Philosophy Now Forum

If all logic is dependent upon forms and forms are relative then all logic is relative. If logic is relative then it is true under some contexts but not in others. These prior statements are logical forms, i.e. 'if a is b and b is c then a is c' and 'if a then b', thus the statements are not universally true as they are relative. A self-contradiction occurs as the statement is true under certain contexts, false in other contexts, but both true and false in light of all contexts.

The problem occurs as the statements 'logic is dependent upon forms' and 'forms are relative' are true statements universally as they can be repeatably verified empirically (i.e. we can see forms in all logic and we can also see that forms are relative as they compare and contrast to other forms).

Under these terms correct abstractions and correct empirical observations contradict.

Whoa, back up the wagon, Chester! What do you mean by "forms" and "relative"? You speak in tongues.

You also appear to be confusing different senses of the word "relative" or, more accurately, you are confusing "relative" with "relational". That 2 + 2 = 4 is a relational truth; that petty crime is more common in economically deprived areas is a "relative" statistical truth.

alan1000 wrote: ↑Mon Apr 17, 2023 2:18 pm You also appear to be confusing different senses of the word "relative" or, more accurately, you are confusing "relative" with "relational". That 2 + 2 = 4 is a relational truth; that petty crime is more common in economically deprived areas is a "relative" statistical truth.

In addition to being a relational truth it's also a relative truth.

It's only true relative to the number-system being used.

2+2 is a syntax error in binary
2+2=11 in trinary
2+2=10 in quaternary

my cousin thought he had relational truth...

-Imp

"This is the only way!"

"Un momento señor!"

"Yeah, yeah! This is ... do you know that you're a royal pain in the ass Gonzales!?"

"De nada! A letter for you señor!"

"Who's it from?"

"From Djakarta."

"Who?"

"Djakarta!"

"Oh! Give it to me!"

"Tea?"

"Coffee."

"Give me 5 minutes."

"Gonzales, wait! Last night. I heard howls. Wolves?"

"Wolves? I didn't hear anything señor!"

"Must be a dream."

"Djakarta!"

"Oh! Djakarta!

alan1000 wrote: ↑Mon Apr 17, 2023 2:10 pm Whoa, back up the wagon, Chester! What do you mean by "forms" and "relative"? You speak in tongues.

1. A form is a boundary which establishes identity.

1a. "A leads to B" is a form as it has the boundary of A and B and the boundary of the 'leading' from one variable to another.

1b. An apple is a form as it has the boundaries of the shape, color, size etc.

2. Relative is a relationship. A relationship occurs through connection and/or contrast.

alan1000 wrote: ↑Mon Apr 17, 2023 2:18 pm You also appear to be confusing different senses of the word "relative" or, more accurately, you are confusing "relative" with "relational". That 2 + 2 = 4 is a relational truth; that petty crime is more common in economically deprived areas is a "relative" statistical truth.

It may be viewed in the opposite direction as well.

2+2=4 is 2 relative to 2.

Petty crime relates, i.e. is relational, to economic deprivation.

Why?

Relative: "considered in relation or in proportion to something else."
https://www.google.com/search?q=relativ ... e&ie=UTF-8

Relation: the way in which two or more concepts, objects, or people are connected; a thing's effect on or relevance to another.
https://www.google.com/search?q=relatio ... e&ie=UTF-8

Relational: concerning the way in which two or more people or things are connected.
https://www.google.com/search?q=relatio ... e&ie=UTF-8


Your argument is vague semantics as you claim I am mixing the meaning of the term "relative" but do not point out where and upon further delving into the dictionary, to look up the meanings of word you claim I am confusing, it is found that they can effectively mean each other.

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Wed Apr 12, 2023 11:55 pm If all logic is dependent upon forms and forms are relative then all logic is relative. If logic is relative then it is true under some contexts but not in others. These prior statements are logical forms, i.e. 'if a is b and b is c then a is c' and 'if a then b', thus the statements are not universally true as they are relative. A self-contradiction occurs as the statement is true under certain contexts, false in other contexts, but both true and false in light of all contexts.

The problem occurs as the statements 'logic is dependent upon forms' and 'forms are relative' are true statements universally as they can be repeatably verified empirically (i.e. we can see forms in all logic and we can also see that forms are relative as they compare and contrast to other forms).

Under these terms correct abstractions and correct empirical observations contradict.

It is not the generally case that abstractions and empirical observations
contradict. I have no idea what you could possibly mean by this.

It is the case that abstractions used in the model of the current world
abstract away most of the details of empirical observations.

When I say that there is a cat in my living room the details of the mapping
of every individual cell of this cat to a cartesian space of all of the (x,y,z)
coordinates of points in my room at a specific point in time are left vague.

PeteOlcott wrote: ↑Sat Apr 29, 2023 6:15 pm

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Wed Apr 12, 2023 11:55 pm If all logic is dependent upon forms and forms are relative then all logic is relative. If logic is relative then it is true under some contexts but not in others. These prior statements are logical forms, i.e. 'if a is b and b is c then a is c' and 'if a then b', thus the statements are not universally true as they are relative. A self-contradiction occurs as the statement is true under certain contexts, false in other contexts, but both true and false in light of all contexts.

The problem occurs as the statements 'logic is dependent upon forms' and 'forms are relative' are true statements universally as they can be repeatably verified empirically (i.e. we can see forms in all logic and we can also see that forms are relative as they compare and contrast to other forms).

Under these terms correct abstractions and correct empirical observations contradict.

It is not the generally case that abstractions and empirical observations
contradict. I have no idea what you could possibly mean by this.

It is the case that abstractions used in the model of the current world
abstract away most of the details of empirical observations.

When I say that there is a cat in my living room the details of the mapping
of every individual cell of this cat to a cartesian space of all of the (x,y,z)
coordinates of points in my room at a specific point in time are left vague.

I did not speak about 'generally', I said: "Under these terms correct abstractions and correct empirical observations contradict."

The abstract circle stands apart from the empirical circle as both are circles yet differ. The circle under these circumstances stands apart from itself...this is a contradiction.

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Wed May 03, 2023 8:28 pm

PeteOlcott wrote: ↑Sat Apr 29, 2023 6:15 pm

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Wed Apr 12, 2023 11:55 pm If all logic is dependent upon forms and forms are relative then all logic is relative. If logic is relative then it is true under some contexts but not in others. These prior statements are logical forms, i.e. 'if a is b and b is c then a is c' and 'if a then b', thus the statements are not universally true as they are relative. A self-contradiction occurs as the statement is true under certain contexts, false in other contexts, but both true and false in light of all contexts.

The problem occurs as the statements 'logic is dependent upon forms' and 'forms are relative' are true statements universally as they can be repeatably verified empirically (i.e. we can see forms in all logic and we can also see that forms are relative as they compare and contrast to other forms).

Under these terms correct abstractions and correct empirical observations contradict.

It is not the generally case that abstractions and empirical observations
contradict. I have no idea what you could possibly mean by this.

It is the case that abstractions used in the model of the current world
abstract away most of the details of empirical observations.

When I say that there is a cat in my living room the details of the mapping
of every individual cell of this cat to a cartesian space of all of the (x,y,z)
coordinates of points in my room at a specific point in time are left vague.

I did not speak about 'generally', I said: "Under these terms correct abstractions and correct empirical observations contradict."

The abstract circle stands apart from the empirical circle as both are circles yet differ. The circle under these circumstances stands apart from itself...this is a contradiction.

The {abstract circle} is perfectly a circle. The {empirical circle} is not an actual
circle at all merely an approximation of a circle.

PeteOlcott wrote: ↑Wed May 03, 2023 8:38 pm

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Wed May 03, 2023 8:28 pm

PeteOlcott wrote: ↑Sat Apr 29, 2023 6:15 pm

It is not the generally case that abstractions and empirical observations
contradict. I have no idea what you could possibly mean by this.

It is the case that abstractions used in the model of the current world
abstract away most of the details of empirical observations.

When I say that there is a cat in my living room the details of the mapping
of every individual cell of this cat to a cartesian space of all of the (x,y,z)
coordinates of points in my room at a specific point in time are left vague.

I did not speak about 'generally', I said: "Under these terms correct abstractions and correct empirical observations contradict."

The abstract circle stands apart from the empirical circle as both are circles yet differ. The circle under these circumstances stands apart from itself...this is a contradiction.

The {abstract circle} is perfectly a circle. The {empirical circle} is not an actual
circle at all merely an approximation of a circle.

Then an empirical tree is not an actual tree just an approximation of a tree. This results in a realm of forms that supercedes everything but this realm is refuted by Aristotle's Third Man Argument (if memory serves).

From another perspective your point may be reversed: An abstract circle is the generalization of all empirical circles.

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Wed May 03, 2023 8:42 pm

PeteOlcott wrote: ↑Wed May 03, 2023 8:38 pm

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Wed May 03, 2023 8:28 pm

I did not speak about 'generally', I said: "Under these terms correct abstractions and correct empirical observations contradict."

The abstract circle stands apart from the empirical circle as both are circles yet differ. The circle under these circumstances stands apart from itself...this is a contradiction.

The {abstract circle} is perfectly a circle. The {empirical circle} is not an actual
circle at all merely an approximation of a circle.

Then an empirical tree is not an actual tree just an approximation of a tree. This results in a realm of forms that supercedes everything but this realm is refuted by Aristotle's Third Man Argument (if memory serves).

From another perspective your point may be reversed: An abstract circle is the generalization of all empirical circles.

An {abstract} circle is the only kind of actual circle, an {empirical} tree has no perfect
mathematical abstraction because unlike a circle it is not an object of mathematics.

An abstract circle is a model that empirical circles can only imprecisely approximate.

this empirical tree has bark like a dog

-Imp

PeteOlcott wrote: ↑Wed May 03, 2023 10:09 pm

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Wed May 03, 2023 8:42 pm

PeteOlcott wrote: ↑Wed May 03, 2023 8:38 pm

The {abstract circle} is perfectly a circle. The {empirical circle} is not an actual
circle at all merely an approximation of a circle.

Then an empirical tree is not an actual tree just an approximation of a tree. This results in a realm of forms that supercedes everything but this realm is refuted by Aristotle's Third Man Argument (if memory serves).

From another perspective your point may be reversed: An abstract circle is the generalization of all empirical circles.

An {abstract} circle is the only kind of actual circle, an {empirical} tree has no perfect
mathematical abstraction because unlike a circle it is not an object of mathematics.

An abstract circle is a model that empirical circles can only imprecisely approximate.

Then a circle cannot be drawn and we cannot apply the circle to engineering projects as an approximate circle is not the actual circle. From another perspective, considering the perfect circle cannot be shared through the senses, then the abstract circle is subject to the observer. Because it cannot be shared through the senses one perfect circle differs to another, through their subjective only states, and we cannot say there is a perfect circle.

As to the tree it does have a universal mathematical abstraction: the division of one end point into another which results in the branch form. But demanding the perfection of the circle for it to be the actual circle necessitates the perfection of a form to be an actual form. Considering perfection is relative, as it is opinionated and subject to perspective, anything and nothing can be perfect. Who said the circle is perfect?

From another perspective the abstract circle is an approximation of the totality of empirical circles or is just an approximation of the empirical circle...the argument goes both ways.