The Philosophy Discussion Forum

Arising_uk wrote:Is that an absolute truth?

Obviously, it cannot be an absolute truth.

What part of my post don't you understand?

uwot: "In short, both the following are absolutely true: There is not nothing. There is thinking." Wrong! There cannot be 'absolute truth'. Truth is that which can be shown to be the case. There are no truths without mind. Clearly, there was a time at which there were no minds. All of trut...

Philosophy Explorer: First divide a positive number by successively smaller positive numbers will result in larger positive numbers until division by zero will yield +inf. Nothing surprising here. If as you say....1/0=(+inf) then 0*(+inf)=0*(1/0)=(0*1)/0=0/0=1. and -(1/0)=(-1)/0. If as you say (-1)/...

That's a good summary - thanks. Here's a question - is logic better seen as a formalization of the arguments and reasoning of ordinary language, or as a formalization/abstraction of mathematical reasoning? I come down firmly on the latter side. I side with Russell here. Logic as the boy and mathema...

Owen: I agree that we do include propositional variables as a primitive notion, which take on the values T and F. Perhaps we can consider the application of the truth functions without variables as the 'arithmetic' of logic and truth functions with variables as the 'algebra' of logic. Now you're sp...

Hi Wyman, Wyman: Do you find it odd that under the first axiom system (nand), we define 'not p' as 'not both p and p?' No, ~p is not defined as ~(p & p). That ~p <-> ~(p & p), is a consequence of the definitions, and I don't find that odd. If we use (|) nand as the only primitive (undefined...

Ah! :idea: Thank you for that Owen, wasn't thinking straight. Still, interesting(to me) that the monadic truth functions produce dyadic tautologies off the bat? Is it because there are two possible states of affairs with one object? You are very welcome. Yes, the two states of affairs are the primi...

Ah! :idea: Thank you for that Owen, wasn't thinking straight. Still, interesting(to me) that the monadic truth functions produce dyadic tautologies off the bat? Is it because there are two possible states of affairs with one object? You are very welcome. Yes, the two states of affairs are the primi...

What do they represent or symbolise? Some background for those who haven't studied truth-functional logic(TFL). Think of one object, thing or state of affairs call it 'p' It has two conditions and they are shown in TFL by T and F or 1 and 0. Normally like this, p T F or p 1 0 That is, it is the cas...

Because he's a gnu. Yes indeed, he fits your description very accurately. He is shamefully stupid! Gnu(noun) - a budding guru, now-a-days most usually found upon the Interweeb seeking acolytes. Can be identified by their utterance of meaningless or contradictory aphorisms and vague and meaningless ...

Bill Wiltrack wrote:.



I can post. I can't make you understand.

It is telling but I still respect you, appreciate your position, and know you will evolve philosophically.

...perhaps not today, but eventually you will.


All the best.
.

???

Why can't you say something relevant to the thread???

. Listen, I know EXACTLY what I said. Look deeper. Sort-of like a Koan. . Listen, It is clearly impossible to know that you cannot know. It is logically false. There is a proposition that I know and there is no proposition that I know, is not possible. Evidently you do not know that you do not unde...

Bill Wiltrack wrote:.




Yes, I am certain.

The only thing I know for certain is that we cannot know anything.



.

Nonsense!
Your remark "The only thing I know for certain is that we cannot know anything.[/size]" is self-contradictory!

To know that you cannot know, is silly at best.

Ran across this today in some podcast-listening, and I have to confess it's beyond me to get at the truth or falsity of this statement on strictly analytical grounds (I'm leaning toward "false"). Anyone care to weigh in on this? ((p -> q) & ~q) -> ~p is a tautology. ..t..t..t..f..f......

1) The Law of Identity - An apple is an apple 2) The Law of Non-Contradiction - an apple is not a non-apple 3) The Law of Excluded Middle - it is either true or false that I just ate an apple Can any of these be shown to be correct without referring back to them to do it? Yes. 2 & 3 are 'theore...