Philosophy Now Forum

Logik wrote: ↑Sat Jan 26, 2019 7:20 pm Which part of "'deductive logic is impossible in this universe?" is incoherent to you?

Go on, explain.
I don't even know what that could possibly mean.
EB

Speakpigeon wrote: ↑Sat Jan 26, 2019 10:55 pm

Logik wrote: ↑Sat Jan 26, 2019 7:20 pm Which part of "'deductive logic is impossible in this universe?" is incoherent to you?

Go on, explain.
I don't even know what that could possibly mean.

Which part do you misunderstand?

Do you not understand what "deduction" means?
Do you not understand what "impossible" means?
Do you not understand what "this universe" means?

Until you tell me which part confuses you I can't help you.

Speakpigeon wrote: ↑Sat Jan 26, 2019 10:53 pm

Logik wrote: ↑Sat Jan 26, 2019 7:20 pm You go and demonstrate what you think is valid deduction and I will provide falsification.

I already asked you to explain how the modus tollens would be wrong or could be somehow empirically falsified a you seem to believe. I'm still waiting.
Still, here are a few. Pick the one you fancy, but only one and make it short and not typo this time:

¬¬A ⊢ A
A ⊢ ¬¬A
A ∧ A ⊢ A
A ∨ A ⊢ A
⊢ A ∨ ¬A
⊢ ¬(A ∧ ¬A)
A ∧ A ⊢ A ∨ A
A ∨ A ⊢ A ∧ A
A ∧ B ⊢ A
A ∧ B ⊢ B
A ⊢ A ∨ B
B ⊢ A ∨ B
A ∧ B ⊢ A ∨ B
(A → B) ∧ (B → A) ⊢ A ≡ B
(A → B) ∧ (B → C) ⊢ A → C
(A ∨ B) ∧ (¬A ∨ C) ⊢ B ∨ C

I fear the worst.
EB

I asked you to demonstrate deduction.
You are offering logical grammar and nothing more.

No application there.

Please demonstrate real-world "valid deduction" by substituting A, B and C with real-world propositions.

Speakpigeon wrote: ↑Sat Jan 26, 2019 10:53 pm I already asked you to explain how the modus tollens would be wrong or could be somehow empirically falsified a you seem to believe. I'm still waiting

For the umpteenth time now!

The validity criterion for deduction is incompatible with the falsification criterion of empiricism.

Deductive validity mandates that it be IMPOSSIBLE for premises to be true but the conclusion to be false.
Falsification is the empirical contradiction of a logical conclusion.

How do you empirically contradict a logical conclusion that is IMPOSSIBLE to be false?

The way you tried to dig yourself out of that hole was to appeal to Modus Tollens. If the argument is valid and the conclusion is false then the premises must be false. OK!

So if the conclusions (predictions!) of Newton's law can be empirically falsified then by Modus Tollens Newton's law must be false!

Newton's laws can be empirically falsified! When are we throwing it away?

Logik wrote: ↑Sat Jan 26, 2019 10:59 pm Please demonstrate real-world "valid deduction" by substituting A, B and C with real-world propositions.

Logic is not about the real world. It is about how people think or even about how the brain works.
OK, thanks, we're done.
EB

Speakpigeon wrote: ↑Sat Jan 26, 2019 11:40 pm Logic is not about the real world.

Speakpigeon wrote: ↑Sat Jan 26, 2019 11:40 pm It is about how people think or even about how the brain works.
OK, thanks, we're done.

I want you to reconcile THAT bullshit while subscribing to classical logic!

In what world do you live in where "how people think" and "how the brain works" is not about the real world?

Only the Church–Turing–Deutsch principle stands in your way.

The principle states that a universal computing device can simulate every physical process.

So unless you can demonstrate that the brain is not physical, I guess you owe me $100, you fucking sophist!

Speakpigeon wrote: ↑Sat Jan 26, 2019 11:40 pm

Logik wrote: ↑Sat Jan 26, 2019 10:59 pm Please demonstrate real-world "valid deduction" by substituting A, B and C with real-world propositions.

Logic is not about the real world. It is about how people think or even about how the brain works.
OK, thanks, we're done.
EB

Uhh... how people think and how the brain works forms reality...logic molds reality.

Logik wrote: ↑Sat Jan 26, 2019 11:24 pm

Speakpigeon wrote: ↑Sat Jan 26, 2019 10:53 pm I already asked you to explain how the modus tollens would be wrong or could be somehow empirically falsified a you seem to believe. I'm still waiting

For the umpteenth time now!

This is empirical evidence that Logik suffers from a bad case of hallucinatory divagation.

Logik wrote: ↑Sat Jan 26, 2019 11:24 pmThe validity criterion for deduction is incompatible with the falsification criterion of empiricism.

No.

Logik wrote: ↑Sat Jan 26, 2019 11:24 pmDeductive validity mandates that it be IMPOSSIBLE for premises to be true but the conclusion to be false.

Impossible? Are you sure that's a logical thing to say?
Clearly, you can use modality when that suits some part of your brain.
Do all the parts of your brain agree with that claim? Do we have a quorum?

Logik wrote: ↑Sat Jan 26, 2019 11:24 pmFalsification is the empirical contradiction of a logical conclusion.

Yes.
Be careful, Logik, the reasonable part of your brain may be trying to take control here.

Logik wrote: ↑Sat Jan 26, 2019 11:24 pmHow do you empirically contradict a logical conclusion that is IMPOSSIBLE to be false?

You are an ignoramus and an idiot.
The logical conclusion of a valid argument can be false.
That's in all logic textbooks for kindergarten kiddies.
All you need for the logical conclusion of a valid argument to be possibly false is that at least one of the premises be false.
Indeed, if the conclusion of a valid argument is false, then at least one of the premises is false.
This is just what the Modus tollens says.
OK, I know you don't understand the Modus tollens, but that's nonetheless what it says.

Logik wrote: ↑Sat Jan 26, 2019 11:24 pmThe way you tried to dig yourself out of that hole was to appeal to Modus Tollens.

Ah, good you remember I already told you about the Modus tollens.
Yet, you still don't understand how it works.

Logik wrote: ↑Sat Jan 26, 2019 11:24 pm If the argument is valid and the conclusion is false then the premises must be false. OK!

Ah, excellent. So, you've learnt your kindergarten lesson at last. You have to thank me for that, you know.

Logik wrote: ↑Sat Jan 26, 2019 11:24 pmSo if the conclusions (predictions!) of Newton's law can be empirically falsified then by Modus Tollens Newton's law must be false!

Clue: One of the premise is false.
Write out the formula, if that could help you.
Oops, sorry, I forgot you got the formula wrong the last time you tried to write it.
Sure, you can't understand.
You're on your own, here.
Try prayer.
Go back to kindergarten and start from scratch. A proposition is something which is either true or fasle...

Logik wrote: ↑Sat Jan 26, 2019 11:24 pmNewton's laws can be empirically falsified! When are we throwing it away?

What? Newton's Law of Gravitation? I wouldn't know, I'm not the one in charge here.
All I'm saying is that one of the premises is false.

We're done, pal. You're an idiot and an ignoramus. A loud and abusive idiot and ignoramus.
You may well be insane for all I know.
EB

Logik wrote: ↑Sat Jan 26, 2019 11:44 pm

Posting more than one lol is a possible sign of certain madness.

Logik wrote: ↑Sat Jan 26, 2019 11:44 pm

Speakpigeon wrote: ↑Sat Jan 26, 2019 11:40 pm It is about how people think or even about how the brain works.

I want you to reconcile THAT bullshit while subscribing to classical logic!

I'm subscribing to classical logic in the sense of the logic issued from Aristotle.
I take modern mathematical "classical" logic to be really bad.
So, sure. Here it is:
In the logic issued from Aristotle, "the validity of an argument is assessed by assuming all the premises true, irrespective of whether they may be actually or possibly true, or actually or possibly false". See?

Logik wrote: ↑Sat Jan 26, 2019 11:44 pm In what world do you live in where "how people think" and "how the brain works" is not about the real world?

By "real world", I meant nature as I know it.
Still, it's too late for you. I'm not going to explain things to you. It's just a waste of time.

Logik wrote: ↑Sat Jan 26, 2019 11:44 pm Only the Church–Turing–Deutsch principle stands in your way.

The principle states that a universal computing device can simulate every physical process.

Yeah, I can make stuff up too. The better-than-the-Church–Turing–Deutsch-principle principle states that no computer, universal or not, could possibly simulate all physical processes.
Wait, no, I mean, whoa! But this principle is true! Oh my God, I just discovered a true principle!

Logik wrote: ↑Sat Jan 26, 2019 11:44 pm So unless you can demonstrate that the brain is not physical, I guess you owe me $100, you fucking sophist!

I don't need to prove that.
I can wait for quand les poules auront des dents, as we say in French, that is until anyone proves to my satisfaction that my conscious experience is a physical phenomenon in the same sense as I think of the material world around me as being physical.
The fucking sophist fucks you.
Enjoy.
EB

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Sun Jan 27, 2019 4:45 am

Speakpigeon wrote: ↑Sat Jan 26, 2019 11:40 pm Logic is not about the real world. It is about how people think or even about how the brain works.

Uhh... how people think and how the brain works forms reality...

Prove it.

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Sun Jan 27, 2019 4:45 amlogic molds reality.

Prove it.
EB

Speakpigeon wrote: ↑Sun Jan 27, 2019 1:16 pm

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Sun Jan 27, 2019 4:45 am

Speakpigeon wrote: ↑Sat Jan 26, 2019 11:40 pm Logic is not about the real world. It is about how people think or even about how the brain works.

Uhh... how people think and how the brain works forms reality...

Prove it.

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Sun Jan 27, 2019 4:45 amlogic molds reality.

Prove it.
EB

First give me a standard of proof, otherwise no matter what I say it will not count as proof according to you.

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Sun Jan 27, 2019 4:25 pm First give me a standard of proof, otherwise no matter what I say it will not count as proof according to you.

Try me.
EB

Speakpigeon wrote: ↑Sun Jan 27, 2019 9:46 pm

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Sun Jan 27, 2019 4:25 pm First give me a standard of proof, otherwise no matter what I say it will not count as proof according to you.

Try me.
EB

Actually then your standard of proof is a continual negation according to your individual interpretation and as such the only proof is your own perspective resulting in muchauuseen trillema with you as point 0.

Objective standard of proof or gtfo.

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Sun Jan 27, 2019 10:28 pm

Speakpigeon wrote: ↑Sun Jan 27, 2019 9:46 pm

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Sun Jan 27, 2019 4:25 pm First give me a standard of proof, otherwise no matter what I say it will not count as proof according to you.

Try me.
EB

Actually then your standard of proof is a continual negation according to your individual interpretation and as such the only proof is your own perspective resulting in muchauuseen trillema with you as point 0.

Yeah, really excellent point as long as no one but you understand what the fuck you mean.

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Sun Jan 27, 2019 10:28 pm Objective standard of proof or gtfo.

I wouldn't know but you still have to prove your claim.
Still, I can already tell you can't explain yourself too good.
So, never mind. Just ignore me, will you?
EB

Speakpigeon wrote: ↑Mon Jan 28, 2019 11:18 am Yeah, really excellent point as long as no one but you understand what the fuck you mean.

Similarly, nobody but you knows what the fuck your mean by "understanding".
My niece asked me where Christmas gifts come from. I said "Santa" and she understood.
You are on the other end of the spectrum. No answer is good enough for you.

Speakpigeon wrote: ↑Mon Jan 28, 2019 11:18 am I wouldn't know but you still have to prove your claim.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M%C3%BCnchhausen_trilemma
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_RCIYI9dY1Y

Speakpigeon wrote: ↑Mon Jan 28, 2019 11:18 am Still, I can already tell you can't explain yourself too good.

Maybe you can't understand too good?

Equally plausible hypothesis.