Philosophy Now Forum

"If/then" observes if one phenomenon occurs then another follows. However it does not explain how the connection occurs but rather there is a connection. This connection as undefined necessitates that what follows "if" is as undefined as the connection which follows.

The connection is purely assumed and as assumed is relegated to a belief as to what ought happen. This "ought" is purely an assertion and as an assertion necessitates that multiple other "thens" may follow "if" with no one "then" being greater than another. The "if/then" dichotomy does not lend itself to a clear answer given multiple "thens" may be observed.

basic programming...

if/then/else

-Imp

Similar to the problem, if it can be called such, of cause & effect. It's all just human short-hand; Nature doesn't operate according to any logical necessity implied by an If-Then or Cause & Effect ordering. It's merely our way of making sense. Both have in common what you already mention. One can claim "IF- CAUSE" without knowing most of the specifics of what leads to "THEN-EFFECT", which observation nevertheless seems to ratify.

"If/then" observes if one phenomenon occurs then another follows.

No, it asserts something about possibilities. It corresponds to worlds in which (A and B) or (~A and B) or (~A and ~B) are possible,.but (A and ~B) is not possible.

Naturally, "If ... Then ..." assertions can turn out to be mistaken, ie. false. Is that a problem? For those who have some investment in their truth, yes, but it isn't a problem for logicians, scientists or philosophers.

mickthinks wrote: ↑Mon Jul 05, 2021 7:17 am "If/then" observes if one phenomenon occurs then another follows.

No, it asserts something about possibilities. It corresponds to worlds in which (A and B) or (~A and B) or (~A and ~B) are possible,.but (A and ~B) is not possible.

Naturally, "If ... Then ..." assertions can turn out to be mistaken, ie. false. Is that a problem? For those who have some investment in their truth, yes, but it isn't a problem for logicians, scientists or philosophers.

A possibility is a phenomenon.

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Mon Jul 05, 2021 11:11 pm

mickthinks wrote: ↑Mon Jul 05, 2021 7:17 am "If/then" observes if one phenomenon occurs then another follows.

No, it asserts something about possibilities. It corresponds to worlds in which (A and B) or (~A and B) or (~A and ~B) are possible,.but (A and ~B) is not possible.

Naturally, "If ... Then ..." assertions can turn out to be mistaken, ie. false. Is that a problem? For those who have some investment in their truth, yes, but it isn't a problem for logicians, scientists or philosophers.

A possibility is a phenomenon.

A possibility is the opposite of a phenomenon. One can be anticipated and the other can be experienced.

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Wed Jun 30, 2021 12:30 am "If/then" observes if one phenomenon occurs then another follows...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curry's_paradox

The logical expression A => B (which is translated into English as "A implies B"; or if I know A then I know B also.) is equivalent to If A then B.
You can also re-write that in a form that is more familiar to Mathematicians: f(A) = B

If I know A then I know B also.
By modus tollens if I know not-B then I know not-A also.

This is Mutual Information.

commonsense wrote: ↑Fri Jul 09, 2021 9:47 pm A possibility is the opposite of a phenomenon. One can be anticipated and the other can be experienced.

If it's the "opposite of a phenomenon" (and thus cannot be experienced) how are you experiencing the conceptual phenomenon of "possibility"?

Skepdick wrote: ↑Sat Jul 10, 2021 10:48 am

commonsense wrote: ↑Fri Jul 09, 2021 9:47 pm A possibility is the opposite of a phenomenon. One can be anticipated and the other can be experienced.

If it's the "opposite of a phenomenon" (and thus cannot be experienced) how are you experiencing the conceptual phenomenon of "possibility"?

A conceptual phenomenon is the opposite of a phenomenon.

commonsense wrote: ↑Sat Jul 10, 2021 3:49 pm A conceptual phenomenon is the opposite of a phenomenon.

This doesn't address the point.

Do you, or do you not experience your conceptual phenomena?

-1 is the opposite of 1. I experience both.

Let’s think about concepts since we cannot observe thoughts.

Let’s experience numerals, written on screen with black characters, since we can see them.

Let’s think about the concepts for which numerals are referents, since we cannot experience thoughts through our senses.

Let’s remember that a physical fact is anything but the opposite of a phenomenon.

Skepdick wrote: ↑Sat Jul 10, 2021 5:59 pm

commonsense wrote: ↑Sat Jul 10, 2021 3:49 pm A conceptual phenomenon is the opposite of a phenomenon.

This doesn't address the point.

Do you, or do you not experience your conceptual phenomena?

-1 is the opposite of 1. I experience both.

This addresses phenomena per M&W.

I do not taste, smell, feel, see or hear concepts and thoughts.

I can experience both “-1” and “1” because they are symbols found in the real world. I cannot experience what those symbols stand for as I cannot experience a thought.

commonsense wrote: ↑Fri Jul 09, 2021 9:47 pm

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Mon Jul 05, 2021 11:11 pm

mickthinks wrote: ↑Mon Jul 05, 2021 7:17 am "If/then" observes if one phenomenon occurs then another follows.

No, it asserts something about possibilities. It corresponds to worlds in which (A and B) or (~A and B) or (~A and ~B) are possible,.but (A and ~B) is not possible.

Naturally, "If ... Then ..." assertions can turn out to be mistaken, ie. false. Is that a problem? For those who have some investment in their truth, yes, but it isn't a problem for logicians, scientists or philosophers.

A possibility is a phenomenon.

A possibility is the opposite of a phenomenon. One can be anticipated and the other can be experienced.

The anticipation is experienced.

Skepdick wrote: ↑Sat Jul 10, 2021 10:32 am

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Wed Jun 30, 2021 12:30 am "If/then" observes if one phenomenon occurs then another follows...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curry's_paradox

The logical expression A => B (which is translated into English as "A implies B"; or if I know A then I know B also.) is equivalent to If A then B.
You can also re-write that in a form that is more familiar to Mathematicians: f(A) = B

If I know A then I know B also.
By modus tollens if I know not-B then I know not-A also.

This is Mutual Information.

But B is one of many phenomenon points towards. For example if I put my hand over a stove then I get burn shows me getting burned as one phenomenon of many. Other phenomenon is that I do not get burn (ie have my hand over the stove for a short period of time), my hand moved closer to the off switch of the stove, the stove works harder due to the dissipated heat, etc.

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Mon Jul 12, 2021 6:52 pm But B is one of many phenomenon points towards.

No it isn't.

You are misinterpreting my B.