How do we decide that A implies B?

[Write4U]

Trying to bring some of these phenomena together, we arrive at an Implicate Order.
Here is David Bohm in person;

Relativity is a continuous functional relational dimension.
QM is a discrete functional non-relational dimension.

The two are incompatible aspects of a greater Wholeness and Implicate order. That does not make the phenomena functionally incompatible, it is our description of the processes that is incomplete.

Great experiment is found in the enfolding of an ink drop in a viscous fluid while retaining an implicate of its original state and then the implicate again becomes unfolded in physical reality by reversing the process. If there is/was no turbulence, the entire chronology of enfolding can be reversed as the implicate remains conserved.

 

[James R]

Write4U:

This thread has nothing to do with Bohm's implicate order. At least, I don't think it does.

 

[Speakpigeon]

Speakpigeon:
Ah! A claim from you at last. But then later you say that you're not going to tell us why it's wrong. It's your private secret, I guess.
Why? Because of the secret error in mathematical logic that you're not telling anybody about?
Give me a counter-example, then. I dare you. It's your thread. You're the one who is claiming mathematical logic is systematically wrong, remember.
This is kind of a pointless discussion thread, then, isn't it? You're making claims you refuse to support, so there's really nothing to discuss.
Yeah you do. You need to prove your claim that mathematical logic is systematically wrong.
You're claiming they're all wrong. You didn't specify any particular one. More specifically, you have made the claim that Boolean algebra is wrong, but you refuse to support that claim. Which makes it just an unsupported opinion of yours, as things stand.
You haven't even specified what you're talking about here. I'm not about to flail about trying to guess what you might mean. If you've got something to discuss, you need to bring it.
You'll notice that I didn't attempt to answer your question. I merely asked you if you were aware of Boolean algebra. I later asked if you could show that Boolean algebra is not a valid method for deciding if a logical argument is valid. Clearly, you couldn't. So, I'm happy to leave that particular topic, and you can keep discussing your original question with other people.

LOL, this is the fallacy of the slippery slope.
This thread is explicitly not about asserting that mathematical logic is wrong. It is wrong but this thread is not about me claiming that.
This thread is just a poll, remember? Do you think there must be a correct method to decide on the validity of logical arguments?
You've voted and answered by making clear you thought Boolean algebra was such a correct method and I'm asking you to justify your claim if you can. Well, it's clear you can't. Just making a naked claim won't do. I can do the same and I did, see?
So, please, don't slip on that slippery slope.
EB

 

[Write4U]

Write4U:

This thread has nothing to do with Bohm's implicate order. At least, I don't think it does.

I'll leave the post as is. Draw your own conclusions after considering what I was implying and if it was relevant in the greater scope of inquiry about the implications of the OP question.

 

[Speakpigeon]

Draw your own conclusions after considering what I was implying

But how do I know that whatever it is you were implying would be a valid implication?
EB

 

[Write4U]

But how do I know that whatever it is you were implying would be a valid implication?
EB

Are we speaking subjective decision making or the objective mathematical way the world works?
If I say 2 + 2 implies 5, I would be wrong, because 2 + 2 does not imply 5, it implies 4.
Humans are wrong all the time, mainly for lack of complete information about complex systems.

The term determinism includes the concept of mathematically implied results becoming manifest.

Humans do not imply anything except human activity. In the greater universe mathematical implications emerge and present themselves as an abstract mathematical preview of that which is to become reality. This allows us to perform theoretical physics and the implications of say a range of "what if" scenarios. Implications emerge from potential abilities to perform specific tasks.

For instance, a potential is an implied "enfolded" ability to do work.
The presence of a Black Hole implies an "unfolded" increased gravity field.
The presence of heat and smoke implies an "unfolded" fire somewhere upwind.

If I drive a car which has the potential to drive @ 100 mph, but I drive it @ 30 mph, the implication is that the car has the enfolded ability to go 70 mph faster than what it is doing now.
Not the driver.

The mathematics used by Peter Higgs implied the "enfolded" existence of Higgs bosons. Turns out the maths were correct and at Cern the Higgs boson emerged as the "unfolded" explicated boson in reality.

Mathematical implications tell us about enfolded abilities (values and functions), potentials which may be latent now but which may become reality.

 

[arfa brane]

How do we decide that A implies B?

Me, I accept that A and B implies A.

Well that's great.

But, you don't need to ask the redundant question: "How do we decide that A implies B?", because if A implies B, there isn't a question to ask.
Ok, you can ask what are A and B, but it doesn't actually matter what they are, since if A implies B, then (not A) or B is also true.

That's about it. This kind of logic is not concerned with what the logical variables are, or if they make any sense, only if they're true or false.

The question you ask is therefore not relevant to the logic itself, it's not relevant to whether or not an argument is valid in this logic.

You could equally ask how do we decide that (A or B) is true; we don't decide, the logic does. If this wasn't true, we wouldn't have digital logic, which doesn't require decisions from humans, but is autonomous.

 

[James R]

Speakpigeon:

While we're on the subject of fallacies, maybe we ought to explore the fallacy of false dichotomy.

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

My answer is that since Boolean algebra is a method that allows us to decide on the validity of logical arguments, which seems to work just fine, then yes, I think there is at least one method that allows us to do that. It is "correct" insofar as it is self-consistent and it produces useful results.

The false dichotomy in your question is that it assumes that there can be at most one "correct" method for deciding the validity of logical arguments. But notice that just a few posts up from this one, you admitted that there are many different ways to decide the validity of logical arguments. Given that, I'm surprised you haven't answered your own poll question in the affirmative.

This thread is explicitly not about asserting that mathematical logic is wrong. It is wrong but this thread is not about me claiming that.

Yeah, well I won't hold my breath waiting to here your insights into why it is wrong. If you ever get around to that, let me know.

 

[iceaura]

Personally, I weight such assessments on correlation, mechanism, self/temporal/data consistency, and similarly backed alternatives. All four. YMMV.
In math and logic one can, if desired, avoid all except the self consistency by basing all on the word "if".

 

[Speakpigeon]

While we're on the subject of fallacies, maybe we ought to explore the fallacy of false dichotomy. Your poll asks "Do you think there must be a correct method to decide on the validity of logical arguments?"My answer is that since Boolean algebra is a method that allows us to decide on the validity of logical arguments, which seems to work just fine, then yes, I think there is at least one method that allows us to do that. It is "correct" insofar as it is self-consistent and it produces useful results. The false dichotomy in your question is that it assumes that there can be at most one "correct" method for deciding the validity of logical arguments. But notice that just a few posts up from this one, you admitted that there are many different ways to decide the validity of logical arguments. Given that, I'm surprised you haven't answered your own poll question in the affirmative.

LOL, I didn't even think about answering my own poll!
Tell me where you get to prove that the different methods used in mathematical logic can all be correct. Or indeed that anyone of them is correct.
It should be obvious to anyone that by "correct" I don't mean "self-consistent" and producing "useful results". If that's all you can offer, I don't buy it.
It's a simple poll, you answered it, your answer is understood and that's it. Sometimes, people can't get to agree with each other, you know.
EB

 

[Speakpigeon]

Are we speaking subjective decision making or the objective mathematical way the world works?
The mathematics used by Peter Higgs implied the "enfolded" existence of Higgs bosons. Turns out the maths were correct and at Cern the Higgs boson emerged as the "unfolded" explicated boson in reality.
Mathematical implications tell us about enfolded abilities (values and functions), potentials which may be latent now but which may become reality.

Please stop the diarrhoea of mindless explanations proving nothing. I understand your Platonic belief in mathematics but it is an unfalsifiable theory and nobody reasonable will ever be interested in it.
All we can reasonably say is that it seems for now that we can explain most of our observations about the universe by scientific theories couched in mathematical formalism. It might be that all natural phenomena can be described through a mathematical formalism. What else is there to say? Most reasonable people will say that there is nothing else to say.
It seems to me nobody even understand what your claim actually is.
Maybe you could start to work on an experimental setup to prove your theory. Please provide sketches and discuss them with posters here. I'm sure they will be motivated to give useful advice and encouragements. They've shown themselves to be very understanding with a very positive mindset. Go forth, Einstein!
EB

 

[Write4U]

@ Speakpigeon

Have you actually looked up what Bohm meant by "Implicate order"? I doubt it and I would suggest you gain at least a cursory familiarity with Bohm's work. Einstein and Bohm spent many hours exploring the very edges of science. If Einstein thought that Bohm had something to say, why not find out what it was that David Bohm was saying, before you relegate this eminent scientist to the trash heap.

Bohm coined the term "Implicate Order" to describe, not a single action or problem, but an entire cosmic plenum;
Still not interested or do you want to know only if A implies B? I though that has been answered. Are you asking for redundancy while accusing me of redundancy?

Perhaps you may familiarize yourself with the hypothesis before you start telling me I don't know what you are talking about. \ The reverse seems to be the case here.

Implicate and explicate order,
Implicate order and explicate order are ontological concepts for quantum theory coined by theoretical physicist David Bohm during the early 1980s. They are used to describe two different frameworks for understanding the same phenomenon or aspect of reality. In particular, the concepts were developed in order to explain the bizarre behavior of subatomic particles which quantum physics struggles to explain.

Such as explaining if A implies B

In the enfolded [or implicate] order, space and time are no longer the dominant factors determining the relationships of dependence or independence of different elements. Rather, an entirely different sort of basic connection of elements is possible, from which our ordinary notions of space and time, along with those of separately existent material particles, are abstracted as forms derived from the deeper order. These ordinary notions in fact appear in what is called the "explicate" or "unfolded" order, which is a special and distinguished form contained within the general totality of all the implicate orders (Bohm 1980, p. xv) ]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Implicate_and_explicate_order


p.s

Speakpigeon said,
I understand your Platonic belief in mathematics but it is an unfalsifiable theory and nobody reasonable will ever be interested in it.

Mathematics is an unfalsifiable theory???
Then A does not imply B?

 

[James R]

It should be obvious to anyone that by "correct" I don't mean "self-consistent" and producing "useful results".

Maybe now would be a good time for you to stop talking about what you don't mean when you refer to a "correct method" and to start talking about what you do mean. Again, I won't hold my breath.

 

[Speakpigeon]

p.s Mathematics is an unfalsifiable theory???

For God sake, I meant that *your theory* is unfalsifiable.
Mathematics is not a theory. It doesn't say whether the Sun turns around the Earth or the Earth turns around the Sun.
It is a discipline defined by a collection of formal languages and the study of the formal properties of axioms as deduced from them, etc. Yawn.

Then A does not imply B?

No, A doesn't imply B, that's true.
Good point.
EB

 

[Speakpigeon]

Maybe now would be a good time for you to stop talking about what you don't mean when you refer to a "correct method" and to start talking about what you do mean. Again, I won't hold my breath.

Sorry, I'm not interested in converting anyone to the true faith, I'm interested in what people think. The word "correct" is very easily understood and no problem:

Correct
1. Free from error or fault; true or accurate.​

See? Sense 1. You don't need me there.
Though, of course, proving something is correct is something else altogether.
I'm asking the question. You answer it if you can and want to. If not, so be it.
I don't know why you wouldn't if you could, though.
EB

 

[Write4U]

For God sake, I meant that *your theory* is unfalsifiable.

My theory? And how does that go?

Mathematics is not a theory. EB

Your right, it's the way the universe works.
List of mathematical theories
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This is a list of mathematical theories.

• Algebraic K-theory
• Almgren–Pitts min-max theory
• Approximation theory
• Asymptotic theory
• Automata theory
• Bifurcation theory
• Braid theory
• Brill–Noether theory
• Catastrophe theory
• Category theory
• Chaos theory
• Character theory
• Choquet theory
• Class field theory
• Coding theory
• Cohomology theory
• Computation theory
• Deformation theory
• Dimension theory
• Distribution theory
• Elimination theory
• Extremal graph theory
• Field theory
• Galois theory
• Game theory
• Graph theory
• Grothendieck's Galois theory
• Group theory
• Hodge theory
• Homology theory
• Homotopy theory
• Information theory
• Invariant theory
• K-theory
• Knot theory
• L-theory
• Local class field theory
• M-theory
• Matrix theory
• Measure theory
• Model theory
• Morse theory
• Module theory
• Network theory
• Nevanlinna theory
• Number theory
• Obstruction theory
• Operator theory
• Order theory
• Percolation theory
• Perturbation theory
• Probability theory
• Proof theory
• Quantum theory
• Queue theory
• Recursion theory
• Representation theory
• Ring theory
• Scheme theory
• Seiberg–Witten theory
• Semigroup theory
• Set theory
• Sheaf theory
• Singularity theory
• Spectral theory
• String theory
• Surgery theory
• Theory of equations
• Topos theory
• Transcendental number theory
• Twistor theory
• Type theory

• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_mathematical_theories

 

[James R]

I'm asking the question. You answer it if you can and want to. If not, so be it.

I already answered it. I'd like to know your answer or rather, I'd like to see you attempt to justify your answer.

 

[Speakpigeon]

Your right, it's the way the universe works. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_mathematical_theories

LOL, mathematicians can choose whatever set of axioms they please to derive what they call "theories". Some sets of axioms may be contradictory to each other, producing theories that effectively contradict each other. According to you then, the universe would be, at the same time, working according to one theory as well as according to any number of other theories contradictory to the first one. The universe would be contradictory to itself.
Me, I don't think so.
EB

 

[Speakpigeon]

I already answered it. I'd like to know your answer or rather, I'd like to see you attempt to justify your answer.

What answer? I didn't answer my own question.
EB

 

[Speakpigeon]

My theory? And how does that go?

I don't know your theory, so it's not falsifiable.
EB