Deleted

Anonymous
Posts: 4294964979
Joined: 1969-12-31
User is offlineOffline
Deleted

DELETED FOR REDUNDANCY


deludedgod
Rational VIP!ScientistDeluded God
deludedgod's picture
Posts: 3221
Joined: 2007-01-28
User is offlineOffline
Quote:

Quote:

Why do you quote Tractatus wrongly always and the other american guy ?

I did not quote anything from Wittgensteins work. And If I did, I certainly did not quote it incorrectly. The "other American guy", by the way, Wittgenstein was not American, rather Austrian. This reveals you have the inability to look up names and dates. The "other guy" is Willard Van Orman Quine. ANd his point is valid.

Could you please respond to my objections instead of making a blatant assertion?

Quote:

'What you cannot define coherently, you cannot speak of " is to be interpreted as it is better to avoid speaking about something that doesnt fit words of description, but it doesnt mean that such an entity doesnt or cannot exist.

Again, it is obvious that you did not read the essay about the Axiom of Identity. Please go back and read it. Because I already refuted you. And I will not do it again. Please do not make me go through this again.

Common Counter-Argument: Just because there is no identity does not mean it does not exist!

This fundamentally misses the point of the argument. The point is not to demonstrate that it does not exist, but rather that there is no “it” to speak of! Otherwise, the corollary of this exclamation is the simple question “What is it that you speak of “existing”? Make up a word. Does this word have meaning? Well, you may have proposed that the word refers to an concept that suggests existence, ie the word denotes a real-world concept. But suppose you have not, but you still hold that this word should denote. In this case would you ask whether or not the referred to something that existed? Not yet. First, you have to ask “what is it that we speak of existing”? Identity is the antecedent to existence. It is meaningless to speak of existence without identity, since that requisite is axiomatic and any attempt to argue against it would refute its own premise, as I have already established.

If you still do not understand this, please read the paper again until you do. This proposition is synthetic, not analytical.

Agan, thank you for demonstrating that you did not understand my argument, and did not take the time to actually read it. Seriously, why the bloody hell are you here if you aren't going to do the courtesy of READING your opponent's post? If you are too lazy and arrogant to go through a point-by-point discussion, do not waste my time. Just get out.

Quote:

Language as developed by humans can obviously be used coherently for describing what we can see. But a thing or entity which exists but lacking description , will surely fail definition. It is irrational on your part to put boundaries to only entities which can be described.

Again, by this very sentence, you are presupposing the constraints that you attempt to refute...I've only told you this fifteen times in a row.

If you don't understand this, please consult a dictionary and look up the word "retortion"

If you still don't understand, please refer back to the paper which you did not read, and the nature of the axiom of identity, which, again, you obviously do not understand, which is odd because it is the utter groundwork of all statements, synthetic and analytical, one can possibly make! That is why your proposition refutes itself! In your argument, each of your "points" presupposed the validity of the axiom of identity and excluded middle for their coherency. Thence, you cannot appeal to special pleading (which per se is fallacious) to defend an incoherent proposition! The mere act of calling it a proposition refutes teh argument for the soundness of said proposition. You cannot argue against tautology. In logic, anything that can be reworded into a tautology (such as the axiom of identity) is a necessary truth, by definition. You cannot get out of this. You are in a deadlock.

Denying the tautological foundation of epistemology itself will lead to a very quick collapse of your arguments. You cannot argue out of this. You are stuck fast. Every time you open your mouth, you will refute yourself. It cannot be done. Stop trying. There is no point, it will not work.

Again, there is no point in this. It is futile. MAke valid points, or get out.

Quote:

Firstly stop making ridiculous assertions that something cannot be false and true at the same time. Nature is abound with examples of things which are true as well as false , depends how you view them.

You are making a fallacy of conflation which shows you obviously do not understand Relative motion or basic physics. I suggest you go and study vector velocity and world lines.

Quote:

A Droplet of rain when it falls into the ocean will feel it is true to say that it exists discretely. From its perspective this is true. To an outside viewer this is false, you cannot talk of discrete droplets when you view the ocean. So it is false in his context.

This is an incorrect application of vector Relativity. You are conflating world lines with truth propositions. You are conflating the sense of the term in Kinematics with that used in philosophy. If you still do not understand this, please use a dictionary.

Again, this shows terrible ignorance of basic physics. Please go and review the Lorentz Metric again. Here's a hint to get you in the right direction:

g=dx2(1)+dx2(p)+dx2(p+1P+dx2(p+q), where q is R(p,q) in the Reinemann mainfold. In the Lorentz metric, all velocities and trajectories of material bodies have absolute referent with respect to the manifold itself (as per the equation above). Observers can interpret the event differently due to the Lorentz contraction or due to time dilation or due to the simple fact that all entities have a world line in both Minkowski and non-Minkowski space. Neither is justification for the fallacy of conflation you have made with respect to truth propositions and Excluded Middle axiom. In fact, in Einstinean Kinematics, observation is superseded by absolute referent, as opposed to Newtonian mecahnics.  That multiple entities have different perspective on the same event is not a reflection of the T/F dichotomy of the event in actuality. That is why the only observing bodies in Relativistic Kinematics providing us with an objective observation of how things are occuring is one in free-fall acceleration. Didn't you learn this in school? If one proposition was false and the other was true, they would contradict each other. Yet they do not because in Relativistic Kinematics, the observer interpretaion is due not only to the body itself (which itself has a world line) but those of the observing bodies. Vector Kinematics explicitly proclaims objective reality. Far from bolstering your position, your  analogy rends a hole in it. The only objective observers are those not affected by gravity, those in free-fall. When the apple struck Newton's head, from the perspective of the apple, Newton's head came upwards, from the perspective of the head, the apple came downwards. This does not violate the Law of Excluded MIddle, becaue neither proposition is actually "true". The only "true" proposition is that both bodies have Cartesian coordinates in Minkowski space relative to vectors described by the Lorentz transformation. This is an objective statement, so it is either true or false, it cannot be both.

Similiarily, a single world line cannot justify two simultaneous propositions which are contradictory (the two propositions of different wold lines are not contradictory because in Relativity they are not observing the same thing. This is kids stuff. If Object A is Observing Object B and Object C is observing Object B then the world line of C denoting its observation of B means the interpretation of Object B is with respect to its world line and that of object C. COntradistinctively, if Object A observes object B, then the observation will be with respect to the world line of object B from that of object A.

So the observations are different and the law of non-contradiction is safe, because they are observing different occurances. 

. IF you still do not understand this please consult a dictionary again). The former is what you are doing, and that is to err.

Actually, in that case, as a matter of technicality, it is objectively true to state that Newton's head came upwards and hit the apple, since the apple was in freefall.

Similarily, in your analogy, the most accurate observation was that of the raindrop, since that is in freefall. 

If you still do not understand that, please look up "extrinsic property".

Relativistic Kinematics is not justification for breaking the Law of Excluded Middle, because it conflates world line with non-empirical truth propositions. This is not a defensible proposition. For example consider the world line of a bullet in Minkowski space, which is fired at 500ms^-1 parallel to a Maglev train travelling at the same speed. Motion in vector kinematics is Relative to observing bodies, so from the perspective of the bullet, the train is still. From the perspective of the Earth, the train is moving depending on its vector relative to Earth's motion. Neither is "correct" in physics. The only thing that is "correct" is that the train has coordinates in Minkowski space according to the Lorentz metric denoting the causal structure of space time. That's it. The Law of Excluded MIddle Still applies. The train cannot be still relative to the bullet and moving very fast relative to the bullet. You are in a similiar situation. You cannot protest against this axiom, because you refute your own argument. Why, pray, can you not have the honesty to admit this?

If we wanted to measure the "true" vector of the train, a freefalling observer provides us with an object viewpoint due to the Einstein field equations, since spacetime is absolute.

If you still don't understand this, please review the basic topology of Minkowski space.

Lastly, how dare you have the gall to recommend that I read something when you will not read what I write and betray ignorance on a topic you should have done in high school!

However, there is one propositional set of rules that is slightly different, I will give you that. Your terrible analogy was invalid, but there is still a basic physics principle that makes use of non-axiomatic logical propositions, quantum logic makes use of the fact that wavefunction collapse does not follow from measuring one of many possible occurances that did occur, but rather that the act of measuring itself which causes the collapse forces the quantum particle into a definite state of property (this has been demonstrated over and over. It was demonstrated by the Bell experiments, by the double-split experiments, by the photon-gun experiments, by the diffraction experiments etc). This has critical implications for quantum probability functions, sum-over histories in particle physics, diffraction, quantum entanglement and decoherence. That's why in quantum logic we can appeal to the middle proposition, since the act of measuring the entity in question actually causes the wavefunction to collapse, as opposed to measuring a preexisting collapsed wavefunctio. Before that, any quantum waveparticle is highly amorphous due to the ambiguous nature of probability waves. This, of course, produces many bizarre results, including the sum-over histories experiment with the photon guns (this was a particularly clever concoction of Wheeler) and the Young Double-Slit experiment producing waveparticles. This leads to a set of logical expressions which are different from axiomatic logic. However, this does not apply above quantum level because macroscale physical bodies are not bound by quantum mechanics (we have not unified them).

EDIT:

Quote:

A Droplet of rain when it falls into the ocean will feel it is true to say that it exists discretely. From its perspective this is true. To an outside viewer this is false, you cannot talk of discrete droplets when you view the ocean. So it is false in his context.

Upon a second attempt at deciphering your post (which makes no sense), I realized that this was not an argument from vector relativity. Rather, it is not an "argument" at all. Using words properly is generally smiled upon in debate. Using them improperly such that you generate a sentence which is syntactically perfect (yours is not) but meaningless is rather reminiscent of the Chomskyian famous utterance: Colorless Green Ideas Sleep Furiously.

The most amusing part about this "exchange" (this is not really an exchange, rather it has just been me blowing you to pieces) is that in each one of your sentences, you have been implicitly presupposing the constraints you attempt to refute. You've shot yourself in the foot so many times you should have long since bled to death.

Could you please make sense from now on?

If your next post does not start showing more coherency and lucidity, if you do not formulate a real argument, If you insult me one more time and then accuse me of arrogance, I wil delete it. I don't think anyone will object given the magnitude of absurdity of our exchange. I have control over this thread, and if you want to be in here arguing, you better make a real, valid point. If I have to repeat myself, I am prepared to kick you out since you obviously are not interested in engaging in discussion since you obviously did not read my prior post. If you don't listen to your interlocutor, what use is there in being here? You may as well just leave. I want to have a discussion with you, but that entails that I expect we have a coherent exhcange of ideas, and that entails you fulfill a requisite you are obviously not capable of! Two, actually. One: Form coherent ideas and 2: Do not repeat your ideas your opponent already refuted (which means read your opponents post). For example, this statement:

Quote:

Laws, axioms, logic, Science etc are what we humans have understood , theorised . These will be valid for life as it is now or has been. All these are bound to break down at the end when it comes.

Is incoherent, garbled nonsense. Furthermore, you clearly have no idea what an "axiom" is. Your basic knowledge on this subject is...highly lacking. Please consult a dictionary. To say that an axiom could "break down" or "may not apply" is called a reification fallacy. An axiom is not a "thing", and you obviously understand nothing of what it actually is. They are not empirical, for that would be an internal contradiction! So how can they break down? matter can break down, once heated to the Planck Temperature, Empirical equations like the Einstein field equations break down at the Planck constant, but it is a category error to speak of axioms "breaking down", for how could any empirical change affect the anteceding system which is not bloody empirical! THat is why your statement had no meaning. It was vague, incoherent, and had a logical error in it. This is inexcusable nonsense.

That you did not know this merely reveals an inabillity to use the damn dictionary!

Could you please respond to my points instead

You see, If I am to be arrogant, at least I do not have the pretense of being condescending . Please do not refer to me as "my dear", please do not be so incredibly insufferably condescending, for what can possibly be more arrogant than proudly claiming your position is so correct you do not have to provide epistemic justification and the mere act of requesting epistmic justification is "arrogant". To me, therefore, you are acting like a vile, arrogant, idiotic child who deserves to have their arguments blasted to shreds. I am happy to do so. The term "rational egotist" should have been replaced with "thinking fundamentalist", which, of course, is oxymoronic. The mere act by me of critically thinking and applying skeptical logic to your propositions is not justification for you to insult me on grounds of propositions which you have defended by advocating epistemological anarchism! What can possibly be more arrogant and stupid than doing that! Imagine if I started arguing like you and kept insisting that you were thinking too much and needed to just accept my propositions and not critically examine them. This is exactly what you are doing. Surely you would be enraged, as I am. So, either stop this arrogant, self-refuting nonsense, buck up, make a valid point, or I will kick you out of this room before you can blink.

I suggest you follow these instructions for your next post unless you wish it deleted.

So, think carefully before your next post.

 

"Physical reality” isn’t some arbitrary demarcation. It is defined in terms of what we can systematically investigate, directly or not, by means of our senses. It is preposterous to assert that the process of systematic scientific reasoning arbitrarily excludes “non-physical explanations” because the very notion of “non-physical explanation” is contradictory.

-Me

Books about atheism


deludedgod
Rational VIP!ScientistDeluded God
deludedgod's picture
Posts: 3221
Joined: 2007-01-28
User is offlineOffline
The empty, meaningless

The empty, meaningless comments of my interlocutor remind me so forcefully of a very well-said statement by the philosopher Daniel Dennett:

"One reader of an early draft of this chapter complained at this point, saying that by treating the hypothesis of God as just one more scientific hypothesis, to be evaluated by the standards of science in particular and rational thought in general, Dawkins and I are ignoring the very widespread claim by believers in God that their faith is quite beyond reason, not a matter to which such mundane methods of testing applies. It is not just unsympathetic, he claimed, but strictly unwarranted for me simply to assume that the scientific method continues to apply with full force in this domain of faith.

Very well, let's consider the objection. I doubt that the defender of religion will find it attractive, once we explore it carefully. The philosopher Ronald de Sousa once memorably described philisophical theleology as 'intellectual tennis without a net,' and I readily allow that I have indeed been assuming without comment or question up to now that the net of rational judgment was up. But we can lower it if you really want to. It's your serve. Whatever you serve, suppose I return service rudely as follows: 'What you say implies that God is a ham sandwich wrapped in tin foil. That's not much of a God to worship!' If you then volley back, demanding to know how I can logically justify my claim that your serve has such a preposterous implication, I will reply: 'Oh, do you want the net up for my returns, but not for your serves? Either the net stays up, or it stays down. If the net is down, there are no rules and anybody can say anything, a mug's game if there ever was one. I have been giving you the benefit of the assumption that you would not waste your own time or mine by playing with the net down.'"

If you really want to excise logical reasoning and critical thinking from your epistemilogical position...fine. But then our discussion can simply be a meaningless slew of non sequiturs, meaningless statements which we can justify by not having to justify them. Granted, you seem to be doing this already, and I am not happy to engage in such a netless tennis match. Although I could, I would definitely have to struggle to generate nonsense with the same ease and fashion that you do!

Here's the deal: Stop playing out of your league, stop trying to squirm out of defending your position properly, stop appealling to special pleading, and start making some sense!

 

"Physical reality” isn’t some arbitrary demarcation. It is defined in terms of what we can systematically investigate, directly or not, by means of our senses. It is preposterous to assert that the process of systematic scientific reasoning arbitrarily excludes “non-physical explanations” because the very notion of “non-physical explanation” is contradictory.

-Me

Books about atheism


Hambydammit
High Level DonorModeratorRRS Core Member
Hambydammit's picture
Posts: 8657
Joined: 2006-10-22
User is offlineOffline
Quote: Why do you quote

Quote:
Why do you quote Tractatus wrongly always and the other american guy ?

Venk, the RRS boards are for debate, not bluster. If you have evidence that DG has misquoted someone, present the evidence. Misquote, by the way, does not mean "interpreted incorrectly." This is a serious accusation, and is not to be tossed around lightly.

If you believe DG to be interpreting incorrectly, provide your supporting evidence. You are familiar with the process of debate, right? You know that shouting your position louder or more often than the other guy does nothing but make you look like a troll, right?

Quote:
Language as developed by humans can obviously be used coherently for describing what we can see. But a thing or entity which exists but lacking description , will surely fail definition. It is irrational on your part to put boundaries to only entities which can be described.

This is not the first time you've said this, and you have been presented with a rebuttal. Repeatedly asserting your position without addressing rebuttal is considered trolling, and is not allowed on the forums. Either drop it, or address DG's rebuttal.

Quote:
Firstly stop making ridiculous assertions that something cannot be false and true at the same time. Nature is abound with examples of things which are true as well as false , depends how you view them.

A Droplet of rain when it falls into the ocean will feel it is true to say that it exists discretely. From its perspective this is true. To an outside viewer this is false, you cannot talk of discrete droplets when you view the ocean. So it is false in his context.

It is obvious to me that you have not fully read, or have not comprehended DG's posts. Your reply has nothing to do with the Law of Noncontradiction.

Quote:
Unless you read throught the tenets of Buddhism, Vedanta and, Taoism, your philosophical quest shall be verily incomplete. Suggest please dont call yourself to be rational by excluding from study philosophies which possibly are beyond you currently entirely due to 'rational' prejudice.

Again, you are asserting without any evidence. If there is a tenet, or several tenets of Buddhism that prove DG's position incomplete, post them.

Venk, please be aware that we try to hear all sides of every debate, but our patience is finite. If you have evidence for your side, present it. If you don't, stop repeating yourself.

Consider this your first warning: Repeated spamming with unsupported assertions is considered thread hijacking and may result in either a temporary or permanent ban, at the mod team's discretion.

Make with the supporting evidence, or drop it.

 

Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin

http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism