Neither can you. Produce them limitless options from which to pick from.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interpreter_(computing)
Neither can you. Produce them limitless options from which to pick from.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interpreter_(computing)
I can equivocate 1+1=2 to anything from a set of bears, to a set of mirrors, to a thought about a thought, to a set of chimnies simply by replicating what I assume in front of me. My ability to assume an ever present continuum of changes presents itself as limitless options considering now is continually changing. A computer cannot interpret now except through a framework of reasoning given now manifests through a series of ever changing frameworks of reasoning. It (the computer) cannot exist without a framework of reasoning, a human being can. I can assume "now" for what it is without a framework of reasoning, a computer cannot.Skepdick wrote: ↑Tue Feb 16, 2021 7:06 pmNeither can you. Produce them limitless options from which to pick from.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interpreter_(computing)
Whichever ones are relevant to the situation at hand. Most minds are incapable of sorting through infinity every time their pants catch fire.
Oh, well, that's entirely .... the same.2. "Empty in themselves" not empty.
Necessary? No. Just go sit in tub of water.3. "Your pants are on fire" during "x" time in "y" position at "z" spot is a necessary progression.
So? That doesn't make it comprehensive of logic.4. The logical formula is based upon the Munchauseen trilemma.
1. The situation at hand is constantly changing thus resulting in a non finite (infinite) number of assertions which are constantly assumed.Skip wrote: ↑Tue Feb 16, 2021 8:09 pmWhichever ones are relevant to the situation at hand. Most minds are incapable of sorting through infinity every time their pants catch fire.
Oh, well, that's entirely .... the same.2. "Empty in themselves" not empty.
Necessary? No. Just go sit in tub of water.3. "Your pants are on fire" during "x" time in "y" position at "z" spot is a necessary progression.
In the present moment, you have to deal with the present situation. If you stop to dwell on progressions, x and y co-ordinates and point forms, you die before you can replicate. Real world logic can't afford the wastage.
So? That doesn't make it comprehensive of logic.4. The logical formula is based upon the Munchauseen trilemma.
And you the same...anyhow a context is needed under a set of rules logic falls under. If you disagree with these rules you are disagreeing with inescapable foundations logic exists through. The repeatability of these assertions follows the same repetitive nature embodied within logic. All repeats under a newer variation.
Wouldn't you say that "leaving one's framework of understanding" is called learning?
From the rules of logic to the logic of rules
Not even close. If I disagree with the "inescapable foundations" - I can just change the "inescapable foundations". On the fly.
"Machine learning algorithms are used in a wide variety of applications". The machine learning is grounded within an algorithm, the machine cannot choose or create this algorithm without being subject to a programmer beyond it.Skepdick wrote: ↑Tue Feb 16, 2021 11:16 pmWouldn't you say that "leaving one's framework of understanding" is called learning?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Machine_learning
The progression of one foundation to another is a foundation, thus the foundation repeats as a foundation. Its paradoxical. The nature of progressive assertions exists beyond what is programmable.Skepdick wrote: ↑Tue Feb 16, 2021 11:17 pmFrom the rules of logic to the logic of rules
Not even close. If I disagree with the "inescapable foundations" - I can just change the "inescapable foundations". On the fly.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-modifying_code
So, you can't see any difference between logic as exercised by reasoning entities and the formulaic representations of logical deduction.Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Tue Feb 16, 2021 11:03 pm And you the same...anyhow a context is needed under a set of rules logic falls under. If you disagree with these rules you are disagreeing with inescapable foundations logic exists through. The repeatability of these assertions follows the same repetitive nature embodied within logic. All repeats under a newer variation.
Then let it do the argument for you if it is so advanced. I see you are reverting to ad hominums now which only points to where your argument is lacking.
The formulaic representation of logical deduction are formed through reasoning entitities and vice versa. They are both intertwined.Skip wrote: ↑Tue Feb 16, 2021 11:36 pmSo, you can't see any difference between logic as exercised by reasoning entities and the formulaic representations of logical deduction.Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Tue Feb 16, 2021 11:03 pm And you the same...anyhow a context is needed under a set of rules logic falls under. If you disagree with these rules you are disagreeing with inescapable foundations logic exists through. The repeatability of these assertions follows the same repetitive nature embodied within logic. All repeats under a newer variation.
Is there anything to discuss?
Since deduction does not permit for any epistemic uncertainty, I can say with great level of certainty that nobody has ever logically deduced anything in this universe.