## Search found 4041 matches

- Wed May 01, 2019 3:01 pm
- Forum: The Lounge
- Topic: Logik's guide to successful detox from Philosophy Now
- Replies:
**98** - Views:
**10149**

### Logik's guide to successful detox from Philosophy Now

1. Obtain a temporary e-mail address at https://www.guerrillamail.com 2. Edit your profile and update your e-mail address to the temporary one above. 3. Follow activation instructions in the message received at https://www.guerrillamail.com 4. Generate random password at https://passwordsgenerator.n...

- Wed May 01, 2019 2:16 pm
- Forum: Logic and Philosophy of Mathematics
- Topic: Possible consequences of falsifying the principle of explosion?
- Replies:
**86** - Views:
**7214**

### Re: Possible consequences of falsifying the principle of explosion?

Another way is sound deductive inference that requires all premises to be true. P1. If it rains the ground will be wet. P2. It rains. C. The ground is wet. Empirical counter-example (a.k.a FALSIFICATION) : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XjXvkIzUTtk Examining the argument + evidence holistically, w...

- Wed May 01, 2019 1:57 pm
- Forum: Logic and Philosophy of Mathematics
- Topic: Converting formal proofs to conform to sound deduction
- Replies:
**30** - Views:
**3910**

### Re: Converting formal proofs to conform to sound deduction

(F ⊢ x) means ◻x I am going to remove myself from these discussions because you seem to be dogmatically doubling down on deduction as some absolute ideal for reasoning. A am observing that a lot of our disagreements boils down to the reductionism vs holism distinction. Q.E.D you reduce the logical ...

- Wed May 01, 2019 12:30 pm
- Forum: Epistemology - Theory of Knowledge
- Topic: The Contradiction of the Three Laws of Logic
- Replies:
**168** - Views:
**25898**

### Re: The Contradiction of the Three Laws of Logic

So... what's the problem already? :roll: You tell me. What is your conception of a "problem" ? There's a lengthy list of cognitive biases and a nifty codex . Do you recognize any of those things as "problems"? Rather than throwing the burden of proof over the fence, try take it upon yourself from t...

- Wed May 01, 2019 12:28 pm
- Forum: Logic and Philosophy of Mathematics
- Topic: Transforming formal proof into sound deduction (greatly simplified)
- Replies:
**59** - Views:
**4020**

### Re: Transforming formal proof into sound deduction (greatly simplified)

I'm not sure how the so-called principle of explosion affects or could possibly affect mathematical theorems. Gödel maybe? EB It affects all formal systems. From a contradiction anything follows, which trivialises the notions of truth and falsity. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_explosio...

- Wed May 01, 2019 12:26 pm
- Forum: Logic and Philosophy of Mathematics
- Topic: Tarski Undefinability Theorem Succinctly Refuted
- Replies:
**106** - Views:
**8212**

### Re: Tarski Undefinability Theorem Reexamined

You have not convinced me that when we talk about category theory we are talking about the same thing. What would convince you? It's an abstract theory. In the abstract it says what it says - it does what it does. How you use it in practice is where it matters (and for fun - I could abstractly inte...

- Wed May 01, 2019 3:29 am
- Forum: Logic and Philosophy of Mathematics
- Topic: Converting formal proofs to conform to sound deduction
- Replies:
**30** - Views:
**3910**

### Re: Converting formal proofs to conform to sound deduction

(2) You still don't understand the difference between value and sound? Let me assure you the Aristotelian error is all yours. I am getting tired of explaining it to you, least you waste 21 years of my life. Here is one last attempt. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Validity_(logic) In logic, an argume...

- Wed May 01, 2019 2:22 am
- Forum: Logic and Philosophy of Mathematics
- Topic: Converting formal proofs to conform to sound deduction
- Replies:
**30** - Views:
**3910**

### Re: Converting formal proofs to conform to sound deduction

Oh well that explains your "all X are Y" remark. Classically "All men are mortal" means ==> and not <==> https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/mortal mortal adjective of a living human being often in contrast to a divine being subject to death. The dictionary definition constrains the contex...

- Wed May 01, 2019 12:02 am
- Forum: Logic and Philosophy of Mathematics
- Topic: Tarski Undefinability Theorem Succinctly Refuted
- Replies:
**106** - Views:
**8212**

### Re: Tarski Undefinability Theorem Reexamined

- Tue Apr 30, 2019 11:36 pm
- Forum: Logic and Philosophy of Mathematics
- Topic: Converting formal proofs to conform to sound deduction
- Replies:
**30** - Views:
**3910**

### Re: Converting formal proofs to conform to sound deduction

Not picking a fight, just making an observation. Perhaps we have different "background frames" for the concept of isomorphism. What I mean by isomorphism as in functional equivalency. Different form - same function. I mean it in the sense where a transfer/translation function exists between two see...

- Tue Apr 30, 2019 11:23 pm
- Forum: Logic and Philosophy of Mathematics
- Topic: Converting formal proofs to conform to sound deduction
- Replies:
**30** - Views:
**3910**

### Re: Converting formal proofs to conform to sound deduction

Really? So when I say "All cats are mammals" that's the same as saying cats are isomorphic to mammals? OK. so you are using "are" to mean "subset of". Cool. We can play that game up and down the layers of abstraction right until we get to the set of all sets. And then I am going to ask you.... This...

- Tue Apr 30, 2019 8:55 pm
- Forum: Logic and Philosophy of Mathematics
- Topic: Converting formal proofs to conform to sound deduction
- Replies:
**30** - Views:
**3910**

### Re: Converting formal proofs to conform to sound deduction

This is also perfectly valid, it is, however, unsound: Unsound deductive inference (false premise) (a) All dogs are office buildings (b) All office buildings have windows (c) Therefore all dogs have windows It's an Idiotic example because you have absolutely no way of introducing modal logic into y...

- Tue Apr 30, 2019 8:47 pm
- Forum: Logic and Philosophy of Mathematics
- Topic: Converting formal proofs to conform to sound deduction
- Replies:
**30** - Views:
**3910**

### Re: Converting formal proofs to conform to sound deduction

This system is already populated with the complete set of human common sense: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyc I call bullshit that you can fit all knowledge from the Internet into one consistent system, but lets go with that for 2 seconds. I'll even pretend that you have (somehow) figured out how...

- Tue Apr 30, 2019 8:17 pm
- Forum: Logic and Philosophy of Mathematics
- Topic: Converting formal proofs to conform to sound deduction
- Replies:
**30** - Views:
**3910**

### Re: Converting formal proofs to conform to sound deduction

PeteOlcott wrote: ↑Tue Apr 30, 2019 8:11 pm MTT the formal system will know when you are lying to it because it is already populated with axioms.

WHICH axioms are you going to populate it with?!?

- Tue Apr 30, 2019 8:00 pm
- Forum: Epistemology - Theory of Knowledge
- Topic: The Contradiction of the Three Laws of Logic
- Replies:
**168** - Views:
**25898**

### Re: The Contradiction of the Three Laws of Logic

Define "dot". Well, wait, once you're at it, define "reality" and we're done. I... sort of... guess... EB Frenchie still hasn't figured out that it's all in the interpretation, not in the definition... I will enter into ANY contract; and agree to any law as long as I am the one who gets to interpre...