Is morality objective or subjective?

[Skepdick]

What do you mean? How is logical validity lost? How does logic tell us that an open system cannot emerge within a non-open system? The world is what it is and it is either that life has a finite time in the universe or it does not. How does logic tell us one way or the other which is the case?

If your premises are colorful but the conclusion is not you've lost the quality of "color"
If your premises are true but the conclusion is not - you've lost the quality of 'truthfulness".
If your premises are closed but the conclusion is not - you've lost the quality of "closedness".

The transformation process from A -> B destroys the qualities of your premises.

It destroys continuity. It destroys logical validity.

[Gary Childress]

What do you mean? How is logical validity lost? How does logic tell us that an open system cannot emerge within a non-open system? The world is what it is and it is either that life has a finite time in the universe or it does not. How does logic tell us one way or the other which is the case?

If your premises are colorful but the conclusion is not you've lost the quality of "color"
If your premises are true but the conclusion is not - you've lost the quality of 'truthfulness".
If your premises are closed but the conclusion is not - you've lost the quality of "closedness".

The transformation process from A -> B destroys the qualities of your premises.

It destroys continuity. It destroys logical validity.

Well, I don't know about any of that and how it bears on logical validity. Are you suggesting that logical validity is "destroyed" if there are no human beings around to practice it? Otherwise, I don't see what logical validity has to do with the things you mention.

[Skepdick]

Well, I don't know about any of that and how it bears on logical validity. Are you suggesting that logical validity is "destroyed" if there are no human beings around to practice it? Otherwise, I don't see what logical validity has to do with the things you mention.

The principle of logical deduction presupposes that if something is true in general then it's also true in particular.

That's what deduction is - going from general truths to particular truths.

If the universe is a closed system in general - then why are there particular open systems?
If entropy increases in general - why does it decrease in the particular of life?

Where is the inflection point?

[Gary Childress]

Well, I don't know about any of that and how it bears on logical validity. Are you suggesting that logical validity is "destroyed" if there are no human beings around to practice it? Otherwise, I don't see what logical validity has to do with the things you mention.

The principle of logical deduction presupposes that if something is true in general then it's also true in particular.

I'm not sure what you mean by this. So are you saying that if the universe does not receive energy from outside sources, then the Earth cannot either? I'm not following your argument.

[Skepdick]

I'm not sure what you mean by this. So are you saying that if the universe does not receive energy from outside sources, then the Earth cannot either? I'm not following your argument.

I'm not making an argument.

I'm pointing out the insufficiency of logic for the purposes of science.

[Gary Childress]

I'm not sure what you mean by this. So are you saying that if the universe does not receive energy from outside sources, then the Earth cannot either? I'm not following your argument.

I'm not making an argument.

I'm pointing out the insufficiency of logic for the purposes of science.

OK. So you're not making an "argument" that "logic is insufficient for the purposes of science", you're "pointing it out"? Is that correct?

[Skepdick]

I'm not sure what you mean by this. So are you saying that if the universe does not receive energy from outside sources, then the Earth cannot either? I'm not following your argument.

I'm not making an argument.

I'm pointing out the insufficiency of logic for the purposes of science.

OK. So you're not making an "argument" that "logic is insufficient for the purposes of science", you're "pointing it out"? Is that correct?

I am pointing out what formal logic can't do. Use metaphors.
I am pointing out what English can do. Use metaphors.

Time flows.
Phenomena emerge.

You can't capture this dynamic in formal logic.

[Gary Childress]

I'm not making an argument.

I'm pointing out the insufficiency of logic for the purposes of science.

OK. So you're not making an "argument" that "logic is insufficient for the purposes of science", you're "pointing it out"? Is that correct?

I am pointing out what formal logic can't do. Use metaphors.
I am pointing out what English can do. Use metaphors.

Time flows.
Phenomena emerge.

You can't capture this dynamic in formal logic.

OK. That's nice that you are pointing it out. Now what?

[Skepdick]

OK. That's nice that you are pointing it out. Now what?

Now nothing. Our tools have limits.

People who don't understand those limits tend to fall into the incoherence of scientific realism.

They think that the model-theoretic entities we construct because they have explanatory power (like electrons) are actual, real things.

They confuse the map for the territory.

[Gary Childress]

OK. That's nice that you are pointing it out. Now what?

Now nothing. Our tools have limits.

People who don't understand those limits tend to fall into the incoherence of scientific realism.

They think that the model-theoretic entities we construct because they have explanatory power (like electrons) are actual, real things.

They confuse the map for the territory.

Are electrons not "actual, real things"?

[Skepdick]

Are electrons not "actual, real things"?

Simply asking the question results in a meaningless quest.

In the Dirac equations the electron neither exists nor doesn't exist. It's a mathematical field without any particular location.

This has explanatory power and makes the Mathematics/physics work.

Beyond that the question isn't interesting.

[Gary Childress]

Are electrons not "actual, real things"?

Simply asking the question results in a meaningless quest.

In the Dirac equations the electron neither exists nor doesn't exist. It's a mathematical field without any particular locality.

This has explanatory power and makes the Mathematics/physics work.

Beyond that the question isn't interesting.

OK. So mathematics/physics "works" but the entities it talks about neither exist nor not exist? Does physics/mathematics therefore neither "work" nor "not work"?

[Gary Childress]

Are electrons not "actual, real things"?

Simply asking the question results in a meaningless quest.

In the Dirac equations the electron neither exists nor doesn't exist. It's a mathematical field without any particular location.

This has explanatory power and makes the Mathematics/physics work.

Beyond that the question isn't interesting.

What would happen if you mix two substances that produce a violent explosion that demolishes the building you are/were standing in when you mixed them? Will the chemicals that don't have electrons, etc. neither kill you nor not kill you?

[Harbal]

In the Dirac equations the electron neither exists nor doesn't exist. It's a mathematical field without any particular location.

This has explanatory power and makes the Mathematics/physics work.

That's actually interesting. Keep it up.

[Gary Childress]

In the Dirac equations the electron neither exists nor doesn't exist. It's a mathematical field without any particular location.

This has explanatory power and makes the Mathematics/physics work.

That's actually interesting. Keep it up.

Well, we seem to know that neither God nor unicorns nor people neither exist nor not exist. I suppose that is "interesting".