

this conversation is rational, a new kind of rational, if you please.

 

[Zero]

Originally posted by phoenixthoth
this conversation is rational, a new kind of rational, if you please.

Was there something wrong with the "old rational", besides it not allowing anyone with a computer and some marijuana to pretend to be logical and "deep"?

 

[Hurkyl]

Oh, and there's more irony. The whole phrase goes something like:


The hill has fire because the hill has smoke,
like a kitchen, unlike a lake.


However, my kitchen does not have fire, but it does have smoke (occasionally).

And there have been circumstances where lakes have been on fire, and producing smoke. (or is it just rivers? I can't say I remember with complete accuracy here)


So, this phrase is a contradiction right from the beginning, when interpreted absolutely.

 

[phoenixthoth]

Originally posted by Zero
Was there something wrong with the "old rational", besides it not allowing anyone with a computer and some marijuana to pretend to be logical and "deep"?

no, no, zero, don't get me wrong. there's nothing wrong with old rational. neither is there with new rational.

 

[phoenixthoth]

hurkyl, it sounds like you're smoking dope. did you smoke some at 4:20 am this morning?

 

[Zero]

Originally posted by Hurkyl
Oh, and there's more irony. The whole phrase goes something like:


The hill has fire because the hill has smoke,
like a kitchen, unlike a lake.


However, my kitchen does not have fire, but it does have smoke (occasionally).

And there have been circumstances where lakes have been on fire, and producing smoke. (or is it just rivers? I can't say I remember with complete accuracy here)


So, this phrase is a contradiction right from the beginning, when interpreted absolutely.

You need to stop being "old rational" and start being "new rational"(also known as "irrational" apparently)

 

[phoenixthoth]

i agree.

 

[protonman]

Originally posted by Hurkyl
Oh, and there's more irony. The whole phrase goes something like:


The hill has fire because the hill has smoke,
like a kitchen, unlike a lake.


However, my kitchen does not have fire, but it does have smoke (occasionally).

And there have been circumstances where lakes have been on fire, and producing smoke. (or is it just rivers? I can't say I remember with complete accuracy here)


So, this phrase is a contradiction right from the beginning, when interpreted absolutely.

First off I have no idea where your quote came from.

It is not an absolute statement. They are talking about a particular case. What my statement is trying to do is demonstrate that certain things can be understood inferencially. It is a learning tool. If you don't want to learn you will not benefit from it. If you do there is value in the statement.

 

[ahrkron]

Originally posted by protonman
What my statement is trying to do is demonstrate that certain things can be understood inferencially.

No. You used it to try to show that "Logic can determine the truth or falsity of a statement". Let me refresh your memory:

After quoting Tom saying:

Logic does not do any such thing. You keep ascribing to logic the power to not only prescribe valid forms of inference from one statement to another, but also to determine the truth or falsity of individual statements. Both of those elements would be required to do what you claim logic can do. But no such "superlogic" exists anywhere.

You replied:

I gave the example of from seeing smoke one can infer validly that there must be fire. The reason being that fire is the cause of smoke. Logic can determine the truth or falsity of a statement[/color]. If someone sees smoke and says there is no fire this statement is wrong. There must be fire because fire is the cause of smoke.

(I highlighted the phrase in red).

Logic cannot be used to validate the truth of a statement; it only can verify its being consistent with other statements.

As for the possibility of attaining knowledge via inference, that is the whole point, since you started off saying that QM is unacceptable because of not being "perceivable".

However, every bit of formalism in QM is a result of inferential work, and (serious) interpretations of that formalism do strictly stick to logic.

[edit: fixed the spacing]

 

[protonman]

Logic cannot be used to validate the truth of a statement; it only can verify its being consistent with other statements.

The logic does validate the statement. If someone says there is no fire when they see smoke (in the situation I am talking about) they are wrong. What is so hard about this?

 

[Zero]

Originally posted by protonman
The logic does validate the statement. If someone says there is no fire when they see smoke (in the situation I am talking about) they are wrong. What is so hard about this?

Only if you choose to ignore all other cases where someone will see smoke and there is no fire. Since there are occasions where people have 'seen smoke" and there is no fire, logic doesn't back you up a bit.

 

[quantumdude]

Originally posted by protonman
I gave the example of from seeing smoke one can infer validly that there must be fire. The reason being that fire is the cause of smoke. Logic can determine the truth or falsity of a statement.

No, observation determined the truth value of it. I promise you, if you had never seen smoke or fire before, you would not have made the inference the first time.

But whatever. You have--yet again--either completely misunderstood or completely ignored my point. Not only have you not shown that deductive logic can determine the truth or falsity of a statement, you have also not shown that it can reveal the noumenal nature of either "smoke" or "fire".

You have claimed that logic can do both of these things, and I have repeatedly asked you to show how, and you have consistently dodged the issue.

If someone sees smoke and says there is no fire this statement is wrong. There must be fire because fire is the cause of smoke.

That is not true. If you've ever tried to start a fire with sticks, you would have noticed that the wood starts smoldering (smoking) before the fire ignites.

So much for your "logic".

 

[quantumdude]

Originally posted by protonman
The logic does validate the statement. If someone says there is no fire when they see smoke (in the situation I am talking about) they are wrong.

It does not. The logic is only as good as the premises, which are determined to be true or false based on observation.

What is so hard about this?

Only your skull, apparently.

 

[protonman]

Originally posted by Tom
No, observation determined the truth value of it. I promise you, if you had never seen smoke or fire before, you would not have made the inference the first time.

It is true that in order to make the inference you must have seen fire produce smoke. There is no question about this. I said there must be a relation between smoke and fire and it must be understood by the person making the inference. This understanding comes from observation. But once the observation has been made in the future the inference is valid. For example, consider you are in the mountains and see smoke rising above a hill. If you ask a person who understands that fire is the cause of smoke if there is smoke they will say yes. The statement that there is smoke is true based on a reason. What is the problem with this?

 

[protonman]

I would like to know something Tom. What do you mean by truth?

 

[quantumdude]

Originally posted by protonman
It is true that in order to make the inference you must have seen fire produce smoke[/color]. There is no question about this. I said there must be a relation between smoke and fire and it must be understood by the person making the inference. This understanding comes from observation.

I'm with you so far. But this raises an important question:

If you accept observational evidence in this case, then why not accept it in all cases? It has repeatedly been brought to your attention that you have been drawing an arbitrary line as to what information you will or will not accept.

But once the observation has been made in the future the inference is valid.

Note: The inference you are describing in the part in red[/color] is that:

If there is fire, then there must be smoke.
There is fire.

Therfore, there must be smoke.

Keep this in mind for the next part.

For example, consider you are in the mountains and see smoke rising above a hill. If you ask a person who understands that fire is the cause of smoke if there is smoke they will say yes[/color].

The inference you are describing in the part in green[/color] above is that:

If there is smoke, then there must be fire.
There is smoke.

Therefore, there must be fire.

The statement that there is smoke is true based on a reason. What is the problem with this?

The problem with it is obvious. The two inferences are not related to each other at all, inasmuch as the starting premise of the two arguments are not logically equivalent! You can easily check that yourself via truth tables.

The conditional in the first argument, which is based on observation, is of the form:

p-->q

The conditional in the second argument is the converse[/color] of that statement, and is of the form:

q-->p

Because the second statement is not logically equivalent to a statement that is based on observation (such as the first conditional), it has no basis in observational evidence[/color].

Furthermore, it has been repeatedly pointed out to you that there can be smoke without fire, so the second conditional isn't even true.

Furthermore, none of what you posted gives any indication that you can derive the noumenal nature of either "smoke" or "fire", as you claimed you could.

Furthermore, even if your post were correct, you couldn't possibly prove your case based on any number of examples. You need to present the rudiments of the logic that can do the things you claim it can do.

Debating with you is just like debating with one of our old members named Alexander. He used to insist that mathematics governed the universe (instead of merely describing it), and that any aspect of reality could be derived mathematically (you can do a search for those debates, if you are so inclined). If we substitute "Buddhist logic" for "mathematics", it is easily seen that you sound like the same broken record.

You, just like him, are failing to do the one thing that needs to be done to establish your claim.

Show us the "math" (or in your case, "logic") that can do what you claim it does![/color]

 

[quantumdude]

Originally posted by protonman
I would like to know something Tom. What do you mean by truth?

Synthetic truths are statements that affirm observations made in the universe. An example is "On the moon, objects fall with an acceleration that is equal to 1/6 of the acceleration of gravity on the surface of the Earth."

Analytic truths are statements that are known to be true a priori, by definition. An example is "All umarried men are bachelors."

 

[protonman]

I never said if there is fire there must be smoke.

Second, I acknowledged that there are cases where there is smoke but no fire. What I am talking about is if you are in a place where there are no chemicals, etc. that would produce smoke without fire. This is an example to describe the power of inference.

There is no question that if you understand the relation between fire and smoke you can infer the existence of fire from seeing smoke. In fact, I asked a 16 year old today and it was obvious to him. You can not negate the everyday world.

I think behind your thinking is a desire to find some kind of basis, which is exists independent of anything else, on which to establish the truth of a statement. A so called inherent refernce frame against which the truth or falsity of all statements can be measured against. Perhaps you need to put down Kant and read Wittgenstein.

 

[Hurkyl]

So, what you're saying is, "if there's nothing that can produce smoke without fire, then if we see smoke we can infer there must be fire."


Ok, back to seriousness. The point you were missing is that we were using this same example to demonstrate the weakness of inference.

It's usually true, but you'll make mistakes if you try to assume it is always true.

You also brought up the issue of illusions and mistakes; when you think you see smoke, but are wrong, your inference is likely to make a mistake too.


So it seems that if you want to increase your knowledge of the universe, you need to identify when general rules (like "when there's smoke, there's fire") fail to be true, and to recognize when you're faced with an illusion or an otherwise mistaken perception...

 

[quantumdude]

Originally posted by protonman
I never said if there is fire there must be smoke.

Yes you did!

edit: In the first argument, you said that the observation of

fire-->smoke

formed the basis of the future inferences when seeing smoke.

In the second argument, you said that if a person sees smoke rising, then they can validly conclude that a fire caused it, and that is wrong[/color].

Second, I acknowledged that there are cases where there is smoke but no fire.

Not in the post I commented on, you didn't. You said that the inference "If smoke, then fire" is true based on observation of "If fire, then smoke", and that is wrong[/color].

What I am talking about is if you are in a place where there are no chemicals, etc. that would produce smoke without fire.

No, that is not what you were talking about. Ultimately, you were talking about the relation between a conditional, its contrapositive, and its converse, and you were wrong about that[/color].

This is an example to describe the power of inference.

Actually, with the way you modified the example just now (to include more and more information), that would illustrate not the power of inference, but the power of observation to rule out other causes of the smoke.

There is no question that if you understand the relation between fire and smoke you can infer the existence of fire from seeing smoke. In fact, I asked a 16 year old today and it was obvious to him.

Then neither you nor the 16 year old understands logic.

You can not negate the everyday world.

I'm not trying to. You are[/color]. Hurkyl and I already gave you an example of the existence of smoke without the corresponding existence of fire.

I think behind your thinking is a desire to find some kind of basis, which is exists independent of anything else, on which to establish the truth of a statement. A so called inherent refernce frame against which the truth or falsity of all statements can be measured against.

?

No, that is what is behind your thinking. I have always admitted that all (synthetic) truths are contingent on reference with the world. You, on the other hand, have been asserting exactly what you describe above: That you can use "logic" to determine truths independent of anything except that logic.


edit: fixed a typo

 

[quantumdude]

Originally posted by protonman
Second, I acknowledged that there are cases where there is smoke but no fire. What I am talking about is if you are in a place where there are no chemicals, etc. that would produce smoke without fire. This is an example to describe the power of inference.

Can't you even see that this changes the argument completely?

You went from:

If there is smoke, then there is fire.
There is smoke.

Therefore there is fire.

To:

If there is smoke, then there is fire or smoke-producing materials.
There is smoke.
There are no smoke-producing materials.

Therefore, there is fire.

In the second argument, you have assumed that there is nothing other than fire that can produce smoke on the mountain. Then, under that assumption, when you see smoke, you conclude that there is fire.

Well, duh!


edit: fixed an error

 

[protonman]

Originally posted by Hurkyl

It's usually true, but you'll make mistakes if you try to assume it is always true.

This is exactly what I said.

You also brought up the issue of illusions and mistakes; when you think you see smoke, but are wrong, your inference is likely to make a mistake too.

One of the conditions of understanding the statement On the hill fire exists because there is smoke on the hill is that you perceive smoke. If you perceive smoke it means that the mind perceiving the object and the object are in comformity. 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 seems that if you want to increase your knowledge of the universe, you need to identify when general rules (like "when there's smoke, there's fire") fail to be true, and to recognize when you're faced with an illusion or an otherwise mistaken perception...

I did. I said in the case where you are in a location where the only cause of smoke can be fire. Say in the mountains. I did not say this is a universal pervasion.

It is an illustrative example of the power of inference to determine the existence of something from the perception of another. The reason being they share a cause and effect relationship.

 

[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?

 

[phoenixthoth]

Originally posted by Hurkyl
So, what you're saying is, "if there's nothing that can produce smoke without fire, then if we see smoke we can infer there must be fire."


Ok, back to seriousness. The point you were missing is that we were using this same example to demonstrate the weakness of inference.

It's usually true, but you'll make mistakes if you try to assume it is always true.

You also brought up the issue of illusions and mistakes; when you think you see smoke, but are wrong, your inference is likely to make a mistake too.


So it seems that if you want to increase your knowledge of the universe, you need to identify when general rules (like "when there's smoke, there's fire") fail to be true, and to recognize when you're faced with an illusion or an otherwise mistaken perception...

i believe three-valued logic is the key. it is easy to discern when something is, something may be, and when something is not, is it not?

 

[quantumdude]

What a weak response.

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.

Actually, I'm still right here in the everyday world. I have cited real counterexamples of your assertions.

It is you who is in la-la land.

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

That has nothing to do with this.

A cup is a cup because it fits the accepted definition of a cup. How else would you define a cup?

Can you--just once--please address the points I made, instead of the points I didn't make?

 

[quantumdude]

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.

 

[protonman]

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.

 

[quantumdude]

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.

 

[Nereid]

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 http://hubblesite.org/newscenter/newsdesk/archive/releases/2004/07/? In http://www.colorado.edu/physics/2000/applets/twoslitsa.html ? In solar neutrinos?

 

[Hurkyl]

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?

 

[protonman]

Originally posted by Nereid
For example, where are cups, fire, smoke, mountains, cars, chatbots, Tom, protonman, etc in the http://hubblesite.org/newscenter/newsdesk/archive/releases/2004/07/? In http://www.colorado.edu/physics/2000/applets/twoslitsa.html ? In solar neutrinos?

What do you mean?

 

[phoenixthoth]

i see a prism, a many sided wall. push through it, yall, and come to an agreement.

 

[Nereid]

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?"[/color]

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."[/color]

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.

 

[protonman]

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.

 

[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?

 

[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.

 

[Nereid]

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.

 

[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?!?

 

[protonman]

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.

 

[protonman]

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.

 

[phoenixthoth]

*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.

 

[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?

 

[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?

 

[phoenixthoth]

hellz, no! not in my opinion. that's blind faith. i believe zero has the best of intentions.

 

[quantumdude]

I believe we are done here.