Why are we here on a philosophy forum?

[Logik]

Which is what some are doing.

It is just that you do NOT have a good enough filter to SEE this.

Seeing the bull from the outside can some times be far easier than seeing it from the inside.

I think that most people here on this forum agree with you that academia and institutions, and the teaching of academia through institutions can be and is mostly full of bull, but most here do NOT going around portraying bull at the same time about how they are "better" than others are. We just give our view of things, which is what you are doing, but if we do NOT like what "others" are saying, then we say so, and preferably and hopefully with reasons and evidence too.

I am just expressing my views of your writings, and give reasons with evidence, for what I am seeing and saying. Just take it or leave it. If, however, you are going to propose that what I say is WRONG or is BULL, then give the reasons WHY and provide at least some evidence as well. Also, if you are going to accuse me of things, then providing some examples so we can LOOK AT them helps.

We can't afford to give you any evidence. You keep munching it as if it's crayons.

[Logik]

...it seems apparent to me that knowledge is storage of what man knows. It is not creating new logic, it was formulated by rationale and stored in language for civilisations to later comprehend.

Logic is the tool for structuring and expressing knowledge.

[11011]

natural logic is the trait of the observable universe (from human's standpoint) of consistency: under such and such condition, we can expect X to occur.

'surprises' only occur when we don't know or can't isolate the conditions affecting a given phenomenon. this is what our observations of the universe has shown us, without a compelling challenge to date.

so logic is inherent in the observable universe, and it is simply consistency.

the notion of 'cause' is not essential to natural logic, though it may be implied.

so what is logic in essence? consistency. and humans learn of consistency when they observe the universe, which inspires other forms and uses of this logic.

[attofishpi]

...it seems apparent to me that knowledge is storage of what man knows. It is not creating new logic, it was formulated by rationale and stored in language for civilisations to later comprehend.

Logic is the tool for structuring and expressing knowledge.

Ya, its not created, it is a way we can form and express our experience of the universe\reality.

[Logik]

natural logic is the trait of the observable universe (from human's standpoint) of consistency

That is the idealistic perspective - yes.
You can't have consistency when you have incomplete knowledge.

under such and such condition, we can expect X to occur.

Q.E.D under SUCH conditions, not under ALL conditions

Knowledge is domain-specific. How many domains are there in the universe, do you think?

the notion of 'cause' is not essential to natural logic, though it may be implied.

Logic can't even begin to deal with the complexity of multiple causalities.

so what is logic in essence? consistency. and humans learn of consistency when they observe the universe, which inspires other forms and uses of this logic.

Which part of QM seems "consistent" to you in any way?

Consistency is a human value. The desire for simple models. The desire for determinism. The desire for control.

[attofishpi]

so what is logic in essence? consistency. and humans learn of consistency when they observe the universe, which inspires other forms and uses of this logic.

Which part of QM seems "consistent" to you in any way?

Is QM illogical?

[Logik]

Ya, its not created, it is a way we can form and express our experience of the universe\reality.

Look around you. Take 1000 steps back.

Do you see any language anywhere? Do you see any logic anywhere?

These things you are reading they are symbols. A symbol is just a sign (cave painting) to which we assign some meaning.

Look at the word "lion" does it look ANYTHING like the animal ?!?!

[Logik]

so what is logic in essence? consistency. and humans learn of consistency when they observe the universe, which inspires other forms and uses of this logic.

Which part of QM seems "consistent" to you in any way?

Is QM illogical?

YES!

It's counter-intuitive. It defies EVERYTHING we thought we knew about the universe!
It challenges our minds all the way down to our metaphysics.

[attofishpi]

Ya, its not created, it is a way we can form and express our experience of the universe\reality.

Look around you. Take 1000 steps back.

Do you see any language anywhere? Do you see any logic anywhere?

These things you are reading they are symbols. A symbol is just a sign (cave painting) to which we assign some meaning.

Look at the word "lion" does it look ANYTHING like the animal ?!?!

You're missing the point. What you are stating is man's language, a derived rationale from experience and comprehension of pre-existing logic.

Again, I have an apple, I see another apple, I state 'I now have two apples' - that is the language, I did not create the logic that there are two apples.

[attofishpi]

Which part of QM seems "consistent" to you in any way?

Is QM illogical?

YES!

It's counter-intuitive. It defies EVERYTHING we thought we knew about the universe!
It challenges our minds all the way down to our metaphysics.

...ya, personally I think it's the 3rd party intelligence fucking with the data!

[Logik]

Again, I have an apple, I see another apple, I state 'I now have two apples' - that is the language, I did not create the logic that there are two apples.

But you ARE experiencing the TRILLIONS of quarks which form the BILLIONS of atoms which form the MILLIONS of cells, as "one thing" given your current form and perception. That which you call "an apple". Do you think a worm sees "two things" ?

You have CHOSEN to SEE it as 1 thing.

1+1 = 2 describes the phenomenology of human experience in relation.

It says FUCKALL about the apples.

[attofishpi]

Again, I have an apple, I see another apple, I state 'I now have two apples' - that is the language, I did not create the logic that there are two apples.

But you ARE experiencing the BILLIONS of atoms as "one thing". That which you call "an apple". Do you think a worm sees "two things" ?

Still you are missing the point. We are talking about the inherent logic of the universe, an alien might say 'J'ai deux pommes', but still the logic of the universe was always there so long as the apples exist.

Remember this is about whether YOU can create LOGIC!

[Logik]

Still you are missing the point. We are talking about the inherent logic of the universe, an alien might say 'J'ai deux pommes', but still the logic of the universe was always there so long as the apples exist.

The inherent logic of two apples or the inherent logic of a trillion leptons?

"APPLE" describes human experience.

[11011]

QM is still in its infancy, i don't even regard it as a full-fledged science yet.

i think part of it is we don't have the technology yet, and we haven't delved into QM completely enough to be able to fit it into our previous models or vice-versa.

just because we can't reconcile a new field with existing knowledge RIGHT NOW doesn't mean all our existing knowledge is wrong or our fundamental observations of the universe hitherto are wrong. that's just silly and jumping to conclusions. (please don't tell me this is what your views on all this is based on?)

i think the 'messiness' of QM is being overpromoted and overstated...for a variety of reasons i won't get into (eh hem, funding)

i think we just need to be patient, keep at it steadily, and eventually it will fit. and our universe will appear consistent once again.

i mean come on, isn't this how it is with any sort of exploration? it happens in stages. there are surprises along the way, this is the history of science. there were periods where findings challenged the consistent picture before on numerous occasions, but a decade or two later, sometimes it took a century, the challenge was resolved, models were adjusted, and the trait of consistency was reaffirmed.

[Logik]

QM is still in its infancy, i don't even regard it as a full-fledged science yet.

i think part of it is we don't have the technology yet, and we haven't delved into QM completely enough to be able to fit it into our previous models or vice-versa.

just because we can't reconcile a new field with existing knowledge RIGHT NOW doesn't mean all our existing knowledge is wrong or our fundamental observations of the universe hitherto are wrong. that's just silly and jumping to conclusions. (please don't tell me this is what your views on all this is based on?)

i think the 'messiness' of QM is being overpromoted and overstated...for a variety of reasons i won't get into (eh hem, funding)

i think we just need to be patient, keep at it steadily, and eventually it will fit. and our universe will appear consistent once again.

i mean come on, isn't this how it is with any sort of exploration? it happens in stages. there are surprises along the way, this is the history of science. there were periods where findings challenged the consistent picture before on numerous occasions, but a decade or two later, sometimes it took a century, the challenge was resolved, models were adjusted, and the trait of consistency was reaffirmed.

If you are going to be classifying knowledge as "right" and "wrong" you are going to have to define the difference between the two.

I called it "useful" because every human has their own, subjective need and pursuit. One man's utility is another man's indifference.

But "right" and "wrong" - those are BIG words.... Like Objective Morality big.