How do we decide that A implies B?

Discussion in 'General Philosophy' started by Speakpigeon, Aug 11, 2019.

?

Do you think there must be a correct method to decide on the validity of logical arguments?

This poll will close on Jun 11, 2020 at 9:41 PM.
  1. No, since personal opinions on the validity of logical arguments are all equally legitimate.

    0 vote(s)
    0.0%
  2. No, there is no "correct" method. We only need to agree on one method, however arbitrary.

    0 vote(s)
    0.0%
  3. Yes, and in fact there is already such a method and it is well-known.

    50.0%
  4. Yes, there must be a method but we don't know how we could agree on what it is.

    0 vote(s)
    0.0%
  5. Yes, there has to be such a method but I don't know what it is.

    0 vote(s)
    0.0%
  6. Yes, there has to be such a method but I don't think anybody knows what it is.

    0 vote(s)
    0.0%
  7. I don't know.

    25.0%
  8. The question doesn't make sense.

    0 vote(s)
    0.0%
  9. Logical validity doesn't make sense.

    0 vote(s)
    0.0%
  10. None of the above.

    25.0%
  1. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    12,365
    You are displaying amazing deductive powers from such little information.

    Seems to me you are making a lot of conclusions about my, to you "unknown" theory, which according to you consists of contradictory mathematical hypotheses and is not falsifiable. WOW.. that's smart!!!

    After all, according to you if there are a lot of mathematical theories they are bound to contradict each other.

    So that entire list of mathematical theories must contain contradictory premises, or do they? They could not possibly be reinforcing each other or address specific but non-contradictory mathematical equations of values and function, could they?
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. Speakpigeon Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,122
    I don't care about the list of mathematical "theories" you posted. They are irrelevant to my point.
    You didn't understand my point even though it is fairly simple and not even original and as such you should know it.
    My point is that mathematics is such that you can create contradictory "theories". That's a fact. Any idiot can do that. So, mathematics as a whole includes--actually or potentially, that doesn't matter at all--contradictory "theories". If mathematics is just the way the universe works, as you just claimed, then the universe is a contradiction.
    Thus, the conclusion that the universe is a contradiction is a direct consequence of your claim that "mathematics is just the way the universe works".
    Me, I think it's just a stupid idea.
    EB
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    12,365
    Well, let's unpack that.
    a) The Universe is a contradiction? According to whom? Oh I see, mainstream science; QM and GR. True.
    Bohmian Mechanics specifically removes that contradiction. If you had read anything about David Bohm, you would have known that.
    b) Mathematics is not just how the universe works. The universe acts in accordance to mathematically ordered relative values and dynamical functions.
    This is not trivial and is the reason why humans invented mathematics as the human symbolic (codified) qualification and quantification of these inherent universal mathematical potentials, via the use of equations.
    c) You stated my claim incorrectly, thus any "conclusions" you may have fashioned are a consequence of your incorrect interpretation of any claim I may have made. Please try harder next time.
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. Speakpigeon Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,122
    But I still don't know what your claim is and I will never know because you're unable to make sense. And that's what is unfalsifiable.
    EB
     

Share This Page