Is morality objective or subjective?

[Immanuel Can]

Logic can be symbolic... But ordinarily, it occurs in complete propositions...

You probably meant to say that symbolic logic substitutes non-verbal signs, such as the variables p and q, for declarative clauses, in order to generalise relationships between assertions.

Did you not read? I said "logic CAN be symbolic." Not "is always." Have you not heard of formal/symbolic logic?

But I also asked you for the category error. So where's that?

But the important point is what I began with: a logic deals with language, such as mathematics, not the reality outside language.

Are you denying the application of mathematics or logic to reality? You don't believe they apply in physics, chemistry, engineering, or counting sheep?

So a cosmological argument from logical or mathematical premises is invalid.

No, "invalid" is a term meaning, "Improperly formed as in a syllogism." It might mean that there's a shifting middle term, or an improper ordering of the elements, or an incomplete premise, or something like that: but it's structural, and does not impinge on truth value. An "invalid" syllogism can be factually right in its conclusion, by accident. Truth value is not implicated in formal errors, which we call "invalidity." I'm sure you know that.

There's nothing at all improperly formed about the recognition of the impossibility of an infinite regress. It is provable in pure mathematics, and also in empirical terms. You can perform the experiment right now, if you wish.

[Peter Holmes]

Logic can be symbolic... But ordinarily, it occurs in complete propositions...

You probably meant to say that symbolic logic substitutes non-verbal signs, such as the variables p and q, for declarative clauses, in order to generalise relationships between assertions.

Did you not read? I said "logic CAN be symbolic." Not "is always." Have you not heard of formal/symbolic logic?

Did you not read? I didn't say you said logic is always symbolic. I pointed out that you said that logic can be symbolic, but ordinarily 'occurs in complete propositions'. And that implies that a symbolic expression is not a complete proposition. And that's false.

But I also asked you for the category error. So where's that?

You mix up uses of the words logic and logical. For example, can you see the difference between 'a logical argument', 'a logical rule', 'a logic deals with language', and 'not all uses of language are logical'?

But the important point is what I began with: a logic deals with language, such as mathematics, not the reality outside language.

Are you denying the application of mathematics or logic to reality? You don't believe they apply in physics, chemistry, engineering, or counting sheep?

Don't be obtuse. I'm pointing out and emphasising the glaringly obvious, in order to make it more visible.

Mathematics is a language. And as with any language, its 'application' to reality is not inherent or given in advance. We can and do use it in countless ways, and no one way is 'correct' or 'accurate'. Meaning is use.

And a logic is a system of rules for the use of a language, without which communication - including the communication of lies - is impossible. But, again, the 'application' of linguistic rules to reality is not inherent or given in advance. People excepted, features of reality don't tell us how we must talk about them.

So a cosmological argument from logical or mathematical premises is invalid.

No, "invalid" is a term meaning, "Improperly formed as in a syllogism." It might mean that there's a shifting middle term, or an improper ordering of the elements, or an incomplete premise, or something like that: but it's structural, and does not impinge on truth value. An "invalid" syllogism can be factually right in its conclusion, by accident. Truth value is not implicated in formal errors, which we call "invalidity." I'm sure you know that.

Thanks. But please read carefully. I didn't mention truth-value. And I explained its irrelevance for validity to you not long ago.

My point is that deductive validity requires that a conclusion can't contain information not present in the premise or premises of an argument. So mathematical or logical premises - such as rule-assertions - can't entail non-mathematical or non-logical conclusions. For example, try arguing from the geometrically infinite curvature of a circle to an empirical conclusion.

There's nothing at all improperly formed about the recognition of the impossibility of an infinite regress. It is provable in pure mathematics, and also in empirical terms. You can perform the experiment right now, if you wish.

As I understand it - and I'm not a mathematician - the argument about infinity goes on. And infinity certainly isn't a number. So its possibility or impossibility is an open question. Is there an infinite scalar progression from 0 to 1? And if so, how can probability be calculated? As always, application is not given in advance.

[Will Bouwman]

Well look, the fact that I happen to think the most likely explanation of the sequential phenomena that give the appearance of causality is some sequence of causally related, broadly speaking mechanical events, doesn't mean that it is.

No, nothing is absolute, of course. We're talking about human knowledge, after all. It just means that that is the overwhelmingly plausible explanation, based on all the empirical data, and no other theory has anything close to the empirical data to make it reasonable to suppose at all.

What empirical data do you have that makes your view more plausible than George Berkeley's idealism, for example?

[Age]

Is there just one of you human beings here who even knows how 'objectivity', itself, is even obtained?

If yes, then how is 'objectivity' obtained, exactly?

If not one of you here answers and clarifies this, then this shows and proves how these people, back then, would argue over things in which they had absolutely no idea nor clue about.

'Morality', or the views about what is right and wrong in Life, is both 'objective' AND 'subjective'.

Knowing how to distinguish between the two helps in knowing what is actually irrefutably Right and Wrong in Life from what is just perceived to be right or wrong in Life.

you posters here can keep bickering and arguing about anything, like the things that you are here, which have been bickered and argued over for thousands upon thousands of years by you human beings, but you are all, literally, 'missing the mark', while you continue to do so.

[Age]

Right. And that sequence has to have had a starting point, because an infinite regress is mathematically and logically impossible.

Well look, the fact that I happen to think the most likely explanation of the sequential phenomena that give the appearance of causality is some sequence of causally related, broadly speaking mechanical events, doesn't mean that it is.

No, nothing is absolute, of course.

Here is one of the most contradictory, and hypocritical, statements and claims that could be made by you human beings.

And, the funniest part of this is that a lot of you posters here could not even see and recognise this Fact.

And, what is also Truly absurd and contradictory is when anyone tries to claim that causality had (past tense) 'a beginning'.

That these people would try to argue this was, and remains, Truly hilarious to watch and observe over.

[Harbal]

you posters here can keep bickering and arguing about anything, like the things that you are here, which have been bickered and argued over for thousands upon thousands of years by you human beings,

I agree; tradition is important.

[phyllo]

There's nothing at all improperly formed about the recognition of the impossibility of an infinite regress. It is provable in pure mathematics, and also in empirical terms. You can perform the experiment right now, if you wish.

Show that experiment

[attofishpi]

There's nothing at all improperly formed about the recognition of the impossibility of an infinite regress. It is provable in pure mathematics, and also in empirical terms. You can perform the experiment right now, if you wish.

Show that experiment

I am not sure who you are quoting but I think they may be feeling infinite regret.

[Age]

you posters here can keep bickering and arguing about anything, like the things that you are here, which have been bickered and argued over for thousands upon thousands of years by you human beings,

I agree; tradition is important.

What is the 'tradition' of bickering, arguing, or fighting supposedly 'important' in regards to exactly?

Besides stupidity of course.

Is 'the traditional', which you speak about here, important to anything else?

[Harbal]

you posters here can keep bickering and arguing about anything, like the things that you are here, which have been bickered and argued over for thousands upon thousands of years by you human beings,

I agree; tradition is important.

What is the 'tradition' of bickering, arguing, or fighting supposedly 'important' in regards to exactly?

Besides stupidity of course.

Is 'the traditional', which you speak about here, important to anything else?

You never seem to run out of questions.

[Immanuel Can]

...that implies that a symbolic expression is not a complete proposition.

This is not dead wrong, but at least extremely nit-picking. I did not say it's "incomplete," and the idea never crossed my mind. I said that it is not a "proposition" in the linguistic sense of the term. It's not a sentence, or a declaration about empirical reality. It is in those definitional senses that it is "not a proposition."

Sheesh.

Look, Pete...if we're going to have a reasonable conversation, a little charitable goodwill is in order, don't you think?

You mix up uses of the words logic and logical. For example, can you see the difference between 'a logical argument', 'a logical rule', 'a logic deals with language', and 'not all uses of language are logical'?

No. It's just the nounal and adjectival uses of exactly the same concept.

Mathematics is a language. And as with any language, its 'application' to reality is not inherent or given in advance. We can and do use it in countless ways, and no one way is 'correct' or 'accurate'. Meaning is use.

Well, meaning is use, but correctness is mathematical. Mathematics belongs to the realm of abstraction, and meaning to the empirical world; but these are not actually two different worlds, as Hegel realized. Rather, one is one kind of representation (the universal) and the other the other kind of representation (the particular) of one-and-the-same world. It would be a sort of naive Platonism to separate them in the way you appear to be trying to do.

To put it simply, maths and logic both have definite applications to the real world, and more precise applications than casual thought can ever achieve. That's what makes them worth having. They work. So there's no strict separation between the abstractions of logic or maths and the particulars of the cases to which they apply.

Thanks. But please read carefully. I didn't mention truth-value. And I explained its irrelevance for validity to you not long ago.

Yes, which makes it all the more startling that you seemed to have reversed yourself here. I would not have expected that error...calling an argument "invalid" when the formal structure is actually valid. If you didn't mean that, then fine.

My point is that deductive validity requires that a conclusion can't contain information not present in the premise or premises of an argument. So mathematical or logical premises - such as rule-assertions - can't entail non-mathematical or non-logical conclusions.

That sounds very much like the naive Platonism I was speaking of. The world of maths and the empirical world are not two worlds, but one described obversely. See Hegel.

As I understand it - and I'm not a mathematician - the argument about infinity goes on.

Some arguments about infinity do: this one doesn't. It's too easy to demonstrate. And since actual infinite regresses of prerequisites never start (which maths prove), and cause-and-effect clearly posit a regress of prerequisites, we can know for certain that cause and effect cannot be the product of an infinite regress.

It's inescapably clear. And it's empirically demonstrable, as well, if you simply try to do the calculation yourself. You cannot do it. You'll never start.

There's the unity of the universal and the particular again. The maths say it, and the empirical says it. Pretty conclusive, one must say.

[Age]

I agree; tradition is important.

What is the 'tradition' of bickering, arguing, or fighting supposedly 'important' in regards to exactly?

Besides stupidity of course.

Is 'the traditional', which you speak about here, important to anything else?

You never seem to run out of questions.

Because most of the answers I already know.

And, I am just seeing what, and how much, you "claimants" really know, in regards to what is claimed.

you for some unknown reason claimed that 'you agree' (which I left alone because what you followed that with I never claimed nor even agree with), however, you made 'the claim' that 'tradition is important'. But, if you are never able to elaborate and clarify what 'tradition' is, supposedly, 'important' to, then none of 'us' even know what you are referring to.

And, just to make it absolutely clear, to you, I do not necessarily agree that 'tradition is important' at all. I also never even implied that tradition was important in what I said and wrote above here.

[Harbal]

And, just to make it absolutely clear, to you, I do not necessarily agree that 'tradition is important' at all.

You are right; who needs tradition?

[Age]

...that implies that a symbolic expression is not a complete proposition.

This is not dead wrong, but at least extremely nit-picking. I did not say it's "incomplete," and the idea never crossed my mind. I said that it is not a "proposition" in the linguistic sense of the term. It's not a sentence, or a declaration about empirical reality. It is in those definitional senses that it is "not a proposition."

Sheesh.

Look, Pete...if we're going to have a reasonable conversation, a little charitable goodwill is in order, don't you think?

You mix up uses of the words logic and logical. For example, can you see the difference between 'a logical argument', 'a logical rule', 'a logic deals with language', and 'not all uses of language are logical'?

No. It's just the nounal and adjectival uses of exactly the same concept.

Mathematics is a language. And as with any language, its 'application' to reality is not inherent or given in advance. We can and do use it in countless ways, and no one way is 'correct' or 'accurate'. Meaning is use.

Well, meaning is use, but correctness is mathematical. Mathematics belongs to the realm of abstraction, and meaning to the empirical world; but these are not actually two different worlds, as Hegel realized. Rather, one is one kind of representation (the universal) and the other the other kind of representation (the particular) of one-and-the-same world. It would be a sort of naive Platonism to separate them in the way you appear to be trying to do.

To put it simply, maths and logic both have definite applications to the real world, and more precise applications than casual thought can ever achieve. That's what makes them worth having. They work. So there's no strict separation between the abstractions of logic or maths and the particulars of the cases to which they apply.

Thanks. But please read carefully. I didn't mention truth-value. And I explained its irrelevance for validity to you not long ago.

Yes, which makes it all the more startling that you seemed to have reversed yourself here. I would not have expected that error...calling an argument "invalid" when the formal structure is actually valid. If you didn't mean that, then fine.

My point is that deductive validity requires that a conclusion can't contain information not present in the premise or premises of an argument. So mathematical or logical premises - such as rule-assertions - can't entail non-mathematical or non-logical conclusions.

That sounds very much like the naive Platonism I was speaking of. The world of maths and the empirical world are not two worlds, but one described obversely. See Hegel.

As I understand it - and I'm not a mathematician - the argument about infinity goes on.

Some arguments about infinity do: this one doesn't. It's too easy to demonstrate. And since actual infinite regresses of prerequisites never start (which maths prove), and cause-and-effect clearly posit a regress of prerequisites, we can know for certain that cause and effect cannot be the product of an infinite regress.

Now 'this' is where absolute stupidity shines and can be seen, clearly.

So, how would one, who is not stupid anyway, supposedly, know, for certain, that 'cause and effect' is not the product of infinity, itself?

And, to see just how Truly stupid "immanuel can" can really be here just watch and observe how it does not have the intelligence, at the moment, to answer the question here.

It's inescapably clear. And it's empirically demonstrable, as well, if you simply try to do the calculation yourself. You cannot do it. You'll never start.

you are being more of an "idiot" here now than you were in your previous paragraph.

Contrary to what you believe the calculation has already been done. And, the calculation,itself, proves your claim that you will never start irrefutably False, Wrong, Inaccurate, Incorrect.

There's the unity of the universal and the particular again. The maths say it, and the empirical says it. Pretty conclusive, one must say.

you are completely lost and confused here.

There is absolutely nothing in maths nor empirically that backs up and supports your claims here, let alone proves them true.

And, the maths says it, and proves it, and the empirical says it, and proves it, as well.

Therefore, this conclusively refutes your claim here.

It is like you are the still in the embryo stage here "immanuel can". If you really cannot even start, then you really do have a lot, lot more to learn here.

[Age]

And, just to make it absolutely clear, to you, I do not necessarily agree that 'tradition is important' at all.

You are right; who needs tradition?

This is twice that you have absolutely completely misread and misunderstood what I have said and written here.

1. I never ever said nor meant that tradition is important.

2. I have never ever said nor meant that no one needs tradition.

Everyone needs tradition in one form or another, obviously.

For example everybody needs the tradition of food eating.

Why would you even ask such as the question you did here?

And, why did you write, 'You are right', here?

Once more I will very strongly suggest that assuming and presuming things are completely removed from one's perceptions here when my words are being read.

What, exactly, did you even pre/assume I said and meant, in which you then pre/assummed I was 'right' about?