Find fields & stores near you!
Find fields and stores
Zipcode
PbNation News
PbNation News
Community Focus
Community Focus

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 12-23-2009, 12:20 AM #43
Flying_Dutchman
 
 
Flying_Dutchman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Quote:
Originally Posted by Aaron5604 View Post
Well... if math is derived from logic, then I guess logic would be derived from probability within nature. Though, IF our existence proves over time to be fully unpredictable, you would then render "logic" as a useless tool, thus leaving math valueless, given that consistent patterns at that point would serve as nothing more than a human fallacy.

I don't believe that, but I suppose in philosophy anything is really possible...
This is not intended as malicious, but you never ever seem to say anything relevent or intelligible. I don't understand. Based on your interests and some things you say I assume you're intelligent, but seriously you always completely miss the point.

Logic isn't derived from anything...


Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr.Phil.McGraw View Post
when logic is ignored then the validity of any argument is void.
Including the one you just made...
Flying_Dutchman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Sponsored Links Remove Advertisement
Advertisement
Old 12-23-2009, 04:04 AM #44
Aaron5604
Nothing is what it seems
 
Aaron5604's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Oklahoma
Quote:
Originally Posted by Flying_Dutchman View Post
Logic isn't derived from anything...
I disagree...

Logic/Quantify - A scientific process used to determine/discover, cannot reasonably come before. You must first identify at least two variables, preferably constant in behavior, before applying step #2 (logic).

So, logic has to be derived from something else in order for it to reasonably take shape. Otherwise, problem solving would be virtually impossible since it would all be backwards. Quite simply, it would be like trying to establish your sum first, before establishing your equation, which practically makes zero sense.

Exa:

4 can't logically equal 4, w/out first knowing that 2 + 2 or 1 + 3 (etc.) first exist. Literally speaking, logic is how we're able to put 2 and 2 together, though w/out our 2's first, we're stuck; therefore, saying that logic serves as something other than a derivative found within nature would have to be illogical from a subsequent standpoint.

*Edit*

Unless we have yet to question the validity of mathematics in here, I believe my posts would apply to at least some degree, given that this is technically philosophy
__________________
"Seeing Is Believing" and Ignorance is DEFINITELY bliss.

JL Audio - 1000/1 Amp + 3 10W3V3 Subs (Enclosed) + Focal Access 130A1 Comps. for sale. PM me for details.

Last edited by Aaron5604 : 12-23-2009 at 04:26 AM.
Aaron5604 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-23-2009, 04:40 PM #45
Flying_Dutchman
 
 
Flying_Dutchman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Quote:
Originally Posted by Aaron5604 View Post
I disagree...

Logic/Quantify - A scientific process used to determine/discover, cannot reasonably come before. You must first identify at least two variables, preferably constant in behavior, before applying step #2 (logic).

So, logic has to be derived from something else in order for it to reasonably take shape. Otherwise, problem solving would be virtually impossible since it would all be backwards. Quite simply, it would be like trying to establish your sum first, before establishing your equation, which practically makes zero sense.

Exa:

4 can't logically equal 4, w/out first knowing that 2 + 2 or 1 + 3 (etc.) first exist. Literally speaking, logic is how we're able to put 2 and 2 together, though w/out our 2's first, we're stuck; therefore, saying that logic serves as something other than a derivative found within nature would have to be illogical from a subsequent standpoint.

If logic is derived from experience, then by what cognitive means do we derive it and deem it true? There is an a priori faculty present - call it whatever you want.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Aaron5604 View Post
Unless we have yet to question the validity of mathematics in here, I believe my posts would apply to at least some degree, given that this is technically philosophy

Your posts apply to the general topic of this subforum, yes, but you just seem really off. A lot of time you misuse words and your general prose seems confused. I'm sure you're a pretty intelligent guy, you just don't seem to be able to express it through writing very well.
Flying_Dutchman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-23-2009, 05:06 PM #46
Aaron5604
Nothing is what it seems
 
Aaron5604's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Oklahoma
Quote:
Originally Posted by Flying_Dutchman View Post
If logic is derived from experience, then by what cognitive means do we derive it and deem it true? There is an a priori faculty present - call it whatever you want.
Not experience, fact -- I honestly believe there's a clear difference, even if it's a subtle one.

Again, for example:

If 4's our sum, (or outcome) wouldn't it then be logical to state 2 + 2 (or, 1 + 3) as more of an "experience" rather than subjective?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Flying_Dutchman View Post
Your posts apply to the general topic of this subforum, yes, but you just seem really off. A lot of time you misuse words and your general prose seems confused. I'm sure you're a pretty intelligent guy, you just don't seem to be able to express it through writing very well.
Are people here not rehashing the validity of math, whether it be just a language (or syntax) for interpretation, being a housing (or outer shell) to something more?

Seems to me, that such an argument would be the premise to this discussion.
__________________
"Seeing Is Believing" and Ignorance is DEFINITELY bliss.

JL Audio - 1000/1 Amp + 3 10W3V3 Subs (Enclosed) + Focal Access 130A1 Comps. for sale. PM me for details.

Last edited by Aaron5604 : 12-23-2009 at 05:46 PM.
Aaron5604 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-23-2009, 07:24 PM #47
Flying_Dutchman
 
 
Flying_Dutchman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Quote:
Originally Posted by Aaron5604 View Post
Not experience, fact -- I honestly believe there's a clear difference, even if it's a subtle one.

Again, for example:

If 4's our sum, (or outcome) wouldn't it then be logical to state 2 + 2 (or, 1 + 3) as more of an "experience" rather than subjective?



Are people here not rehashing the validity of math, whether it be just a language (or syntax) for interpretation, being a housing (or outer shell) to something more?

Seems to me, that such an argument would be the premise to this discussion.

This is exactly what I'm talking about.



Logic is not derivable. It's self-sufficient. No matter which way you slice it, if logic is something derived, then the manner in which we derive it is a priori, meaining logic is ultimately a priori. You make absolutely no sense.
Flying_Dutchman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-23-2009, 08:08 PM #48
Aaron5604
Nothing is what it seems
 
Aaron5604's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Oklahoma
Quote:
Originally Posted by Flying_Dutchman View Post
This is exactly what I'm talking about.

Logic is not derivable. It's self-sufficient. No matter which way you slice it, if logic is something derived, then the manner in which we derive it is a priori, meaining logic is ultimately a priori. You make absolutely no sense.
This is really besides the point, but I'll go ahead and bite anyways

Deductive reasoning/"logic" (a priori) is based upon assumption, which still aligns w/ "experience" not fact, and definitely not absolute.

Relative theory is still a process which first requires knowledge.

*edit2*

Whoops! I had it backwards: A priori is knowledge derived from deductive reasoning/logic.
__________________
"Seeing Is Believing" and Ignorance is DEFINITELY bliss.

JL Audio - 1000/1 Amp + 3 10W3V3 Subs (Enclosed) + Focal Access 130A1 Comps. for sale. PM me for details.

Last edited by Aaron5604 : 12-23-2009 at 08:25 PM.
Aaron5604 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-24-2009, 01:03 AM #49
HTMLrulezD00D
lolwut
 
HTMLrulezD00D's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: 412/614
Guys don't worry. I take Honors Physics at a 11 Grade level, i'll take care of this.
__________________
pure hate
HTMLrulezD00D is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-24-2009, 02:32 AM #50
madgoat
Troll_Extraordinaire
 
madgoat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Homewood, IL
madgoat has achieved Level 3 in PbNation Pursuit
Quote:
Originally Posted by Aaron5604 View Post
Not experience, fact -- I honestly believe there's a clear difference, even if it's a subtle one.

Again, for example:

If 4's our sum, (or outcome) wouldn't it then be logical to state 2 + 2 (or, 1 + 3) as more of an "experience" rather than subjective?



Are people here not rehashing the validity of math, whether it be just a language (or syntax) for interpretation, being a housing (or outer shell) to something more?

Seems to me, that such an argument would be the premise to this discussion.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Aaron5604 View Post
This is really besides the point, but I'll go ahead and bite anyways

Deductive reasoning/"logic" (a priori) is based upon assumption, which still aligns w/ "experience" not fact, and definitely not absolute.

Relative theory is still a process which first requires knowledge.

*edit2*

Whoops! I had it backwards: A priori is knowledge derived from deductive reasoning/logic.
It seems you are using a different definition of "logic" then the one used in philosophy. Logic in philosophy is the principles of gaining knowledge, not the knowledge itself.
__________________
Honey Badger University Professor of Women Studies, Dean of Student Affairs
madgoat is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-24-2009, 04:06 AM #51
Aaron5604
Nothing is what it seems
 
Aaron5604's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Oklahoma
Quote:
Originally Posted by madgoat View Post
It seems you are using a different definition of "logic" then the one used in philosophy. Logic in philosophy is the principles of gaining knowledge, not the knowledge itself.
Really, I don't think it matters on what sort of "logic" we use, whether that be deductive, inductive, etc... They're all a process we use in life; a means to an end, by attempting to uncover the truth.

But yes, I would have to agree Philosophically speaking, "logic" isn't knowledge, which is why I believe logic is derived from knowledge, being that knowledge (of some kind) first, is really the only way we're capable of logic to begin w/.
__________________
"Seeing Is Believing" and Ignorance is DEFINITELY bliss.

JL Audio - 1000/1 Amp + 3 10W3V3 Subs (Enclosed) + Focal Access 130A1 Comps. for sale. PM me for details.
Aaron5604 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-24-2009, 01:38 PM #52
madgoat
Troll_Extraordinaire
 
madgoat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Homewood, IL
madgoat has achieved Level 3 in PbNation Pursuit
Quote:
Originally Posted by Aaron5604 View Post
Really, I don't think it matters on what sort of "logic" we use, whether that be deductive, inductive, etc... They're all a process we use in life; a means to an end, by attempting to uncover the truth.

But yes, I would have to agree Philosophically speaking, "logic" isn't knowledge, which is why I believe logic is derived from knowledge, being that knowledge (of some kind) first, is really the only way we're capable of logic to begin w/.
No, logic is the process of inference, aka the process of gaining knowledge. Using this definition it is the basis of everything, therefore it can't be derived from anything.
__________________
Honey Badger University Professor of Women Studies, Dean of Student Affairs
madgoat is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-24-2009, 04:25 PM #53
Aaron5604
Nothing is what it seems
 
Aaron5604's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Oklahoma
Quote:
Originally Posted by madgoat View Post
No, logic is the process of inference, aka the process of gaining knowledge. Using this definition it is the basis of everything, therefore it can't be derived from anything.
And what good would a process be, (logic) w/out its inherent knowledge? How are you able to analyze, w/out FIRST having something to analyze?

For example:

What good would math be, w/out numbers? what good would numbers be, w/out its discoveries?

Therefore, logic (specific thinking patterns) and exact knowledge have to be separate...
__________________
"Seeing Is Believing" and Ignorance is DEFINITELY bliss.

JL Audio - 1000/1 Amp + 3 10W3V3 Subs (Enclosed) + Focal Access 130A1 Comps. for sale. PM me for details.

Last edited by Aaron5604 : 12-24-2009 at 04:27 PM.
Aaron5604 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-24-2009, 05:08 PM #54
Flying_Dutchman
 
 
Flying_Dutchman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Quote:
Originally Posted by Aaron5604 View Post
This is really besides the point, but I'll go ahead and bite anyways

Deductive reasoning/"logic" (a priori) is based upon assumption, which still aligns w/ "experience" not fact, and definitely not absolute.

Relative theory is still a process which first requires knowledge.

*edit2*

Whoops! I had it backwards: A priori is knowledge derived from deductive reasoning/logic.

You know "a priori" is a descriptive term right? It's not a noun and it isn't synonymous with logic, it describes a cetain aspect of logic.

We assume that logic is true, yes, because if we don't, then we (paradoxically) have any basis for that claim either. Understand?

Please don't respond to my posts anymore. No offense but you really muddle up the discussion. You can PM me if you want.
Flying_Dutchman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-24-2009, 07:30 PM #55
Aaron5604
Nothing is what it seems
 
Aaron5604's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Oklahoma
Quote:
Originally Posted by Flying_Dutchman View Post
You know "a priori" is a descriptive term right? It's not a noun and it isn't synonymous with logic, it describes a cetain aspect of logic.
No, you've got it backwards. A priori describes a kind of knowledge (not logic) gained from deductive reasoning.

Funny thing is, you're proving this theory and you aren't even aware.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Flying_Dutchman View Post
We assume that logic is true, yes, because if we don't, then we (paradoxically) have any basis for that claim either. Understand?
I think I do, yes. But do you understand? Because, there's no argument here that logic exists as being true.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Flying_Dutchman View Post
Please don't respond to my posts anymore. No offense but you really muddle up the discussion. You can PM me if you want.
Since when does a thread not ever get "muddled" up around here at some point? Besides, I'm not convinced that I am off topic; you're the one who decided to split hairs by trying to differentiate between the two, logic (deductive) and knowledge, (a priori; experience rather than empirical) which really has no bearing on anything.
__________________
"Seeing Is Believing" and Ignorance is DEFINITELY bliss.

JL Audio - 1000/1 Amp + 3 10W3V3 Subs (Enclosed) + Focal Access 130A1 Comps. for sale. PM me for details.
Aaron5604 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-24-2009, 07:40 PM #56
Smart Parts Player12
 
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: South Jersey
Quote:
Originally Posted by Flying_Dutchman View Post
You know "a priori" is a descriptive term right? It's not a noun and it isn't synonymous with logic, it describes a cetain aspect of logic.

We assume that logic is true, yes, because if we don't, then we (paradoxically) have any basis for that claim either. Understand?

Please don't respond to my posts anymore. No offense but you really muddle up the discussion. You can PM me if you want.
Why do you have to be such a pompous poster. You're no better than he is, stop acting like it. You're a second year philosophy student probably, you don't know much.
__________________
But if we get on the treadmill together, there's two things: You're getting off first, or I'm going to die. It's really that simple, right?
Smart Parts Player12 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-25-2009, 07:11 PM #57
Flying_Dutchman
 
 
Flying_Dutchman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Quote:
Originally Posted by Smart Parts Player12 View Post
Why do you have to be such a pompous poster. You're no better than he is, stop acting like it. You're a second year philosophy student probably, you don't know much.
Third Year. I never claimd to know very much, sorry if I come off pompous. This is mainly directed at Aaron.His posts make absolutely no sense. Do you diagree?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Aaron5604 View Post
No, you've got it backwards. A priori describes a kind of knowledge (not logic) gained from deductive reasoning.
We're agreeing here and you apparetly didn't realize it. The way you said it in your last post made it seem like you had the wrong idea (this is what I was talking about with te whole writing thing). But you had it, my mistake.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Aaron5604 View Post
I think I do, yes. But do you understand? Because, there's no argument here that logic exists as being true.
Which is the entire point you seem to be missing. We HAVE to assume logic is true, because if we don't then what is that claim based on? If you claim logic isn't true, then your argument is automatically self-defeating. That was my original point in response to Madgoat.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Aaron5604 View Post
Since when does a thread not ever get "muddled" up around here at some point? Besides, I'm not convinced that I am off topic; you're the one who decided to split hairs by trying to differentiate between the two, logic (deductive) and knowledge, (a priori; experience rather than empirical) which really has no bearing on anything.
This makes absolutely no sense.

As I said before; I don't think you're unintelligent and I don't think I know everything. You may be far more advanced than me philosophiocally and yet you do not express that in your posts. All I have to go on is what you write, so just because you understand something in your head, doesn't mean I or anyone else will understand unless you write it coherently.

This response may not suffice because you weren't clear and therefore I'm confused, but Logic and Knowledge are two compeltely different things. Logic is a means of knowledge. As far as modern phlosophy is concerned, logic is a priori, knowledge is not. And I was never even attempting to draw that distinction, I was merely showing that challenging logic is a paradox.
Flying_Dutchman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-26-2009, 02:14 AM #58
Aaron5604
Nothing is what it seems
 
Aaron5604's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Oklahoma
Quote:
Originally Posted by Flying_Dutchman View Post
Logic is a means of knowledge.
And initially, that's where I disagree. I'm suggesting, that knowledge is a means of logic.

If logic preceded knowledge in existence, (as you state...) than that would be like saying: It's possible to analyze the post before its ever created.

So, when you look at it from that aspect, you can then carry onward to what I was trying to mention earlier.

All I'm trying to do, is add an additional angle to what's already been discussed. I think that's what makes my posts confusing.
__________________
"Seeing Is Believing" and Ignorance is DEFINITELY bliss.

JL Audio - 1000/1 Amp + 3 10W3V3 Subs (Enclosed) + Focal Access 130A1 Comps. for sale. PM me for details.

Last edited by Aaron5604 : 12-26-2009 at 02:29 AM.
Aaron5604 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-26-2009, 01:37 PM #59
JohnyGfunk
Back then it was chess
 
JohnyGfunk's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Somewhere
 has been a member for 10 years
here

I remember doing this stuff but now that it has been 3 years or so since I took modern as well as nuclear all I can remember is the principle and not how to do them very well. However, it sounds like you are on the right track and sorry to hear that you failed this questions as I'm sure there were harder ones.
__________________
"I want to eat his children" Mike Tyson

My feedback +24 / -0

BUY MY STUFF: ALL MUST GO
JohnyGfunk is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-27-2009, 03:40 PM #60
Dr.Phil.McGraw (Banned)
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: at Harpo industrial chem
Quote:
Originally Posted by JohnyGfunk View Post
here

I remember doing this stuff but now that it has been 3 years or so since I took modern as well as nuclear all I can remember is the principle and not how to do them very well. However, it sounds like you are on the right track and sorry to hear that you failed this questions as I'm sure there were harder ones.
good link.

although my main problem I had was going from a given uncertainty in position, to an exact energy value (not an uncertainty in energy).

thanks for the help.
Dr.Phil.McGraw is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-27-2009, 05:13 PM #61
Smart Parts Player12
 
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: South Jersey
Quote:
Originally Posted by FrontMenDie1st View Post
that question is a bit over my physics knowledge, however i ask this in response, how could something that complicated work without a higher being putting it into motion?
Is that really your response? "I can't understand it so it must be god". How do planes fly? I don't know, God?
__________________
But if we get on the treadmill together, there's two things: You're getting off first, or I'm going to die. It's really that simple, right?
Smart Parts Player12 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-05-2010, 10:41 PM #62
som3 dud3
Hop stars
 
som3 dud3's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Wisconsin
Quote:
Originally Posted by Aaron5604 View Post
If logic preceded knowledge in existence, (as you state...) than that would be like saying: It's possible to analyze the post before its ever created.
It seems to me like this is wrong. Being precedes logic and logic precedes knowledge. Ignoring what being is, something in a state of being could use logic to gain access to/aquire knowledge.
som3 dud3 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-06-2010, 12:47 AM #63
Aaron5604
Nothing is what it seems
 
Aaron5604's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Oklahoma
Quote:
Originally Posted by som3 dud3 View Post
It seems to me like this is wrong. Being precedes logic and logic precedes knowledge. Ignoring what being is, something in a state of being could use logic to gain access to/aquire knowledge.
Here's another basic example:

Knowledge = A & B:

In order to derive from A, to create B, you must first have A. W/out A, B is logically impossible, right? Therefore, knowledge must precede logic so that all systems (forms of logic) are in a position to expand over time. But again, w/out first acquiring A, (knowledge) a means to logically process information holds no value if such a step would had ceased to exist.

How we all develop (being that reason generally sets in during the later stages of our lives) is I believe to be quite evident in support of these claims. Basically, a baby will start to gather what he/she perceives through his/her environment, while (subsequently) proceed onward -- by attempting to connect the dots in a rational manner.

I mean obviously, you've gotta first acquire the dots, before you can go about figuring out a way to connect them, right?
__________________
"Seeing Is Believing" and Ignorance is DEFINITELY bliss.

JL Audio - 1000/1 Amp + 3 10W3V3 Subs (Enclosed) + Focal Access 130A1 Comps. for sale. PM me for details.

Last edited by Aaron5604 : 01-06-2010 at 12:50 AM.
Aaron5604 is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools

Posting Rules
Forum Jump