Philosophy Forums


Zeno's Paradox

PrintPrint


Page: 1 2 3 4

Zeno's Paradox
James S Saint
Graduate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Oct 14, 2009

Total Topics: 10
Total Posts: 227
Posted 10/20/09 - 08:04 PM:
quote post
#11
Samuel Locke wrote:
I too am interested in your thoughts on this subject James S. Saint.


I'm not sure which subject you are referring to.

Mathematics came about by practical Declaration, not observation. Man declared that 1+1=2 and 1*2 = 2 and so on. He did not add and multiply all numbers that he found laying around and observe what the answers were so as to come up with the properties of mathematics. He already knew that 5+5 was going to be 10 without scientific experimentation.

Scientists are only the technicians for logicians and, as often demonstrated, are helpless without them. They try out in practice what has already been declared or logically determined and what is hypothesized as a possibility. Psychology was held off for a long time due to their inability to logically perform an experiment. Parapsychology is still in that state.
Samuel Locke
Student

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Oct 17, 2009

Total Topics: 4
Total Posts: 72
Posted 10/21/09 - 06:54 AM:
quote post
#12
James S Saint wrote:


I'm not sure which subject you are referring to.

Mathematics came about by practical Declaration, not observation. Man declared that 1+1=2 and 1*2 = 2 and so on. He did not add and multiply all numbers that he found laying around and observe what the answers were so as to come up with the properties of mathematics. He already knew that 5+5 was going to be 10 without scientific experimentation.

Scientists are only the technicians for logicians and, as often demonstrated, are helpless without them. They try out in practice what has already been declared or logically determined and what is hypothesized as a possibility. Psychology was held off for a long time due to their inability to logically perform an experiment. Parapsychology is still in that state.


Im not sure I agree. Man may have known that 5+5=10 but only because he had a set of laws on which he expanded on. These laws were surely derived by means of observation.


Dragohunter
illusion is persistent
Avatar

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jan 08, 2009
Location: Why does it matteR?

Total Topics: 6
Total Posts: 164
Posted 10/21/09 - 10:46 AM:
quote post
#13

Mathematics came about by practical Declaration, not observation. Man declared that 1+1=2 and 1*2 = 2 and so on. He did not add and multiply all numbers that he found laying around and observe what the answers were so as to come up with the properties of mathematics. He already knew that 5+5 was going to be 10 without scientific experimentation.


Samuel Locke has answered for me pretty thorougly.

Scientists are only the technicians for logicians and, as often demonstrated, are helpless without them.


Really? Scientists are basically people who follow the scientific method (any person who engages in a systematic and empirical activity to acquire knowledge or an individual that engages in such practices and traditions that are linked to schools of thought or philosophy) Your conception of a scientist completely does not fit this description. Most of the advancements of human society for the past 100 years comes from scientists (engineer are included), not another other profession. I find it ludicrous that you devalue science in a means to find truth about this world, although I do strongly agree with the limitations of empirical methods so don't take me wrongly. This also answers to what you said afterwards.

"Technological progress is like an axe in the hands of a pathological criminal." - Albert Einstein
James S Saint
Graduate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Oct 14, 2009

Total Topics: 10
Total Posts: 227
Posted 10/21/09 - 11:01 AM:
quote post
#14
Samuel Locke wrote:
Im not sure I agree. Man may have known that 5+5=10 but only because he had a set of laws on which he expanded on. These laws were surely derived by means of observation.

Making my point clear might be beyond my ability to communicate online, but I’ll give it a shot.

In the early 70’s I heard it announced on the news that Science had proven that “logic doesn’t work”. I thought, “how stupidly bizarre”. But in my usual way, I kept the thought long enough to analyze the possibility of truth in it.

The next night while laying in bed, I deeply contemplated the possibility of logic itself being illogical (“not working” ). Gradually, I dismissed every thought derived by logic to the point that I found that I could not accept any thought at all. I actually deeply felt a shift in my mind that was suddenly wrenched back into reality by the thought that if logic doesn’t work, then thought itself is totally pointless. The mind has to accept logic in order to function at all. And shortly realized that logic is actually the concept of what DOES work. By saying that logic doesn’t work, it is really being said that nothing works at all. And that thought went along with the saying of the day that “everything changes but change itself”. In other words, you cannot depend on anything and must accept your insecurity and lack of confidence.

Eventually I realized that what they were really saying was that logic does not work “in society” so as to convince the larger masses. Although I agreed with that notion, I also saw that if you do not at least try to use logic, then it will have even less effect and total disorder will abound, just as it had within my own mind that night.

From there, I found that what is announced on the news is merely a game of manipulation of the masses that later became an entire industry and what they eventually revealed to be the “fourth branch of the government” which had accepted that using “magic” was superior to using logic in controlling the masses.

One example was used in the 70’s concerning mathematics. During those times, there was a strong push for all people to question and doubt all things, especially anything related to Science. Among those was mathematics.

It was questioned whether “1=1” and whether “1+1 = 2”. How can we prove it? If not, we must not accept it as valid thought in anything else we do.

Empirical evidence was useless because of the thought that just because something is true today, doesn’t mean that it will be tomorrow. Thus some reasoning had to be presented that led to the conclusion that it had to always be true.

Many mathematicians involved in “meta-mathematics” or “the theory of mathematics” gave it a shot only to find that their logic was too susceptible to questioning and doubt. But eventually a mathematician used a trick of magic just as had been suggested so as to convince the masses.

The mathematician displayed an enormous contrivance of premises and logical argument that seemed to lead to the final conclusion that indeed, “1=1”. His argument was not contested and eventually became the proof that settled the issue.

In reality, all he did was present a case that seemed so elite and confounding that the doubters felt overwhelmed and felt the trying to find flaw and refute it wasn’t really worth the trouble. So out of convenience, they just didn’t respond. “If you can’t dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with bullshit”.

Of course, with all deceptions, there are consequences. The consequence in this case was that it appeared that “1=1” had been proven through a mathematical means. Which if you think about it is a bit absurd. How can mathematics be its own testimony of truth? But the point was that it got accepted so life could then proceed. And it proceeded with the idea that mathematics was the way to prove anything – the “perfect language”. Yet in reality, hardly perfect at all.

To this day, if any argument includes elite appearing equations, it isn’t refuted and is generally accepted as ethos sufficient evidence.

But as I watched, I was a bit astounded. To me it was obvious that “1=1” because that is how it is defined. The “1” is to always represent the same number throughout the math process because that is how the mind must function. The mind declares that something is a label for something and any time that label is used, it is to mean that same thing. It is a matter of declaring the definition of your mental construct and has nothing to do with material reality. Being an engineer and psychologist who has designed "thinking machines", I know without doubt when something is merely a mental construct having nothing to do with obserrvation.

Mathematics is a thinking method that is applied to experience. The method is accepted when it is seen to be useful. Sometimes it is accepted even when it is not particularly useful. Mathematics becomes a bit useless in the way it is designed today when dealing with infinities and 0. The system of thought has a few ambiguities and inconsistencies in that area.

My point is that despite all of the confusion and naïve opinions from the masses and even those expressed by the mathematicians, observation was never any part of determining if mathematics was “true”, but only whether it was useful. And it is useful as long as you don’t stray too far into “infinites and 0”.

But that is how we got to this. We have been discussing “infinite regression” and “infinite time” and “nothingness”. We are discussing it only because mathematics hasn’t cleared those issues up. It hasn’t because it still has consistency and ambiguity errors in the system that are still being taught.

Observation is for the purpose of discovering relevant concern (truth). Mathematics is a constructed system of thought so as to deal with relevant concern. Mathematics was not “discovered”, but created.

Edited by James S Saint on 10/21/09 - 12:04 PM
Dragohunter
illusion is persistent
Avatar

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jan 08, 2009
Location: Why does it matteR?

Total Topics: 6
Total Posts: 164
Posted 10/21/09 - 05:58 PM:
quote post
#15
James S Saint wrote:



In the early 70’s I heard it announced on the news that Science had proven that “logic doesn’t work”. I thought, “how stupidly bizarre”.

Science had proven that logic doesn't work? I'm sorry that never happened. 0_o


The next night while laying in bed, I deeply contemplated the possibility of logic itself being illogical (“not working” ).
Basically you were finding a reason why reasoning doesn't work?

Gradually, I dismissed every thought derived by logic to the point that I found that I could not accept any thought at all.
If you dismiss every thought derived by logic (which is not possible) you are accepting a certain type of thought. Thats like analogical to a person being sure of skepticism.

I actually deeply felt a shift in my mind that was suddenly wrenched back into reality by the thought that if logic doesn’t work, then thought itself is totally pointless.


You thought about thought being pointless?

The mind has to accept logic in order to function at all. And shortly realized that logic is actually the concept of what DOES work. By saying that logic doesn’t work, it is really being said that nothing works at all.


I agree, but I think that relies on a misusage of language.


And that thought...


I believe you said thought was pointless? anyways


And that thought went along with the saying of the day that “everything changes but change itself”.


Can you back up that proposition?

In other words, you cannot depend on anything and must accept your insecurity and lack of confidence.


I'm sorry I don't understand by what you mean by this. Can you explain?


Eventually I realized that what they were really saying was that logic does not work “in society” so as to convince the larger masses.


Most people in the larger masses don't even care or even understanding logic and reasoning instead by their own impulse.

Although I agreed with that notion, I also saw that if you do not at least try to use logic, then it will have even less effect and total disorder will abound, just as it had within my own mind that night.


I'm sorry but didn't you reach this conclusion using reasoning or thinking? Therefore you used "logic" to reach the notion logic arises confusion.

From there, I found that what is announced on the news is merely a game of manipulation of the masses that later became an entire industry and what they eventually revealed to be the “fourth branch of the government” which had accepted that using “magic” was superior to using logic in controlling the masses.


We are in a philosophy forum, if you want to follow pseudo-science and magic this is not compatible for this discussion.

One example was used in the 70’s concerning mathematics. During those times, there was a strong push for all people to question and doubt all things, especially anything related to Science.


Doubt is mainly an element of philosopher, many physicists are logical positivists so they left the other questions for philosophers to answer.


It was questioned whether “1=1” and whether “1+1 = 2”. How can we prove it? If not, we must not accept it as valid thought in anything else we do.


There are philosophies of mathematics that answer your question pretty accurately and effectively. And mathematics is a language of logic that coincides with the world and only matters on how we use it. 1 equivalent to 1. This equivalence principle is simply our way of saying 1 is 1 in a different way. I don't think anybody questioned with the fact that Albert Einstein was Albert Einstein.

Empirical evidence was useless because of the thought that just because something is true today, doesn’t mean that it will be tomorrow. Thus some reasoning had to be presented that led to the conclusion that it had to always be true.


In a scientific and philosophy of science point of view, the goal of science isn't to find absolute truth or knowing how something "exactly" is as there is limitations to the human mind. The goal of science is rather to find the most accurate and detailed model to describe the universe we live in. Our models get more and more accurate as time passes, it is not reliant of absolute "truth". Read a book on positivism and Karl Popper.

Many mathematicians involved in “meta-mathematics” or “the theory of mathematics” gave it a shot only to find that their logic was too susceptible to questioning and doubt. But eventually a mathematician used a trick of magic just as had been suggested so as to convince the masses.
The mathematician displayed an enormous contrivance of premises and logical argument that seemed to lead to the final conclusion that indeed, “1=1”. His argument was not contested and eventually became the proof that settled the issue. In reality, all he did was present a case that seemed so elite and confounding that the doubters felt overwhelmed and felt the trying to find flaw and refute it wasn’t really worth the trouble. So out of convenience, they just didn’t respond. “If you can’t dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with bullshit”.


This is completely not true and completely ridiculous/ludicrous/every other adjective thats a synonym. I don't know where you got this idea.

I skimmed over what you said aftewards and its based on what you said above. Basically you called mathematics "bullshit in deceiving other people." I don't see any point of having this discussion any longer.

[/quote]

"Technological progress is like an axe in the hands of a pathological criminal." - Albert Einstein
James S Saint
Graduate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Oct 14, 2009

Total Topics: 10
Total Posts: 227
Posted 10/21/09 - 08:41 PM:
quote post
#16
Dragohunter, you need to learn how to read. disapproval

I was pointing out the absurdity of the idea that logic does not work. And to merely profess that something stated is "not true and completely ridiculous/ludicrous/every other adjective thats a synonym" serves only to inform me of your ignorance on the matter. And I never called mathematics "bullshit".

Edited by James S Saint on 10/21/09 - 09:11 PM
Dragohunter
illusion is persistent
Avatar

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jan 08, 2009
Location: Why does it matteR?

Total Topics: 6
Total Posts: 164
1 of 1 people found this post helpful
Posted 10/22/09 - 10:43 AM:
quote post
#17
You called what mathematicians teach bullshit, so your implying mathematics is bullshit. And I'm sorry, you typed a 5 minute discussion of how logic doesn't work and irrelevant? You should read your own posts.

"Technological progress is like an axe in the hands of a pathological criminal." - Albert Einstein
James S Saint
Graduate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Oct 14, 2009

Total Topics: 10
Total Posts: 227
0 of 1 people found this post helpful
Posted 10/22/09 - 11:42 AM:
quote post
#18
Maybe if you slow down and sound out the words? Maybe read it TO someone? Are your parents home?
Lord Henry
Initiate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Oct 24, 2009

Total Topics: 1
Total Posts: 7
Posted 10/24/09 - 04:29 PM:
quote post
#19
No, he's right.

How can you write a long essay to disprove logic without using logic? Logic is needed to prove logic right, but it is also needed to disprove logic. Since people have been using logic for somewhere around 4000 years now, you're going up against an ancient technique that people have found to make sense and are still using today. So basically, it's you against the rest of humanity, past and present.

Same with your argument about mathematics. It's been used for thousands of years and been used to prove millions of things that we KNOW to be true. So good luck proving that it is "bullshit."

Edited by Incision on 10/24/09 - 07:31 PM. Reason: capitalization, punctuation
Cadrache
Tenured Poster

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Dec 09, 2006
Location: AB, Canada

Total Topics: 104
Total Posts: 2644
Posted 10/26/09 - 04:22 PM:
quote post
#20
The cat came back 3 days ago.


The function of logic is to ignore all attributes and relationships between all things and actions.


You draw a line on a cartesian grid and you will never ever be able to tell me the real relationship between 'y' and 'x'.

Edited by Cadrache on 10/26/09 - 07:16 PM

"...There was a writer who asked why it was that when we find positive experiences we say that only the physical facts are real, but in negative experiences we believe that reality is subjective. He made an example of those who say that in birth only the pain is real, the joy a subjective point of view, but that in death it is the emotional loss that is the reality." - Tony Ballantyne, Recursion.
_____________________________________________

Truth is want. - The internal state of matters.

Truth is Need. - The external state of affairs.
Download thread as

Page: 1 2 3 4



Sorry, you don't have permission to post. Log in, or register if you haven't yet.