Agreed, both are needed.Speakpigeon wrote: ↑Sun Mar 10, 2019 9:30 pmI don't think you can go behind intuition, let alone read the "source code". All we have is our intuition and rational methods of inquiry. But dismissing intuition is really insane. Unfortunately, it has become the dogma of our time: don't trust intuition. I wonder how humans managed to survive at all, apparently for more than 400,000 years, in a world without formal methods.philosopher wrote: ↑Tue Jun 19, 2018 10:12 pmYou can't trust intuition. Never. Intuition is a GUI (Graphical User Interface) for the brain to work with, but as with other software, if you really want to understand stuff, you go behind the GUI and read the source code itself.
EB
The Contradiction of the Three Laws of Logic
Re: The Contradiction of the Three Laws of Logic
Re: The Contradiction of the Three Laws of Logic
Such irony.Speakpigeon wrote: ↑Sun Mar 10, 2019 9:30 pmI don't think you can go behind intuition, let alone read the "source code". All we have is our intuition and rational methods of inquiry. But dismissing intuition is really insane. Unfortunately, it has become the dogma of our time: don't trust intuition. I wonder how humans managed to survive at all, apparently for more than 400,000 years, in a world without formal methods.
EB
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Construct ... thematics)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UltrafinitismMuch constructive mathematics uses intuitionistic logic, which is essentially classical logic without the law of the excluded middle.
That you should trust your intuition is a given. That you can become even more in touch with your intuition and develop better judgment through practice and experience is not.In the philosophy of mathematics, ultrafinitism (also known as ultraintuitionism
Observe the pattern that as you develop a better intuition through practice  you abandon more and more axioms.
Would I have trusted my intuition in my early 20s? Yeah. And it was wrong a lot.
In my 30s I am an ultrafinitist. I rely on intuition more than I rely on anything else. And it's far less wrong now that I have developed the mental selfdiscipline and put the systems in place to check myself.

 Posts: 307
 Joined: Fri Jun 08, 2018 3:37 pm
Re: The Contradiction of the Three Laws of Logic
Intuition is good for survival, but you cannot understand the workings of the universe for instance, using intuition. You cannot grasp advanced science with intuition. You have to have abstract thought of a very high quality of course using purely logical reasoning  complex logic.Speakpigeon wrote: ↑Sun Mar 10, 2019 9:30 pmI don't think you can go behind intuition, let alone read the "source code". All we have is our intuition and rational methods of inquiry. But dismissing intuition is really insane. Unfortunately, it has become the dogma of our time: don't trust intuition. I wonder how humans managed to survive at all, apparently for more than 400,000 years, in a world without formal methods.philosopher wrote: ↑Tue Jun 19, 2018 10:12 pmYou can't trust intuition. Never. Intuition is a GUI (Graphical User Interface) for the brain to work with, but as with other software, if you really want to understand stuff, you go behind the GUI and read the source code itself.
EB
Intuition is only simple logic, it cannot be used for advanced mathematics, unless you are a math genius.
Re: The Contradiction of the Three Laws of Logic
Good for you....you pull stuff apart again and again...that is what point space does. It continually reduces itself to further points. You can call this "atomism" as well.Logik wrote: ↑Mon Mar 11, 2019 5:02 amSuch irony.Speakpigeon wrote: ↑Sun Mar 10, 2019 9:30 pmI don't think you can go behind intuition, let alone read the "source code". All we have is our intuition and rational methods of inquiry. But dismissing intuition is really insane. Unfortunately, it has become the dogma of our time: don't trust intuition. I wonder how humans managed to survive at all, apparently for more than 400,000 years, in a world without formal methods.
EB
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Construct ... thematics)https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UltrafinitismMuch constructive mathematics uses intuitionistic logic, which is essentially classical logic without the law of the excluded middle.That you should trust your intuition is a given. That you can become even more in touch with your intuition and develop better judgment through practice and experience is not.In the philosophy of mathematics, ultrafinitism (also known as ultraintuitionism
Observe the pattern that as you develop a better intuition through practice  you abandon more and more axioms.
Would I have trusted my intuition in my early 20s? Yeah. And it was wrong a lot.
In my 30s I am an ultrafinitist. I rely on intuition more than I rely on anything else. And it's far less wrong now that I have developed the mental selfdiscipline and put the systems in place to check myself.
It appears you are just unifying everything under one axiom in which all axioms are an extension of it. Already covered this.

 Posts: 879
 Joined: Sun Mar 26, 2017 6:38 pm
Re: The Contradiction of the Three Laws of Logic
No, the Excluded Middle stands.SirSisterofSuck wrote: ↑Mon Jun 18, 2018 8:20 pmThere is a common criticism to the 'Law of Excluded Middle.' I'm not able to find a source right now, but it goes something along the line of "Either penguins can fly, or they can't  but what if only some penguins could fly?" And the reason why that doesn't hold water as an argument against the Law of Excluded Middle, is because the law only applies to bivalent logic  when it's applied to a true dichotomy, like "Nothing can both be and not be." It does not apply to propositions that literally do give way to a middle answer.
“Either some penguins can fly or some cannot,”
Which yields:
P^ = some penguins that can fly
P* = some other penguins that cannot
So, in a universe where only some penguins can fly
and no penguins can fly and not fly:
P^ /= P*
P^ & P*
None of the above contradicts the Excluded Middle.
Re: The Contradiction of the Three Laws of Logic
Equivocation. Violates identity and obscures modality.commonsense wrote: ↑Thu Mar 14, 2019 8:19 pmNo, the Excluded Middle stands.SirSisterofSuck wrote: ↑Mon Jun 18, 2018 8:20 pmThere is a common criticism to the 'Law of Excluded Middle.' I'm not able to find a source right now, but it goes something along the line of "Either penguins can fly, or they can't  but what if only some penguins could fly?" And the reason why that doesn't hold water as an argument against the Law of Excluded Middle, is because the law only applies to bivalent logic  when it's applied to a true dichotomy, like "Nothing can both be and not be." It does not apply to propositions that literally do give way to a middle answer.
“Either some penguins can fly or some cannot,”
P^ = some penguins that can fly
P* = some other penguins that cannot
So, in a universe where only some penguins can fly
and no penguins can fly and not fly:
P^ /= P*
P^ & P*
If your claim is to be believed then the negation of the pronoun "some" is still "some". Then SOME = ¬SOME
This assigns equal truthvalue to all three of these propositions:
1 flying and 99 nonflying penguins.
50 flying and 50 nonflying penguins.
99 flying and 1 nonflying penguin.
Basically  you have a standard distribution. If you have maximum entropy you have zero knowledge: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle ... um_entropy
TL;DR: Some penguins can fly and some cannot translates to "for any given penguin there is 50% chance that it can fly and 50% chance that it can't"

 Posts: 879
 Joined: Sun Mar 26, 2017 6:38 pm
Re: The Contradiction of the Three Laws of Logic
ToucheLogik wrote: ↑Fri Mar 15, 2019 4:44 amEquivocation. Violates identity and obscures modality.commonsense wrote: ↑Thu Mar 14, 2019 8:19 pmNo, the Excluded Middle stands.SirSisterofSuck wrote: ↑Mon Jun 18, 2018 8:20 pmThere is a common criticism to the 'Law of Excluded Middle.' I'm not able to find a source right now, but it goes something along the line of "Either penguins can fly, or they can't  but what if only some penguins could fly?" And the reason why that doesn't hold water as an argument against the Law of Excluded Middle, is because the law only applies to bivalent logic  when it's applied to a true dichotomy, like "Nothing can both be and not be." It does not apply to propositions that literally do give way to a middle answer.
“Either some penguins can fly or some cannot,”
P^ = some penguins that can fly
P* = some other penguins that cannot
So, in a universe where only some penguins can fly
and no penguins can fly and not fly:
P^ /= P*
P^ & P*
If your claim is to be believed then the negation of the pronoun "some" is still "some". Then SOME = ¬SOME
This assigns equal truthvalue to all three of these propositions:
1 flying and 99 nonflying penguins.
50 flying and 50 nonflying penguins.
99 flying and 1 nonflying penguin.
Basically  you have a standard distribution. If you have maximum entropy you have zero knowledge: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle ... um_entropy
TL;DR: Some penguins can fly and some cannot translates to "for any given penguin there is 50% chance that it can fly and 50% chance that it can't"
Re: The Contradiction of the Three Laws of Logic
False; identity is grounded in both equivication and nonequivocation where "identity" itself is grounded in "relations" in which one axiom exists as fundamentally a ratio.Logik wrote: ↑Fri Mar 15, 2019 4:44 amEquivocation. Violates identity and obscures modality.commonsense wrote: ↑Thu Mar 14, 2019 8:19 pmNo, the Excluded Middle stands.SirSisterofSuck wrote: ↑Mon Jun 18, 2018 8:20 pmThere is a common criticism to the 'Law of Excluded Middle.' I'm not able to find a source right now, but it goes something along the line of "Either penguins can fly, or they can't  but what if only some penguins could fly?" And the reason why that doesn't hold water as an argument against the Law of Excluded Middle, is because the law only applies to bivalent logic  when it's applied to a true dichotomy, like "Nothing can both be and not be." It does not apply to propositions that literally do give way to a middle answer.
“Either some penguins can fly or some cannot,”
P^ = some penguins that can fly
P* = some other penguins that cannot
So, in a universe where only some penguins can fly
and no penguins can fly and not fly:
P^ /= P*
P^ & P*
If your claim is to be believed then the negation of the pronoun "some" is still "some". Then SOME = ¬SOME
This assigns equal truthvalue to all three of these propositions:
1 flying and 99 nonflying penguins.
50 flying and 50 nonflying penguins.
99 flying and 1 nonflying penguin.
Basically  you have a standard distribution. If you have maximum entropy you have zero knowledge: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle ... um_entropy
TL;DR: Some penguins can fly and some cannot translates to "for any given penguin there is 50% chance that it can fly and 50% chance that it can't"
A exists as B and C; hence b and c are a ratio.
For example "horse" exists as the ratio of the axioms "mammal", "herbivore" and "x" (with "x" observing other definitions).
Horse = mammal, herbivore, "x"
observes equivocation where the horse is the connection of axioms as a static unchanging role.
It also observe equivocation where the horse is a boundary of change where it progresses from one axiom to another.
Equivocation as undefined takes on a dynamic role in "P=P"
Equivocation as defined takes on a static role in =P=.
Equivocation, as well as the variable, in which both exist through eachother observe function as form (or "proof" as "function" where the "proof" effectively is a "form"): "P=".
The axiom of "excluded middle" observes divergent properties.
The axiom "inherent middle" (as an oppositve of "excluded middle" where the "excluded" middle either exists or does not exist" observes convergent properties.
"Excluded Middle" and "Inherent Middle" as both divergence and convergence observes all axioms as synthetic in nature.
Re: The Contradiction of the Three Laws of Logic
The sentence "some penguins fly and some do not" contains zero bits of information. It's meaningless.Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Fri Mar 15, 2019 9:43 pmFalse; identity is grounded in both equivication and nonequivocation where "identity" itself is grounded in "relations" in which one axiom exists as fundamentally a ratio.Logik wrote: ↑Fri Mar 15, 2019 4:44 amEquivocation. Violates identity and obscures modality.commonsense wrote: ↑Thu Mar 14, 2019 8:19 pm
No, the Excluded Middle stands.
“Either some penguins can fly or some cannot,”
P^ = some penguins that can fly
P* = some other penguins that cannot
So, in a universe where only some penguins can fly
and no penguins can fly and not fly:
P^ /= P*
P^ & P*
If your claim is to be believed then the negation of the pronoun "some" is still "some". Then SOME = ¬SOME
This assigns equal truthvalue to all three of these propositions:
1 flying and 99 nonflying penguins.
50 flying and 50 nonflying penguins.
99 flying and 1 nonflying penguin.
Basically  you have a standard distribution. If you have maximum entropy you have zero knowledge: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle ... um_entropy
TL;DR: Some penguins can fly and some cannot translates to "for any given penguin there is 50% chance that it can fly and 50% chance that it can't"
A exists as B and C; hence b and c are a ratio.
For example "horse" exists as the ratio of the axioms "mammal", "herbivore" and "x" (with "x" observing other definitions).
Horse = mammal, herbivore, "x"
observes equivocation where the horse is the connection of axioms as a static unchanging role.
It also observe equivocation where the horse is a boundary of change where it progresses from one axiom to another.
Equivocation as undefined takes on a dynamic role in "P=P"
Equivocation as defined takes on a static role in =P=.
Equivocation, as well as the variable, in which both exist through eachother observe function as form (or "proof" as "function" where the "proof" effectively is a "form"): "P=".
The axiom of "excluded middle" observes divergent properties.
The axiom "inherent middle" (as an oppositve of "excluded middle" where the "excluded" middle either exists or does not exist" observes convergent properties.
"Excluded Middle" and "Inherent Middle" as both divergence and convergence observes all axioms as synthetic in nature.
Because you can't use to make any inferences or deductions about penguins from it.

 Posts: 879
 Joined: Sun Mar 26, 2017 6:38 pm
Re: The Contradiction of the Three Laws of Logic
From the above you have this piece of information, although I leave it to you to deem it equivocation or useful:
It would be wrong to say that all penguins can fly and it would be wrong to say that all penguins cannot fly.
Re: The Contradiction of the Three Laws of Logic
Indeed. It would be wrong to say it.commonsense wrote: ↑Sat Mar 16, 2019 1:34 amIt would be wrong to say that all penguins can fly and it would be wrong to say that all penguins cannot fly.
In a universe where 49 penguins can fly and 51 cannot fly it is equally wrong to say "Some penguins can fly and some cannot".
Because you are using the word "some" to mean two different things.
"Some penguins can fly".
some means 49
"some penguing cannot fly"
some means 51
49 != 51 => Contradiction.
So the ONLY time it is correct to say "Some penguins can fly and some penguins cannot" is when 'some' represent equal quantities for both the flying and nonflying cohorts.
Which is the same as saying "50% of penguins can fly and 50% cannot"
So you have given me exactly as much information as any coin can give me.

 Posts: 879
 Joined: Sun Mar 26, 2017 6:38 pm
Re: The Contradiction of the Three Laws of Logic
For me, “some” means > or = 1.Logik wrote: ↑Sat Mar 16, 2019 9:32 amIndeed. It would be wrong to say it.commonsense wrote: ↑Sat Mar 16, 2019 1:34 amIt would be wrong to say that all penguins can fly and it would be wrong to say that all penguins cannot fly.
In a universe where 49 penguins can fly and 51 cannot fly it is equally wrong to say "Some penguins can fly and some cannot".
Because you are using the word "some" to mean two different things.
"Some penguins can fly".
some means 49
"some penguing cannot fly"
some means 51
49 != 51 => Contradiction.
So the ONLY time it is correct to say "Some penguins can fly and some penguins cannot" is when 'some' represent equal quantities for both the flying and nonflying cohorts.
Which is the same as saying "50% of penguins can fly and 50% cannot"
So you have given me exactly as much information as any coin can give me.
As for the amount of information, you are correct. Yet I still wonder if knowing something can be different than knowing its obverse or is it only equivocation.
Re: The Contradiction of the Three Laws of Logic
Actually the penguin is defined relative to the nature of flying, in these respects it maintains a neutral nature. An inference is made. From this it may be deduced the penguin in neutral in regards to flying.Logik wrote: ↑Fri Mar 15, 2019 10:42 pmThe sentence "some penguins fly and some do not" contains zero bits of information. It's meaningless.Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Fri Mar 15, 2019 9:43 pmFalse; identity is grounded in both equivication and nonequivocation where "identity" itself is grounded in "relations" in which one axiom exists as fundamentally a ratio.Logik wrote: ↑Fri Mar 15, 2019 4:44 am
Equivocation. Violates identity and obscures modality.
If your claim is to be believed then the negation of the pronoun "some" is still "some". Then SOME = ¬SOME
This assigns equal truthvalue to all three of these propositions:
1 flying and 99 nonflying penguins.
50 flying and 50 nonflying penguins.
99 flying and 1 nonflying penguin.
Basically  you have a standard distribution. If you have maximum entropy you have zero knowledge: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle ... um_entropy
TL;DR: Some penguins can fly and some cannot translates to "for any given penguin there is 50% chance that it can fly and 50% chance that it can't"
A exists as B and C; hence b and c are a ratio.
For example "horse" exists as the ratio of the axioms "mammal", "herbivore" and "x" (with "x" observing other definitions).
Horse = mammal, herbivore, "x"
observes equivocation where the horse is the connection of axioms as a static unchanging role.
It also observe equivocation where the horse is a boundary of change where it progresses from one axiom to another.
Equivocation as undefined takes on a dynamic role in "P=P"
Equivocation as defined takes on a static role in =P=.
Equivocation, as well as the variable, in which both exist through eachother observe function as form (or "proof" as "function" where the "proof" effectively is a "form"): "P=".
The axiom of "excluded middle" observes divergent properties.
The axiom "inherent middle" (as an oppositve of "excluded middle" where the "excluded" middle either exists or does not exist" observes convergent properties.
"Excluded Middle" and "Inherent Middle" as both divergence and convergence observes all axioms as synthetic in nature.
Because you can't use to make any inferences or deductions about penguins from it.
"No penguin eats mammals" is a negative inference. From this it may be deduced what the penguin is not.
Inference and deduction result in positive, negative and neutral terms.
Re: The Contradiction of the Three Laws of Logic
Sure. Negative statements are good grounding for epistemology.Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Sat Mar 16, 2019 6:18 pmActually the penguin is defined relative to the nature of flying, in these respects it maintains a neutral nature. An inference is made. From this it may be deduced the penguin in neutral in regards to flying.
"No penguin eats mammals" is a negative inference. From this it may be deduced what the penguin is not.
Inference and deduction result in positive, negative and neutral terms.
It's what epistemology is.
Re: The Contradiction of the Three Laws of Logic
That is a positive statement then; hence we are left with all "meaning" as simultaneous positive/negative/neutral values as observed in the prime directives.Logik wrote: ↑Sat Mar 16, 2019 6:50 pmSure. Negative statements are good grounding for epistemology.Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Sat Mar 16, 2019 6:18 pmActually the penguin is defined relative to the nature of flying, in these respects it maintains a neutral nature. An inference is made. From this it may be deduced the penguin in neutral in regards to flying.
"No penguin eats mammals" is a negative inference. From this it may be deduced what the penguin is not.
Inference and deduction result in positive, negative and neutral terms.
It's what epistemology is.
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest