I mentioned before that The three laws are neccessarily come from meaning of truth, what is. — BB100

Well that is entirely illogical.

90

What I mean is it says what is true if you can prove it and if not then not priveable. The condition of truth is dependant on provability in a sense. — BB100

So how come you apply (in the other thread) truth to the 3 laws of logic, which are unproven?

90

↪A Seagull I not saying they are self-evident just defining truth, a defining part if it, is the conformity to the laws of logic. — BB100

Well in that case you are referring to an artificial truth, You can 'define' what you like, but then it is only applicable to the system to which you are referring. Why call it 'truth'? Why not 'boojum'?

.

To claim that the three laws are 'self-evident' does not constitute a proof. At best you can claim that they are axiomatic for the logical system for which they are axioms. Then you can claim, if you wish, that all axioms and theorems of that system are 'true', albeit only within that logical system.

Then the 3 laws can be used for symbolic manipulation within that system and the domain of the 3 laws is fully defined.

To say that all physical things "obey the laws of physics" is merely an expression. It refers to the Uniformity of Nature, which is the principle that the course of nature continues uniformly the same. For a given cause A, we always expect to see effect B. — Samuel Lacrampe

But you have used that claim to further claim that the world is determined. If the 'laws of physics' are merely a description, which they are, then any claim of determinism is unjustified.

As for the uniformity of nature, as being some sort of fundamental principle, it is naïve. Nature is not uniform, there is no claim for that in physics, and any claim to uniformity is at best, very very approximate and even then only in some circumstances.

83

↪A Seagull May you elaborate, considering I do not see how such a definition breaks either the three fundamental laws or other logical rules. — BB100

It comes down to the fact that truth is not contained within most logical systems. If you are going to incorporate truth into a logical system then it must be explicitly shown how this occurs.

So for example one might claim that all theorems of mathematics are true, albeit within the mathematical system. Then you could set up a meta system that takes the theorems of mathematics and tacks on the end the string of characters 'is true'. However this system is somewhat trivial as all it is doing is taking the theorems and labelling them as true.

So really the concept of 'truth' has no meaningful place in any logical system, it is superfluous to requirements; it serves no purpose.

↪A Seagull The laws of Logic, are simply what truth, that which is, to be in. As long as any proposition is in conformity of these laws that you can then first past the bar of then actually saying whether is true or not. — BB100

Well that is an interesting theory. But not one that I would subscribe to. Logically speaking, your ascription of truth to such propositions is entirely illogical.

↪Banno ↪A Seagull Hello.
Can you elaborate on why P1 is false? Are you saying that some physical things do not obey some laws of physics, or in other words that equal causes may give unequal effects? — Samuel Lacrampe

It is a fallacy to think that things 'obey the laws of physics'. The laws of physics are merely a description of how matter behaves.. and a rather approximate one at that.

↪A Seagull I am just saying the Law of Logics are innherent to the meaning of truth. Truth is based that it is in The laws of logic form. — BB100

Well what do you mean by 'truth'? What has it got to do with the 'laws of logic'?

The Lair Paradox is used by skeptics to prove that The Three Fundamental Laws Of Logic are not certain, you can't be sure they are true. — BB100

The reason one cannot be certain that the 3 'laws of logic' are 'true' is that they are unproven. They are hypotheses, It is not even clear over what domain they are supposed to apply.

It may be that they apply in a strictly formal symbolic logical system, but that is all.

What do you think? — Samuel Lacrampe

P1 is false
P2 is meaningless
C is nonsense.

65

↪A Seagull that assumes that measurement = reality. — BB100

Perhaps more precisely it means that all we know of reality comes in the form of measurement, and so if we cannot measure anything as being infinite, then the infinite does not occur in our knowledge of the world.

No measurement can ever be infinite, ergo there is no infinity in the real world.

Heraclitus is one of my favourite philosophers. His short pithy statements provoke thought, which is perhaps the essential quality of meaningful philosophy.

A couple for the collection:

#122 After death comes nothing hoped for nor imagined.

#111 What are these people's wits who let themselves be led by speechmakers in crowds, without considering how many fools and thieves there they are among, and how few choose the good? The best choose progress towards one thing, a name forever honoured by the gods, while others eat their way towards sleep like nameless oxen.

Still thought provoking two and a half thousand years later.

No I am talking about the work to be 'agreeable' to the reader. — A Seagull
Ah to a particular reader you mean? And not to all readers? This would be easier, I guess. — Pussycat

In any communication whether spoken or written there is a communicator and a receiver, a writer and a reader, a speaker and a listener.

Is that so hard to grasp?

To be agreeable to everyone you mean? This is never the case, as it seems. After all, a friend to all is a friend to none. — Pussycat

No I am talking about the work to be 'agreeable' to the reader.

He [Wittgenstein] said that he could not sit down and read Hume, because he knew far too much about the subject of Hume’s writings to find this anything but a torture.

I rather like this, It could set a precedent. It means that one does not have to read the works of philosopher's past in order to philosophise, and not just Hume but also, Plato, Aristotle, Kant and so on.

It can even apply to Wittgenstein's works as well; though as I mentioned before the Tractatus is elegantly written.

And the point is that every philosophical work describes a model, or part of a model, of the world, and it is undoubtedly real for the author, but the question is : Is it real for anybody else?

Just because in Tractatus Wittgenstein claims " that is the case" does not mean that it is the case for anyone else. Internal self-consistency is not sufficient reason for others to accept it, it also requires the work to fit in with their own model of the world.

Very true, what do you plan to do after you die? — TheDarkElf

Surprise me! (as said by Bob Hope on being asked where he would like to be buried.)

How are you able to be so sure in your opinion? Have you found some proof that shows that there is no afterlife? — TheDarkElf

I don't need a proof. There is no evidence beyond warped hearsay.

But believe what you want. If it makes you happy to believe in an afterlife, I have no problem with that.

I feel like even within the same religions there is a large discrepancy between peoples views on afterlife and I'd love to hear some thoughts. — TheDarkElf

Views on an afterlife, beyond those of no afterlife, are all lies.

My friend recently was mocking someone behind their back. Of course we are told that this is wrong and some of our morales state that this is wrong. If the mocked person never finds out and it doesn’t affect the treatment that they receive is it actually an issue?

I know I sound cold and these aren’t my opinions I’m just posing the question. — TheDarkElf

Mocking someone says as much, if not more, about the mocker as it does about the mocked.

People use the word 'evil' to describe things they don't like, things they don't know how to cope with, things they fear.

I think rationality cannot exist without language. In the absence of language I think all that is left is the unconscious. — CeleRate

And the unconscious is entirely rational. Why wouldn't it be?

Tractatus is best viewed as a poem. It is elegantly written and tells a story, it describes a framework of ideas. But it is not strictly logical nor does it solve any problems, at least none that are not contrived.

It is not surprising that the later Wittgenstein rejected it as a foundation for his philosophy.

What do you think is needed in order to prove the reality of time — Gregory

A clock.

God created evil for his pleasure. Do you recognize the pleasure of creating and doing evil? — Gnostic Christian Bishop

Man created God for his pleasure.

↪A Seagull
I don't agree. I agree with the sentiment that it is unavoidable and natural, but death is, by definition, the absence of life. I believe your comment not to be applicable to my query. — JacobPhilosophy

Well that is your choice.

death is not inherently bad, but also that life is worth living; These two premises are contradictory in my opinion. If something (life) is worth keeping, then surely the removal of said thing is inherently negative, no? — JacobPhilosophy

Death is a part of life, just as much as birth.

Thank you for your pessimistic view of the world... happily I can ignore it.

If people want to wallow in misery, it is really no business of mine.

Is it possible to define anything, in a encompassing way, to describe something in a singular manner? — ISeeIDoIAm

Why do you want to define anything?

The only purpose of definitions is to facilitate communication as unambiguously as possible.

Thank you for that.

However it hardly constitutes a proof. And in any case I totally disagree. To claim that freedom is the freedom to do one's duty does not mean that that is the case.

The whole concept of duty is a fabrication by the flatulent elite to try to restrict the inherent freedoms of the peasantry.

If you pfft duty, you pfft freedom. — tim wood

Can you prove that?

Per Kant, freedom is just the freedom to do your duty, as reason discovers your duty to you — tim wood

Duty... pfft!

7. morality is of no value (5, 6 modus tollens) — TheMadFool

Then reject morality... no problem. :)

it is neccessary for something to be / to exist in order to be viewed as a "thing"? — Daniel C

Things are viewed as a 'thing' first and then the existence of the 'thing' is subsequently inferred.

Roger, in this context of existence, refers to himself as not a dualist but a trialist (a different form of Trialism) where he believes in: mind, matter, and mathematics as things existing universally, objectively. — 3017amen

I agree in general with this. But I would generalise 'mathematics' to the class of abstract logical systems, which would include mathematics but allow for other abstract logical systems.

It seems to me awkward to say that science is devoid of metaphysics. — Shawn

I would say that scientists do metaphysics a lot.

To use the concept of an electron to make predictions is science.

To claim that an electron exists (which scientists do al the time) is metaphysics.

And what do you use it for? — A Seagull
It's an important topic in philosophy, — Wayfarer

Well you may consider it to be an important topic in philosophy, but I don't.

Important topics in philosophy need to be clearly identified with clear ideas regarding them, otherwise they are indistinguishable from irrelevancies.

If a complex topic is to be divided into categories then those categories have to be clear and significant otherwise it is a pointless exercise.

IMO Kant fails to do this and also uses many words whose meaning is, at best, ambiguous which is why I regard it as an irrelevance.

Why do you consider it to be an important topic?

I suppose you could understand the hylomorphic schema as being like a kind of poetic allegory, but I find it extremely attractive as an idea. — Wayfarer

And what do you use it for?

While the understanding of what they intended to say may be significant, it is not essential. — A Seagull — tim wood

Hmm. The not-rhetorical question becomes, "How would you know?" With Kant, a question with some weight.[/quote]

Well yes , a crucial question.. How does one know anything?

With regard to the understanding of other people's contributions to philosophy, it is a personal thing. It comes down to whether their contribution fits in with what one already knows about the world. and whether their assumptions and logic make sense and are acceptable. And the amount of effort one exerts in trying to understand the contribution may depend upon how interesting one considers their conclusions to be.