Philosophy Now Forum

Posted: **Mon Jan 28, 2019 8:50 pm**

Fallacy of Formalization:

1. All formalism is determined by its ability to give structure or shape to a set of logical or mathematical axioms.

2. The connection of these axioms to form further frameworks in turn results in a structure.

3. There is no specific format for what constitutes a structure, or how the axioms are or are not connected other than one axiom. Any definition of structure leaves a progressive further and further definiton of that structure which in itself is not just infinitely linear, but also circular as well where the structure effectively exists as a point of origin in itself.

4. Formalization results in the Munchauseen trillema, as well as all other fallacies as extensions or "proxies" of the munchauseen trillema.
Ex: Fallacy of Authority is extension of "accepted precepts" conducive to a point of origin.
Ex: Fallacy of Circularity is an extension of circularity.
Ex: Fallacy of Infinitism, Slipper Slope, etc. is an extension of linear regression.

5. All Formalization is Subject to the Munchauseen trillema, with this Contradiction acting as a formalization in itself.

6. The Munchauseen Trillema, subject to its own nature results in a Prime Triad where all "axioms" are a point of origin, all axioms are circular and all axioms are progressively linear.

7. The Dualism between the Munchauseen Trillema and Prime Triad observes all formalization as triadic in nature. The contradictory element observes all phenomena as effectively existing in a dual state while the Prime Triad observes all phenomena as effectively proven through existence in and of themselves.

Posted: **Mon Jan 28, 2019 9:48 pm**

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Mon Jan 28, 2019 8:50 pm Fallacy of Formalization:
(...)
4. Formalization results in the Munchauseen trillema, as well as all other fallacies as extensions or "proxies" of the munchauseen trillema.

The Münchhausen trilemma?

In epistemology, the Münchhausen trilemma is a thought experiment used to demonstrate the impossibility of proving any truth, even in the fields of logic and mathematics. If it is asked how any knowledge is known to be true, proof may be provided. Yet that same question can be asked of the proof, and any subsequent proof. The Münchhausen trilemma is that there are only three options when providing proof in this situation:
The circular argument, in which theory and proof support each other
The regressive argument, in which each proof requires a further proof, ad infinitum
The axiomatic argument, which rests on accepted precepts
The trilemma, then, is the decision among the three equally unsatisfying options.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Münchhausen_trilemma

Me, I'm immune to that. I observe that most people have accepted the same logical truths, since at least Aristotle, as evident. I also observe that the logical intuition that validates these truths is also able to produce a rational justification for accepting logic itself as good enough for all practical purposes, at least until further notice. And, of course, we can observe the empirical evidence that science works well enough, science based on mathematics and the logical intuition of scientists, mathematics which is itself founded essentially on the logical intuition of mathematicians. Thus, empirical evidence verifies the applicability of logic to our mathematical and scientific theories. Consensus among mathematicians is also in itself empirical evidence that human beings all share the same logic.
The rational justification for accepting logic itself as good enough for all practical purposes is as follows. Our logical intuitions are assertions of the truth of particular logical formulas, called logical truths. These assertions are intuitions, or impressions, produced by our sense of logic, sense of logic which is just the logical capability of the brain which is producing these logical intuitions as required by circumstances, to help us get through our day. This logical capability is not magical but is the result of the evolution of species possessing a neurological organ, evolution guided by natural selection over a period of 525 millions years. That it should work well enough is a tautological no brainer, so to speak. 525 million years of evolution definitely give more authority to our logical intuition than any mere mortal mathematician, however bright and hard working and creative, will ever be able to obtain for himself and for any alternative perspective, at least not within the very, very short span of his miserable life.
So, I don't feel any irrational compulsion to see anything what would be "unsatisfying" in taking our logical intuitions, and hence all known logical truths, as the foundation of all of our sciences, including formal logic, which itself should be nothing but the formalisation of our logical sense, as we are aware of it, as we can therefore observe it, through our logical intuitions. It works and that has to be good enough since there will never be any alternative.
We cannot doubt our logical intuitions in the same way that we cannot deny the existence of reality, at least not without the madhouse reaching a consensus on what to do next. Dissolve the assembly? Disappear in a paradoxical fart?
Still, that won't be reason enough for you to stop you doing the Münchhausen danse. But reality is what it is. Denying it is merely a sign of madness.
So, no formalisation has any authority except that which it receives from being validated by the 525-million-year wisdom of our logical intuition.
EB

Posted: **Mon Jan 28, 2019 10:07 pm**

Speakpigeon wrote: ↑Mon Jan 28, 2019 9:48 pm
Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Mon Jan 28, 2019 8:50 pm Fallacy of Formalization:
(...)
4. Formalization results in the Munchauseen trillema, as well as all other fallacies as extensions or "proxies" of the munchauseen trillema.
The Münchhausen trilemma?

In epistemology, the Münchhausen trilemma is a thought experiment used to demonstrate the impossibility of proving any truth, even in the fields of logic and mathematics. If it is asked how any knowledge is known to be true, proof may be provided. Yet that same question can be asked of the proof, and any subsequent proof. The Münchhausen trilemma is that there are only three options when providing proof in this situation:
The circular argument, in which theory and proof support each other
The regressive argument, in which each proof requires a further proof, ad infinitum
The axiomatic argument, which rests on accepted precepts
The trilemma, then, is the decision among the three equally unsatisfying options.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Münchhausen_trilemma
Me, I'm immune to that. I observe that most people have accepted the same logical truths, since at least Aristotle, as evident.

Fallacy of Authority and Bandwagon

I also observe that the logical intuition that validates these truths is also able to produce a rational justification for accepting logic itself as good enough for all practical purposes, at least until further notice.

All axioms as accepted truths; hence Trillema

And, of course, we can observe the empirical evidence that science works well enough, science based on mathematics and the logical intuition of scientists, mathematics which is itself founded essentially on the logical intuition of mathematicians.

Probablism necessitating a form of modal realism.

Thus, empirical evidence verifies the applicability of logic to our mathematical and scientific theories. Consensus among mathematicians is also in itself empirical evidence that human beings all share the same logic.

Bandwagon. Mathematics no longer is objective truth but subjective group agreement.

The rational justification for accepting logic itself as good enough for all practical purposes is as follows. Our logical intuitions are assertions of the truth of particular logical formulas, called logical truths.

Particulation leads to regressive atomism that Russel and Wittgenstein find contradictory in nature.

These assertions are intuitions, or impressions, produced by our sense of logic, sense of logic which is just the logical capability of the brain which is producing these logical intuitions as required by circumstances, to help us get through our day.

Fallacy, plenty of tribal people cannot count to 3 and still "get through their days" while having a different conception of time.

This logical capability is not magical but is the result of the evolution of species possessing a neurological organ, evolution guided by natural selection over a period of 525 millions years.

Evolution is progressiveness resulting in Trillema as well as the possibility we may progress past current logical foundations, thus nullifying them.

That it should work well enough is a tautological no brainer, so to speak. 525 million years of evolution definitely give more authority to our logical intuition than any mere mortal mathematician, however bright and hard working and creative, will ever be able to obtain for himself and for any alternative perspective, at least not within the very, very short span of his miserable life.
So, I don't feel any irrational compulsion to see anything what would be "unsatisfying" in taking our logical intuitions, and hence all known logical truths, as the foundation of all of our sciences, including formal logic, which itself should be nothing but the formalisation of our logical sense, as we are aware of it, as we can therefore observe it, through our logical intuitions. It works and that has to be good enough since there will never be any alternative.
We cannot doubt our logical intuitions in the same way that we cannot deny the existence of reality, at least not without the madhouse reaching a consensus on what to do next. Dissolve the assembly? Disappear in a paradoxical fart?
Still, that won't be reason enough for you to stop you doing the Münchhausen danse. But reality is what it is. Denying it is merely a sign of madness.
So, no formalisation has any authority except that which it receives from being validated by the 525-million-year wisdom of our logical intuition.
EB

Blah, blah, blah...besides the poor grammar the argument is pure gibberish. After the above remarks I did not both reading the pseudo intellectual garbage.

Posted: **Tue Jan 29, 2019 8:35 am**

Speakpigeon wrote: ↑Mon Jan 28, 2019 9:48 pm Me, I'm immune to that. I observe that most people have accepted the same logical truths, since at least Aristotle, as evident. I also observe that the logical intuition that validates these truths is also able to produce a rational justification for accepting logic itself as good enough for all practical purposes, at least until further notice.

ALL practical purposes?

Perhaps you have set trivial goals for yourself?

Could you elaborate on the "self-evident truths" which have led to the two-fold increase in human life expectancy since the days of Aristotle?

Neither you, nor I get to decide whether logic is "good enough" on a long enough timeline. Until you state what the objective criteria for "good enough" are...

All I expect from logical models is utility, but if you don't know how to think for yourself and make use of ALL of logic, then stick to the training wheels Aristotle provided.

Posted: **Tue Jan 29, 2019 10:51 am**

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Mon Jan 28, 2019 8:50 pm 1. All formalism is determined by its ability to give structure or shape to a set of logical or mathematical axioms.

This is far too formal

All formalism is determined by the ability to express your conceptual thought in a REGULAR language. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regular_language

Regularity, consistency and structure are basically triplets. Metaphorically - birds of a feather.

Bonus points if the formalism has predictive utility as you extrapolate time.

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Mon Jan 28, 2019 8:50 pm 2. The connection of these axioms to form further frameworks in turn results in a structure.

The computation of consequences. The higher the fidelity of your model - the better it represents the causal relationship between your variables, the more likely it is to yield accurate results.

Fidelity produces complexity. Complexity adds computational cost.

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Mon Jan 28, 2019 8:50 pm 3. There is no specific format for what constitutes a structure, or how the axioms are or are not connected other than one axiom. Any definition of structure leaves a progressive further and further definiton of that structure which in itself is not just infinitely linear, but also circular as well where the structure effectively exists as a point of origin in itself.

All formats are structure. Some structure leads to erroneous conclusions. The point of the exercise is to build structures which minimise error.
What's an "error"? Discrepancy between expectations and reality.

Some errors are far more serious than others.

Can you formalize "serious error" and "trivial error" ? Good luck!

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Mon Jan 28, 2019 8:50 pm 4. Formalization results in the Munchauseen trillema, as well as all other fallacies as extensions or "proxies" of the munchauseen trillema.

Only when you attempt to formalize the justification and criteria themselves. Man is the measure of all things.
That said, if you ARE able to formalise the criterion itself - you have automated the entire decision-making process. The mark of true science.
Little to no opportunity for decision-making/choice and therefore little to no opportunity for (mis)interpretation.

Posted: **Tue Jan 29, 2019 1:21 pm**

Logik wrote: ↑Tue Jan 29, 2019 8:35 am ALL practical purposes? Perhaps you have set trivial goals for yourself?

"All practical purposes" seems clear enough for those who speak and understand English properly.
It's up to you to propose empirically validated counterexamples that you think falsify my claim here.

Logik wrote: ↑Tue Jan 29, 2019 8:35 am Could you elaborate on the "self-evident truths" which have led to the two-fold increase in human life expectancy since the days of Aristotle?

Self-evident?! Who said that?! Aaaah, but it's just you, you bloody idiot.
So, me, I talked of some logical truths as being evident. If you don't understand what that means, there's nothing I could possibly do to help you.

Logik wrote: ↑Tue Jan 29, 2019 8:35 am Neither you, nor I get to decide whether logic is "good enough" on a long enough timeline. Until you state what the objective criteria for "good enough" are... All I expect from logical models is utility, but if you don't know how to think for yourself and make use of ALL of logic, then stick to the training wheels Aristotle provided.

The objective criteria for "good enough" is "utility".
You seem to suffer from a cognitive "blind spot" disorder.
You should see any ordinary oculist instead of your usual occultist.
EB

Posted: **Tue Jan 29, 2019 1:22 pm**

Speakpigeon wrote: ↑Tue Jan 29, 2019 1:21 pm Self-evident?! Who said that?! Aaaah, but it's just you, you bloody idiot.

You said "evident". I added the "self". Unless you think truths do not require a "self" to admit them as evidence.

Speakpigeon wrote: ↑Tue Jan 29, 2019 1:21 pm The objective criteria for "good enough" is "utility".
You seem to suffer from a cognitive "blind spot" disorder.
You should see any ordinary oculist instead of your usual occultist.
EB

All utility is subjective, moron.

If you seem to think otherwise, please formalize an objective utility function for us.

You do know what an utility-function is, right? http://lmgtfy.com/?q=Utility+function

Posted: **Tue Jan 29, 2019 2:14 pm**

Logik wrote: ↑Tue Jan 29, 2019 1:22 pm
Speakpigeon wrote: ↑Tue Jan 29, 2019 1:21 pm Self-evident?! Who said that?! Aaaah, but it's just you, you bloody idiot.
You said "evident". I added the "self". Unless you think truths do not require a "self" to admit them as evidence.

Self-evident
containing its own evidence or proof without need of further demonstration

You English sucks.
EB

Posted: **Tue Jan 29, 2019 2:20 pm**

Speakpigeon wrote: ↑Tue Jan 29, 2019 2:14 pm You English sucks.
EB

*Your

Posted: **Tue Jan 29, 2019 2:23 pm**

Logik wrote: ↑Tue Jan 29, 2019 1:22 pm
Speakpigeon wrote: ↑Tue Jan 29, 2019 1:21 pm The objective criteria for "good enough" is "utility".
All utility is subjective, moron.

So, first you ask for my objective criteria for "good enough", I say "utility", so now you ask for my objective criteria for "utility". It's turtles all the way down.

Logik wrote: ↑Tue Jan 29, 2019 8:35 amUntil you state what the objective criteria for "good enough" are...

You truly are a moron.
EB

Posted: **Tue Jan 29, 2019 2:24 pm**

Logik wrote: ↑Tue Jan 29, 2019 2:20 pm
Speakpigeon wrote: ↑Tue Jan 29, 2019 2:14 pm You English sucks.
EB
*Your

You're not English?! My bad.
Good point. At last.
EB

Posted: **Tue Jan 29, 2019 2:27 pm**

Speakpigeon wrote: ↑Tue Jan 29, 2019 2:23 pm So, first you ask for my objective criteria for "good enough", I say "utility", so now you ask for my objective criteria for "utility". It's turtles all the way down.

Yes. I asked for your objective criteria, and you provided me with subjective criteria. If English doesn't work for you - try French.

It's not turtles all the way down. When you provide objective criteria then we can stop.

Speakpigeon wrote: ↑Tue Jan 29, 2019 2:23 pm You truly are a moron.

Wittgenstein's ruler... you are either the ruler or the table. It remains to be seen which.

If I were a betting man (and I am) I'd bet against you, but you just won't put your money where your mouth is.

I suppose abdication is the French national sport...

Posted: **Tue Jan 29, 2019 9:05 pm**

Logik wrote: ↑Tue Jan 29, 2019 2:27 pm
Speakpigeon wrote: ↑Tue Jan 29, 2019 2:23 pm So, first you ask for my objective criteria for "good enough", I say "utility", so now you ask for my objective criteria for "utility". It's turtles all the way down.
Yes. I asked for your objective criteria, and you provided me with subjective criteria. If English doesn't work for you - try French.

It's not turtles all the way down. When you provide objective criteria then we can stop.

Speakpigeon wrote: ↑Tue Jan 29, 2019 2:23 pm You truly are a moron.
Wittgenstein's ruler... you are either the ruler or the table. It remains to be seen which.

If I were a betting man (and I am) I'd bet against you, but you just won't put your money where your mouth is.

I suppose abdication is the French national sport...

He has no objective criteria...he is afraid of "unknowing".

Posted: **Tue Jan 29, 2019 9:31 pm**

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Tue Jan 29, 2019 9:05 pm He has no objective criteria...he is afraid of "unknowing".

Gnosticism is a religion.

Posted: **Tue Jan 29, 2019 9:39 pm**

Logik wrote: ↑Tue Jan 29, 2019 9:31 pm
Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Tue Jan 29, 2019 9:05 pm He has no objective criteria...he is afraid of "unknowing".
Gnosticism is a religion.

Gnosticism is a trap for the ego.

Philosophy Now Forum

Fallacy of Formalization.

Fallacy of Formalization.

Re: Fallacy of Formalization.

Re: Fallacy of Formalization.

Re: Fallacy of Formalization.

Re: Fallacy of Formalization.

Re: Fallacy of Formalization.

Re: Fallacy of Formalization.

Re: Fallacy of Formalization.

Re: Fallacy of Formalization.

Re: Fallacy of Formalization.

Re: Fallacy of Formalization.

Re: Fallacy of Formalization.

Re: Fallacy of Formalization.

Re: Fallacy of Formalization.

Re: Fallacy of Formalization.