Discussion in 'Pseudoscience' started by akabrutus, May 2, 2020.
What is the foundation of logic ?
Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.
The Emergence of First-Order Logic
First published Sat Nov 17, 2018
This about mathematical logic .
And Mathematical logic is not the pinnacle of logic . Just a form of logic .
Logic is logic, in any form. It is a process. Mathematics is one of the purest forms of logic.
en.wikipedia.org › wiki › Mathematical_logic
Mathematics is " One of " . Forms of logic .
Define " Pure logic " .
Yes, it does not rely on any form of assumptive truths.
All elements of basic (pure) mathematics are defined and definable in symbolic language.
Definition of symbolic logic
Logical progression :
input (values) --> mathematical function(s) (processes) --> output (values)
Mathematics define the logic of the Universe.
" Philosophy is written in this grand book – I mean the Universe – which stands continually open to our gaze, but it cannot be understood unless one first learns to comprehend the language and interpret the characters in which it is written. It is written in the language of mathematics, and its characters are triangles, circles and other geometrical figures, without which it is humanly impossible to understand a single word of it; without these, one is wandering around in a dark labyrinth.
The only way to be able to determine a magnitutude is to symbolize it "
To the last statement ; disagree
The physical objects are not controlled by mathematics . Mathematics is controlled by real physical objects . Actions and effect , affect and cause in NO particular order .
Please define a physical object without appealing to irreducible complexity, and how does it control the mathematics of its behavior?
Think , what is the Root of mathematics . Where does the concept of mathematics come from ?
An old Aussie expression Write4U, debating this with river, is akin to pushing shit up hill. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
In defining maths, I like the simple definition as being the language of physics, but a more encompassing definition is in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mathematics
and defined as
"Since the pioneering work of Giuseppe Peano (1858–1932), David Hilbert (1862–1943), and others on axiomatic systems in the late 19th century, it has become customary to view mathematical research as establishing truth by rigorous deduction from appropriately chosen axioms and definitions."
Note the highlighted bit. "Ëstablishing Truth"
This is the reason why river in general, dismisses the importance of maths, as it also defines and supports science/physics and the scientific method, and at the same time refuting his completely ridiculous scenarios and fairy tales.
Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Mathematics basic mathematics was based on accounting . Real physical objects .
The "concept" of mathematics existed long before humans came on the scene.
The Universe functioned flawlessly 14 billion years ago as it does today, thanks to its mathematical underpinnings.
Human symbolic mathematics are a result of observation of natural dynamical phenomena and invented the symbolic language to describe these values and functional mechanisms, which allows us to practise the science of physics (physical values and potentials) to begin with.
Humans did not invent mathematics, humans invented symbolic languages to describe observed universal mathematics of self-ordering patterns from Planck scale and up.
p.s. Note how often bad human mathematics have been written from incorrect interpretation of natural phenomena. At no time did the Universe present a false picture, we just did not see it correctly, at that time.
The geometry and energy potential of this Universe is the essential truth of all things, regardless of the existence of humans and it is able to evolve all dense physical patterns which can be observed, experienced, and described by human mathematical symbolic language as "reality".
"Something" from "Nothing" physical is more logical than "Irreducible Complexity from Nothing"...Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
What is observed , experienced is always changing
Neither exist in the first place . To your last statement . Anything with nothing included in the theory is based on non-sense . We should know this by now .
When did that "accounting" start and who started it and what symbols were used to describe the relative values of the "accounted" properties?
I think it was in ancient Sumar . You had your own mark .
So, you're going with the "Something from Nothing" proposition?
Sure, but the change is always in accordance with some universal mathematical imperative, and we can observe, measure, and mathematically symbolize these changes in "value", from one state (pattern) into another state (pattern).
No I'm going with something from something .
And how did these original inventors of "accounting" keep accounts of everything in the Universe?
You are looking at this from a purely subjective human perspective. What about an accounting of the rest of the Universe, before man came on the scene? Before man emerged, there was no defined order to the universe?
You cannot argue that there was no Universal Order before man invented mathematics? Ask a Cosmologist.
They will tell you they are "discovering" the mathematics of the universe, and only "invent" the human symbolic representations of the universal mathematical values and functions being processed.
That is not a logical argument, IMO.
You appear to be going with confusion.Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Space/time/universe is either eternal/infinite, or had a beginning, which is accepted at the BB. The spacetime evolved from an unknown state at the BB. As Lawrence Krauss pushes [and which I find reasonably plausible] is that perhaps the quantum foam from whence the BB and spacetime evolved is the most realistic definition of nothing that is possible. I mean its pretty damn close to "nothing" that we generally define, and as such far more likely and logical then any ID creation event. The quantum foam is that which is eternal if we accept that definition of nothing.
I mean I find nothing pretty hard to imagine, no space, no time, no quantum foam, no nothing!!!Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Separate names with a comma.