How do we decide that A implies B?

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

  • No, since personal opinions on the validity of logical arguments are all equally legitimate.

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • No, there is no "correct" method. We only need to agree on one method, however arbitrary.

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Yes, there must be a method but we don't know how we could agree on what it is.

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Yes, there has to be such a method but I don't know what it is.

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Yes, there has to be such a method but I don't think anybody knows what it is.

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • The question doesn't make sense.

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Logical validity doesn't make sense.

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Total voters
    4
  • Poll closed .
I don't know your theory, so it's not falsifiable.
EB
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?
 
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?
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
 
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
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.
 
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.
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
 
Back
Top