Philosophy Now Forum

Atla wrote: ↑Thu Oct 18, 2018 8:15 am Easterners often use many-valued logic, but when they want to get shit done, they turn to classical logic. Not constructive logic, and not many-valued logic, but classical logic.

Do you know why?

TimeSeeker wrote: ↑Thu Oct 18, 2018 8:19 am

Atla wrote: ↑Thu Oct 18, 2018 8:15 am Easterners often use many-valued logic, but when they want to get shit done, they turn to classical logic. Not constructive logic, and not many-valued logic, but classical logic.

Do you know why?

No. They don't

They may SAY that they turn to 'classical logic' but that is just a performative contradiction. You go ahead and give me any example where you THINK you are using classical logic and I'll show you the contingencies in your claim.

That's the difference between Work as Imagined vs Work as Done: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/a ... 7017302375

This line of reasoning always leads to the good ol' adage. In theory there is no difference between theory and practice, but in practice there is.

Atla wrote: ↑Thu Oct 18, 2018 8:37 am Of course you don't know.

TimeSeeker wrote: ↑Thu Oct 18, 2018 8:39 am

Atla wrote: ↑Thu Oct 18, 2018 8:37 am Of course you don't know.

Of course you think you do

I can't wait for you to tell me, so I can show you where you've made ASSUMPTIONS in reasoning

Atla wrote: ↑Thu Oct 18, 2018 8:45 am I made no assumptions.

TimeSeeker wrote: ↑Thu Oct 18, 2018 8:47 am

Atla wrote: ↑Thu Oct 18, 2018 8:45 am I made no assumptions.

That is a lie. Without an axiom (pre-supposition/assumption) you can't make any deductions or inferences. You can't REASON without assumptions.

Of course - since you 'refuted my religion' you have also refuted all logic.

I can tell

Atla wrote: ↑Thu Oct 18, 2018 8:53 am No, this is a lie. Because you take it out of context.

Atla wrote: ↑Thu Oct 18, 2018 8:53 am You are one of those philosophers who have an insane vision. For example that we should swith to constructivist logic, making human communication more or less impossible.

TimeSeeker wrote: ↑Thu Oct 18, 2018 8:58 amThat is ad hominem because I have never left the context I have always been in. All of reality.

That is an argument from ignorance. In my field we invent words/meaning on the fly. We use language metaphorically, literally OR figuratively. We have strategies for detecting/addressing ambiguity. And strategies for resolving conflict. It is BECAUSE we use all the TOOLS available to us we actually communicate MORE EFFECTIVELY and REACH CONSENSUS FASTER.

So much so that we have invented language that YOU can't understand!

So. I am calling bullshit on 'making communication impossible'.

TimeSeeker wrote:

surreptitious57 wrote:
You need to DEMONSTRATE that it exists not merely STATE it otherwise I have no reason to accept your ASSERTION

I have been DEMONSTRATING all along I have thrown at you all the evidence I have and you say Nope not good enough

Maybe you need to be upfront about YOUR criteria ? What demonstration would convince YOU ? Perhaps there is no way to convince you ?

Maybe you lack the Mathematical KNOW HOW to be convinced ? If that is true what then ?

Does that mean that objective morality does not exist or does it mean that you are not smart enough to recognise its existence ?

Atla wrote: ↑Thu Oct 18, 2018 9:03 am Okey then this is an ad hominem too and all you do is write ad hominems. And all of reality was never the context, it makes no sense to even say that here.

That is an argument from ignorance. In my field we invent words/meaning on the fly. We use language metaphorically, literally OR figuratively. We have strategies for detecting/addressing ambiguity. And strategies for resolving conflict. It is BECAUSE we use all the TOOLS available to us we actually communicate MORE EFFECTIVELY and REACH CONSENSUS FASTER.

So much so that we have invented language that YOU can't understand!

Atla wrote: ↑Thu Oct 18, 2018 9:03 am This is an argument from ignorance. Your field is specific and limited and how you approach it can't be applied universally.

Yeah. It's 'specific and limited'. It is ONLY a SUPERSET of PHYSICS.

Atla wrote: ↑Thu Oct 18, 2018 9:03 am AND it's all based deep down on classical logic.

Yes. DEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEP DOWN. Like a few hundred layers of abstraction.

But the whole is greater than the sum of its parts. So - non-sequitur.

surreptitious57 wrote: ↑Thu Oct 18, 2018 9:10 am

TimeSeeker wrote:

surreptitious57 wrote:
You need to DEMONSTRATE that it exists not merely STATE it otherwise I have no reason to accept your ASSERTION

I have been DEMONSTRATING all along I have thrown at you all the evidence I have and you say Nope not good enough

Maybe you need to be upfront about YOUR criteria ? What demonstration would convince YOU ? Perhaps there is no way to convince you ?

Maybe you lack the Mathematical KNOW HOW to be convinced ? If that is true what then ?

Does that mean that objective morality does not exist or does it mean that you are not smart enough to recognise its existence ?

Knowledge is power but can objective morality which you equate to absolute knowledge be obtained in reality
Even if it could there is zero guarantee that it would be used altruistically for the advancement of the species
Free will both individually and collectively would negate this

An exponential increase in knowledge is possible since it happens on a regular basis but exponential and absolute are not the same
Can the human mind that has limited and unreliable processing capability with regard to memory accommodate objective morality
Would only machines which are many orders of magnitude more intelligent than humans and also error free only be capable of this

Could a super computer existing for all of eternity and processing information at the speed of light ever reach a point of objective morality
Or is objective morality simply a concept like infinity that only exists as an idea but not necessarily an actuality which can be demonstrated

Were this thread programmed into a super computer what answers would it come up with which your mammalian brain would not be able to
Will machine intelligence replace human intelligence and will it increase exponentially over time and if so does this negate absolute morality

Is the concept of absolute morality / objective knowledge one that exists inside your mammalian brain only because humans like to think like this
Can even a machine ever truly possess the same information as the Universe and if not then does it not negate the existence of absolute morality

TimeSeeker wrote: ↑Thu Oct 18, 2018 9:11 amAre we not in reality right now? Are we not speaking about GETTING THINGS DONE IN reality? If you decided to set some sub-context then perhaps you should have let me know?

Getting things done is MY line of work!

Yeah. It's 'specific and limited'. It is ONLY a SUPERSET of PHYSICS.

Yes. DEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEP DOWN. Like a few hundred layers of abstraction.

But the whole is greater than the sum of its parts. So - non-sequitur.

Atla wrote: ↑Thu Oct 18, 2018 9:24 am No, we aren't speaking about getting things done and no one cares about your line of work.

Atla wrote: ↑Thu Oct 18, 2018 8:15 am Easterners often use many-valued logic, but when they want to get shit done, they turn to classical logic. Not constructive logic, and not many-valued logic, but classical logic.

Do you know why?

Atla wrote: ↑Thu Oct 18, 2018 9:24 am Physics doesn't have a superset. Maybe it does for delusional people with an information religion.

Atla wrote: ↑Thu Oct 18, 2018 9:24 am The whole isn't greater thatn the sum of its parts, that's magical thinking for religious people.

Atla wrote: ↑Thu Oct 18, 2018 9:24 am there are abstraction layers but we can never discard their foundation.
Deep down everything is based on classical logic so everything you say is self-refuting.