## Search found 3927 matches

- Thu Apr 25, 2019 8:34 am
- Forum: Logic and Philosophy of Mathematics
- Topic: Tarski Undefinability Theorem Succinctly Refuted
- Replies:
**99** - Views:
**1055**

### Re: Tarski Undefinability Theorem Reexamined

You are mistaken Conceptually the fields of computation, physics and mathematics are isomorphic. You know anything about Cartesian closed categories? I dabble in a little category theory and watched a video with Steve Awodey describing how the lambda calculus can be interpreted as a Cartesian close...

- Wed Apr 24, 2019 10:29 pm
- Forum: Epistemology - Theory of Knowledge
- Topic: The Contradiction of the Three Laws of Logic
- Replies:
**152** - Views:
**10556**

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

Speakpigeon, I want to take back everything I said in my previous post. Logik, Thanks for the informative references. It was unfortunate that I interpreted intuition in layman’s terms (hence MW; & mea culpa for “M&W”), rather than to mean Intuitionistic logic. I am chagrined, as this is a philosoph...

- Wed Apr 24, 2019 10:25 pm
- Forum: Logic and Philosophy of Mathematics
- Topic: Transforming formal proof into sound deduction (greatly simplified)
- Replies:
**39** - Views:
**366**

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

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stipulative_definition That would ONLY show that you fail to comprehend the idea of a stipulative definition and thus are only interested in playing heads games and not in any actual dialogue. Bullshit. a stipulative definition cannot be "correct" or "incorrect"; it ca...

- Wed Apr 24, 2019 10:19 pm
- Forum: Metaphysics
- Topic: The Law of Identity
- Replies:
**170** - Views:
**1993**

### Re: The Law of Identity

Then don't argue we are all computers. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_philosophy Digital philosophy is a modern re-interpretation of Gottfried Leibniz's monist metaphysics, one that replaces Leibniz's monads with aspects of the theory of cellular automata..... Thus computation is the single ...

- Wed Apr 24, 2019 10:16 pm
- Forum: Logic and Philosophy of Mathematics
- Topic: Transforming formal proof into sound deduction (greatly simplified)
- Replies:
**39** - Views:
**366**

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

What if I don't like your ontology and substitute my own?PeteOlcott wrote: ↑Wed Apr 24, 2019 10:08 pmIt is not a circle it is an acyclic directed graph knowledge ontology:

https://www.cyc.com/wp-content/uploads/ ... base-1.png

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_philosophy

- Wed Apr 24, 2019 4:41 pm
- Forum: Epistemology - Theory of Knowledge
- Topic: The Contradiction of the Three Laws of Logic
- Replies:
**152** - Views:
**10556**

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

Intuition = logic. Intuition is the opposite of logic. See M&W. What's incompatible between a "swift" process and a logical conclusion? Intuition is swift. Intuition is the opposite of logic. How could you possibly know that logic is not involved in all our intuitive decisions? Logic is the opposit...

- Wed Apr 24, 2019 4:27 pm
- Forum: Logic and Philosophy of Mathematics
- Topic: Transforming formal proof into sound deduction (greatly simplified)
- Replies:
**39** - Views:
**366**

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

IT DOES NOT FAIL TO TAKE THE ARROW OF TIME INTO ACCOUNT. Default reasoning concludes the time is now unless otherwise specified. I have no idea what you mean by "now". Formalize it for me. Is it an instant or an interval? Is time an Integer or a Real ? None-the-less: ¬(True ↔ False) in all possible...

- Wed Apr 24, 2019 3:44 pm
- Forum: Logic and Philosophy of Mathematics
- Topic: Transforming formal proof into sound deduction (greatly simplified)
- Replies:
**39** - Views:
**366**

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

It's not a law. It's an axiom/proposition. It fails to take the arrow of time into account.

https://repl.it/repls/BoringRedundantFormulas

Code: Select all

```
p and ( not p )
=> true
```

- Wed Apr 24, 2019 3:42 pm
- Forum: Philosophy of Religion
- Topic: Why do theists and atheists insist that if there is a God that it created the universe?
- Replies:
**263** - Views:
**2029**

### Re: Why do theists and atheists insist that if there is a God that it created the universe?

According to which logic exactly? There are so many to choose from.Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Wed Apr 24, 2019 3:26 pmIt's logically inescapable, actually. But I see we're just disagreeing about that.

- Wed Apr 24, 2019 2:37 pm
- Forum: Logic and Philosophy of Mathematics
- Topic: Transforming formal proof into sound deduction (greatly simplified)
- Replies:
**39** - Views:
**366**

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

You do know that "consistency" itself is an arbitrary choice/property for any data system, right?PeteOlcott wrote: ↑Wed Apr 24, 2019 2:29 pmAll of conceptual truth functions this way as long as it remains consistent.

Inconsistency forces a choice.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CAP_theorem

- Wed Apr 24, 2019 2:15 pm
- Forum: Philosophy of Religion
- Topic: Why do theists and atheists insist that if there is a God that it created the universe?
- Replies:
**263** - Views:
**2029**

### Re: Why do theists and atheists insist that if there is a God that it created the universe?

The same thing happens when you make the claim that "God is an uncaused cause". The universe is a caused cause. The universe is indeed a caused cause. But that's why it cannot be the answer to its own origin. It requires a cause. Deflection. Both God and Universe are causes. The distinction between...

- Tue Apr 23, 2019 6:32 pm
- Forum: Logic and Philosophy of Mathematics
- Topic: Transforming formal proof into sound deduction (rewritten)
- Replies:
**78** - Views:
**578**

### Re: Transforming formal proof into sound deduction (rewritten)

False dichotomy,PeteOlcott wrote: ↑Tue Apr 23, 2019 5:59 pmhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semantic_overload

Not at all. Ambiguity is not more expressive than the absence of ambiguity.

Every term is uniquely qualified to specify only a single semantic meaning.

Saying something ambiguous is more expressive than saying nothing at all.

- Tue Apr 23, 2019 6:20 pm
- Forum: Philosophy of Religion
- Topic: Why do theists and atheists insist that if there is a God that it created the universe?
- Replies:
**263** - Views:
**2029**

### Re: Why do theists and atheists insist that if there is a God that it created the universe?

The probability of any particular phenomenon EXISTING... You're still thinking God is a "phenomenon," and as such, is governed by "probabilities" -- as if chance is a kind of comprehensive force, governing even God. Probability calculations only apply to contingent entities, and only those in which...

- Tue Apr 23, 2019 5:11 pm
- Forum: Logic and Philosophy of Mathematics
- Topic: Transforming formal proof into sound deduction (rewritten)
- Replies:
**78** - Views:
**578**

### Re: Transforming formal proof into sound deduction (rewritten)

I closed the expressiveness gap of formal proofs to theorem consequences of symbolic logic by converting these formal proofs to conform to the sound deductive inference model. You are attempting to remove semantic overloading from formal systems. That's the exact opposite of closing a gap. You are ...

- Tue Apr 23, 2019 5:06 pm
- Forum: Logic and Philosophy of Mathematics
- Topic: Transforming formal proof into sound deduction (greatly simplified)
- Replies:
**39** - Views:
**366**

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

I closed the expressiveness gap of formal proofs to theorem consequences of symbolic logic by converting these formal proofs to conform to the sound deductive inference model. In my personal experience rules hinder expressiveness, but lets skip that for a second. In what way is the deductive infere...