Debates on Christianity, Creation vs Evolution, Philosophy, Politics and Religion, Ethics, Current Events, and Religious issues

Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next

Reply to topic
olavisjo
First Post
PostPosted: Tue Oct 22, 2013 4:54 am  A new math Reply with quote

This topic is for discussing errors in our current understanding of math.
Post BBCode URL - Right click and save to clipboard to use later in post Post 21: Wed Oct 23, 2013 12:35 pm
Reply

Like this post
JohnA wrote:

I do not read conjectures such as gravitons can by some DI mystical experience explain GR or Newton's Gravity at the macro scale.


I see. So now you calling the Standard Model of Particle Physics, "DI Mysticism".

Good. I'm glad to see that I'm in such good company. Wink

JohnA wrote:

i) set theory based on an idea of an Empty Set. Well write a paper and show them it is false. Let me know when they have accepted it.


Trying to convince modern mathematicians that their mathematics is wrong is like trying to convince Christian Evangelists to convert to atheism.

As soon as you suggest that you are going to show why the Empty Set is logically flawed they begin their own obscurantism to defend their faith that it can make sense and is working without a hitch. After all, they actually believe that it works!

JohnA wrote:

ii) Absolute Negative Numbers: I think it is useful. Do not use it of it bothers you. It seems to me you do not like it because you think numbers are properties of quantities.


The Cardinal definition of number is indeed that it is the quantitative property of a collection of individual objects. That was the first definition of number, and actually still retains the position of being considered to be the "Cardinal" or most fundamental definition of number. But now, in part because of Empty Set theory, even this Cardinal definition has become obscure and ambiguous.

We know have additional definitions for the concept of number that actually have absolutely nothing at all to do with this first Cardinal definition.

My point is simple. When we recognized that we need a "NEW" definition for number we should have realized at that point that we are actually introducing a totally "NEW" concept, and appropriately give it a "NEW" name. Why continue to call this "NEW" concept number when it's clearly a whole new concept?

This is where mathematicians have made a grave error. They actually have several totally different definitions for the concept of number. They don't seem to realize that these different definitions actually represent new concepts in their own right.

JohnA wrote:

iii) cardinal numbers / sets. I think they are useful. I agree that Cantor's reservation of absolute infinity for his god is ridiculous. Actually, I have not seen any argument that can convince me that we can not have an actual infinity


I have no problem with the original idea of infinity as nothing other than an endless process. Whether such an infinite process can exist in nature is irrelevant. We can comprehend that concept of an infinite process. It's simply a process that never ends. We cannot "complete" the process, and that's all we need to understand in order to comprehend it. We don't need to imagine the process being completed in order to comprehend the idea.

However, Cantor treats infinity as a "Completed Process", and even as a "Completed Quantity". In this way he tries to assign Cardinal Properties to different infinite sets. And in mathematics a "Cardinal Property" is simply the original cardinal definition of number as the quantitative property of a collection of individual things. This is what Cantor means by when he speaks of the "Cardinality" of an infinite set.

And so Cantor's mathematics requires that there are Cardinally larger and smaller infinities. Which is absurd.

Cantor's whole system requires that we treat infinite sets as though they can be both "Completed" and "Counted".

And it's utterly absurd. I shouldn't need to prove the absurdity of this to any mathematician. Mathematicians who have accepted this kind of absurdity are already lost. They have already gone over the dam of obscurantism with no chance of ever coming back into the world of rational reason.

Things you claim I reject in science"
JohnA wrote:

Science:
i) String Theory. Agree, it is conjecture.
ii) Possibly the big bang. So, why and what do you suggest?


Well at least we are in agreement on String Theory. Wink

I don't reject the Big Bang. On the contrary I think the evidence for a Big Bang is rock-solid. However, what is still unclear is precisely how we should think of the Big Bang. I'm not convinced that we should think of it as a geometric point that is expanding in the 3 spatial dimensions of the spacetime fabric. That could be a totally wrong idea.

So it's not the Big Bang itself that I reject. But I may reject some conclusions people jump to concerning what they believe the Big Bang model to actually be.

Not that I believe in M-theory (which grew out of String Theory), but M-theorists have an idea of preexisting membranes that have actually collided producing something more along the line of a "Big Ting" (where the "ting" is like hitting a tuning fork) This is what would happen if two branes were to collide (according to M-Theorists). Yet from our point of view this would appear exactly as a "Big Bang".

So the universe may not have started from a "singularity" or a single point as the original Big Bang theory speculates. It may have actually started everywhere at once, and then expanded. The difference being that when we extrapolate backwards in that scenario we don't end up with a single point, but rather with a non-vibrating "brane" that can be extremely large.

So there are many ideas 'beyond' the Big Bang that don't actually refute the observations that are compatible with the Big Bang. The Big Bang does not necessarily demand that the universe began at an extremely small point. It could have began everywhere at once. And then expanded.

Anyway, that's a totally different topic. Wink

JohnA wrote:

Logic:
i) So, you do not want your own system of logic anymore?


I never did. That was your strawman claim from the get go.

I just recognize that logic and mathematics are two different things.

Logic is in NO WAY dependent upon Cantor's Empty Set theory, for example.

JohnA wrote:

Dictionaries
i) You do not reject any. You are just not happy with disagreements and contradictions between dictionaries. Maybe you should write a book and point these out. I will buy it!


For me the purpose of language is that it is a TOOL we have invented to help communicate ideas from one mind to another. Therefore the purpose of language is a TOOL, not not a WEAPON.

If we want to understand the concepts that we are attempting to convey, then we need to give the other person leeway to use words that they feel best convey their ideas. If we don't understand how they are using a particular word, or if what they say doesn't seem to make sense, then we should ASK them for clarification of their concepts.

Becoming aggressively offensive where we start to use semantic arguments as a WEAPON to beat the other person down is futile. That approach is not conducive to communication. On the contrary it is nothing other than an act of semantic warfare where one person is just trying to discredit another person by using semantics as a WEAPON.

I'll tell you quite frankly John, if you're not interested in my ideas, or your goal is to simply discredit me as being some kind of "mystical freak" then that's your agenda. That's a war-like agenda to begin with.

I have no interest in partaking in that kind of war. If you aren't interested in my ideas fine. I have no problem with that and I'm more than willing to agree to disagree with you at any time.


JohnA wrote:

I ignored the rest of you post. I already told you that I reject your conditional statement as the tool you are using to make a conclusion. I am the critique, so you need to convince me to MY standards, not the other way around --- and I explained to you why your conditional statement is not acceptable. Even you yourself just wrote: "ALL LOGIC is dependent upon foundational unprovable premises. And therefore any logical reasoning is always suspect because it may be based upon false premises. Logic is only as sound as its underlying unprovable premises. " So, based on your statement on logic, I also use that to dismiss your conditional statement as rubbish. You had to walk into it.....


You are looking at my conditional statement from a perspective that I had never intended it.

My conditional statement is neither an argument, nor is it any sort of proof of anything. Neither does the conditional statement itself demand that any particular conclusion be made.

So everything you are claiming about this conditional statement is itself rubbish.

I used this conditional statement because I simply want to weed out people who are going to argue against the hypothesis.

I simply have no interest in conversing with anyone who does not require that mathematics correctly describes the quantitative nature of physical reality.

This is why I created this conditional statement precisely the way I did.

"IF modern mathematical formalism is supposed to correctly describe the quantitative nature of our physical universe, THEN our current modern mathematical formalism is wrong".

By doing so I can easily claim that this statement is TRUE.

Here's the truth table again John:



There only ONE CONDITION when this conditional statement is FALSE.

And that is the only condition that I'm interested in debating.

You want to reject P and claim that my conditional statement is also FALSE.

But you can't do that. The truth table doesn't allow for that John.

If you reject the truth of P then you are claiming that P is FALSE. And if P is FALSE then the conditional statement overall is TRUE just as I had stated it must be.

You cannot have your cake and eat it too. You can't claim that P is FALSE AND my conditional statement P -> Q is also FALSE. The truth table does not permit this.

There no condition where P is False and P -> Q is also false. That situation is not permitted by the truth table itself.

So if you reject P, then you must accept my claim that P -> Q is TRUE.

The only time you can argue against my claim that P -> Q is TRUE is to demand that P -> Q must be FALSE. And there's only ONE CONDITION where that can be true.

It's only true when P is TRUE, and Q is FALSE.

And that is the only situation that I am interested in debating.

This is precisely why I have chosen this particular conditional statement as the basis for any arguments to follow.

I simply have no desire to argue with anyone who believe that P is FALSE.

That is the whole point to my conditional statement and the ONLY purpose of it.

It is not an argument of any kind. It is not a proof of anything.

It's just a statement concerning what I'm interested in debating and not debating.

That's all it is John.

And clearly you believe P to be FALSE, therefore there's no point in us debating this issue any further. The truth value of Q is totally irrelevant to you.

Look at the Truth Table John.

Once you have concluded that P is False, the truth of Q no longer matters.

So there is no reason to argue over Q once you have proclaimed P to be FALSE.

That's the whole point of this conditional statement John.

Goto top, bottom
View user's profile 
Post BBCode URL - Right click and save to clipboard to use later in post Post 22: Wed Oct 23, 2013 5:08 pm
Reply

Like this post
Divine Insight wrote:

JohnA wrote:

I do not read conjectures such as gravitons can by some DI mystical experience explain GR or Newton's Gravity at the macro scale.


I see. So now you calling the Standard Model of Particle Physics, "DI Mysticism".

Good. I'm glad to see that I'm in such good company. Wink

JohnA wrote:

i) set theory based on an idea of an Empty Set. Well write a paper and show them it is false. Let me know when they have accepted it.


Trying to convince modern mathematicians that their mathematics is wrong is like trying to convince Christian Evangelists to convert to atheism.

As soon as you suggest that you are going to show why the Empty Set is logically flawed they begin their own obscurantism to defend their faith that it can make sense and is working without a hitch. After all, they actually believe that it works!

JohnA wrote:

ii) Absolute Negative Numbers: I think it is useful. Do not use it of it bothers you. It seems to me you do not like it because you think numbers are properties of quantities.


The Cardinal definition of number is indeed that it is the quantitative property of a collection of individual objects. That was the first definition of number, and actually still retains the position of being considered to be the "Cardinal" or most fundamental definition of number. But now, in part because of Empty Set theory, even this Cardinal definition has become obscure and ambiguous.

We know have additional definitions for the concept of number that actually have absolutely nothing at all to do with this first Cardinal definition.

My point is simple. When we recognized that we need a "NEW" definition for number we should have realized at that point that we are actually introducing a totally "NEW" concept, and appropriately give it a "NEW" name. Why continue to call this "NEW" concept number when it's clearly a whole new concept?

This is where mathematicians have made a grave error. They actually have several totally different definitions for the concept of number. They don't seem to realize that these different definitions actually represent new concepts in their own right.

JohnA wrote:

iii) cardinal numbers / sets. I think they are useful. I agree that Cantor's reservation of absolute infinity for his god is ridiculous. Actually, I have not seen any argument that can convince me that we can not have an actual infinity


I have no problem with the original idea of infinity as nothing other than an endless process. Whether such an infinite process can exist in nature is irrelevant. We can comprehend that concept of an infinite process. It's simply a process that never ends. We cannot "complete" the process, and that's all we need to understand in order to comprehend it. We don't need to imagine the process being completed in order to comprehend the idea.

However, Cantor treats infinity as a "Completed Process", and even as a "Completed Quantity". In this way he tries to assign Cardinal Properties to different infinite sets. And in mathematics a "Cardinal Property" is simply the original cardinal definition of number as the quantitative property of a collection of individual things. This is what Cantor means by when he speaks of the "Cardinality" of an infinite set.

And so Cantor's mathematics requires that there are Cardinally larger and smaller infinities. Which is absurd.

Cantor's whole system requires that we treat infinite sets as though they can be both "Completed" and "Counted".

And it's utterly absurd. I shouldn't need to prove the absurdity of this to any mathematician. Mathematicians who have accepted this kind of absurdity are already lost. They have already gone over the dam of obscurantism with no chance of ever coming back into the world of rational reason.

Things you claim I reject in science"
JohnA wrote:

Science:
i) String Theory. Agree, it is conjecture.
ii) Possibly the big bang. So, why and what do you suggest?


Well at least we are in agreement on String Theory. Wink

I don't reject the Big Bang. On the contrary I think the evidence for a Big Bang is rock-solid. However, what is still unclear is precisely how we should think of the Big Bang. I'm not convinced that we should think of it as a geometric point that is expanding in the 3 spatial dimensions of the spacetime fabric. That could be a totally wrong idea.

So it's not the Big Bang itself that I reject. But I may reject some conclusions people jump to concerning what they believe the Big Bang model to actually be.

Not that I believe in M-theory (which grew out of String Theory), but M-theorists have an idea of preexisting membranes that have actually collided producing something more along the line of a "Big Ting" (where the "ting" is like hitting a tuning fork) This is what would happen if two branes were to collide (according to M-Theorists). Yet from our point of view this would appear exactly as a "Big Bang".

So the universe may not have started from a "singularity" or a single point as the original Big Bang theory speculates. It may have actually started everywhere at once, and then expanded. The difference being that when we extrapolate backwards in that scenario we don't end up with a single point, but rather with a non-vibrating "brane" that can be extremely large.

So there are many ideas 'beyond' the Big Bang that don't actually refute the observations that are compatible with the Big Bang. The Big Bang does not necessarily demand that the universe began at an extremely small point. It could have began everywhere at once. And then expanded.

Anyway, that's a totally different topic. Wink

JohnA wrote:

Logic:
i) So, you do not want your own system of logic anymore?


I never did. That was your strawman claim from the get go.

I just recognize that logic and mathematics are two different things.

Logic is in NO WAY dependent upon Cantor's Empty Set theory, for example.

JohnA wrote:

Dictionaries
i) You do not reject any. You are just not happy with disagreements and contradictions between dictionaries. Maybe you should write a book and point these out. I will buy it!


For me the purpose of language is that it is a TOOL we have invented to help communicate ideas from one mind to another. Therefore the purpose of language is a TOOL, not not a WEAPON.

If we want to understand the concepts that we are attempting to convey, then we need to give the other person leeway to use words that they feel best convey their ideas. If we don't understand how they are using a particular word, or if what they say doesn't seem to make sense, then we should ASK them for clarification of their concepts.

Becoming aggressively offensive where we start to use semantic arguments as a WEAPON to beat the other person down is futile. That approach is not conducive to communication. On the contrary it is nothing other than an act of semantic warfare where one person is just trying to discredit another person by using semantics as a WEAPON.

I'll tell you quite frankly John, if you're not interested in my ideas, or your goal is to simply discredit me as being some kind of "mystical freak" then that's your agenda. That's a war-like agenda to begin with.

I have no interest in partaking in that kind of war. If you aren't interested in my ideas fine. I have no problem with that and I'm more than willing to agree to disagree with you at any time.


JohnA wrote:

I ignored the rest of you post. I already told you that I reject your conditional statement as the tool you are using to make a conclusion. I am the critique, so you need to convince me to MY standards, not the other way around --- and I explained to you why your conditional statement is not acceptable. Even you yourself just wrote: "ALL LOGIC is dependent upon foundational unprovable premises. And therefore any logical reasoning is always suspect because it may be based upon false premises. Logic is only as sound as its underlying unprovable premises. " So, based on your statement on logic, I also use that to dismiss your conditional statement as rubbish. You had to walk into it.....


You are looking at my conditional statement from a perspective that I had never intended it.

My conditional statement is neither an argument, nor is it any sort of proof of anything. Neither does the conditional statement itself demand that any particular conclusion be made.

So everything you are claiming about this conditional statement is itself rubbish.

I used this conditional statement because I simply want to weed out people who are going to argue against the hypothesis.

I simply have no interest in conversing with anyone who does not require that mathematics correctly describes the quantitative nature of physical reality.

This is why I created this conditional statement precisely the way I did.

"IF modern mathematical formalism is supposed to correctly describe the quantitative nature of our physical universe, THEN our current modern mathematical formalism is wrong".

By doing so I can easily claim that this statement is TRUE.

Here's the truth table again John:



There only ONE CONDITION when this conditional statement is FALSE.

And that is the only condition that I'm interested in debating.

You want to reject P and claim that my conditional statement is also FALSE.

But you can't do that. The truth table doesn't allow for that John.

If you reject the truth of P then you are claiming that P is FALSE. And if P is FALSE then the conditional statement overall is TRUE just as I had stated it must be.

You cannot have your cake and eat it too. You can't claim that P is FALSE AND my conditional statement P -> Q is also FALSE. The truth table does not permit this.

There no condition where P is False and P -> Q is also false. That situation is not permitted by the truth table itself.

So if you reject P, then you must accept my claim that P -> Q is TRUE.

The only time you can argue against my claim that P -> Q is TRUE is to demand that P -> Q must be FALSE. And there's only ONE CONDITION where that can be true.

It's only true when P is TRUE, and Q is FALSE.

And that is the only situation that I am interested in debating.

This is precisely why I have chosen this particular conditional statement as the basis for any arguments to follow.

I simply have no desire to argue with anyone who believe that P is FALSE.

That is the whole point to my conditional statement and the ONLY purpose of it.

It is not an argument of any kind. It is not a proof of anything.

It's just a statement concerning what I'm interested in debating and not debating.

That's all it is John.

And clearly you believe P to be FALSE, therefore there's no point in us debating this issue any further. The truth value of Q is totally irrelevant to you.

Look at the Truth Table John.

Once you have concluded that P is False, the truth of Q no longer matters.

So there is no reason to argue over Q once you have proclaimed P to be FALSE.

That's the whole point of this conditional statement John.


You were the one that previously rejected the Standard Model. And now you tried to say that hypothetical theoretical gravitons in the standard Model show state that QM applies to the macro world via GR. You are arguing using something you reject, and this something is hypothetical anyway. How on earth is that logical?

I reject your conditional statement since it can not conclude anything. The hypothetical proposition (P-Q) is invalid, your hypothesis P has not been demonstrated and your conclusion Q has not been demonstrated.

P is not a proposition, it is a hypothesis.
You need to show cause-and-effect for P -> Q, addressing the problems with using Discrete Math in English Language to show your hypothetical proposition is valid and sound.
Your conclusion Q needs to be demonstrated.
You cannot have a conclusion without having a valid sound argument.

Consider this example:
Given;
P: DI offers a conditional statement
Q: Math is flawed.
Problem; What does P->Q represent?

The sentence, "DI offers a conditional statement" is the hypothesis and the sentence, "Math is flawed" is the conclusion. Thus, the conditional P->Q represents the hypothetical proposition, "If DI offers a conditional statement, then Math is flawed." However, as you can see from the truth table above, DI offering a conditional statement does not guarantee that math is flawed! In other words, there is not always a cause-and-effect relationship between the hypothesis and conclusion of a conditional statement.
Not only that, but if you substitute DI with JohnA, and remember that I am not offering a conditional statement, then regardless if Q is true or false (Math is flawed or not), you still suggest that P->Q is still True. So, you are stating this is still true "If JohnA offers a conditional statement, then Math is flawed." That is just absurd. You are merely begging the question since you already decided that Math is flawed and will persist even if you or I offer a conditional statement.

You are using faulty logic DI. And for that you tell me to get lost?
You should say: "Well thank you JohnA, you helped me today, I should not straw man you."

Goto top, bottom
View user's profile 
Post BBCode URL - Right click and save to clipboard to use later in post Post 23: Wed Oct 23, 2013 6:22 pm
Reply

Like this post
JohnA wrote:

You were the one that previously rejected the Standard Model. And now you tried to say that hypothetical theoretical gravitons in the standard Model show state that QM applies to the macro world via GR. You are arguing using something you reject, and this something is hypothetical anyway. How on earth is that logical?


To begin with it doesn't matter whether I accept or reject a particular model. If a model is widely accepted and it make certain conjectures and hypotheses then it's perfectly legitimate of me to point that out. I don't need to necessarily agree with.

Besides where did I reject the Standard Model? It's not even a "Theory" it's just a model of what has been observed. Rolling Eyes

I don't reject the Standard Model of particle physics. But I will be quick to point out the FACT that even physicists themselves no longer believe that these things are actually "particles". That's a given. That's not my own personal rejection.

JohnA wrote:

I reject your conditional statement since it can not conclude anything. The hypothetical proposition (P-Q) is invalid, your hypothesis P has not been demonstrated and your conclusion Q has not been demonstrated.


I don't need to demonstrate the hypothesis P. I am given you that one John.

You are more than FREE to reject the hypothesis of my conditional statement. I won't argue with you over that. That's the whole POINT to this conditional statement in the first place, which you still aren't understanding.

JohnA wrote:

P is not a proposition, it is a hypothesis.


It's BOTH. And you are free to accept it or reject it. You have chosen to reject.

And that's the WHOLE POINT of the conditional statement. Once you have rejected the Hypothesis you are FREE to go on your merry way. You clearly have absolutely no interest in the truth value of Q at that point.

JohnA wrote:

You need to show cause-and-effect for P -> Q, addressing the problems with using Discrete Math in English Language to show your hypothetical proposition is valid and sound.
Your conclusion Q needs to be demonstrated.
You cannot have a conclusion without having a valid sound argument.


You are wrong. I am ALLOWING for you to reject the TRUTH of P.

I'm GIVING that to you.

You are MORE THAN WELCOME to reject the TRUTH of P.

That's the whole point John.

I don't need to prove P to you. If you reject it, all that says is that you have no interest in the truth value of Q.

JohnA wrote:

Consider this example:
Given;
P: DI offers a conditional statement
Q: Math is flawed.
Problem; What does P->Q represent?


This is a perfectly legitimate conditional statement. But it's YOUR STATEMENT.

Therefore it UP TO YOU, to prove that this statement is true overall.

I personally don't feel that there is enough information in your hypothesis. What conditional statement are you referring to in your hypothesis? My original one?

Fine, I accept that your P is TRUE.

Now it's UP TO YOU to demonstrate how that leads to YOUR CONCLUSION Q = Mathe is flawed.

If you can do that, then you will have succeeded in proving to me that your conditional statement is TRUE overall. If you can't demonstrate this, then I have no reason to accept your claim that Q is TRUE.

JohnA wrote:

The sentence, "DI offers a conditional statement" is the hypothesis and the sentence, "Math is flawed" is the conclusion. Thus, the conditional P->Q represents the hypothetical proposition, "If DI offers a conditional statement, then Math is flawed." However, as you can see from the truth table above, DI offering a conditional statement does not guarantee that math is flawed! In other words, there is not always a cause-and-effect relationship between the hypothesis and conclusion of a conditional statement.


That's not a problem John. Because this conditional statement has the option of being FALSE!

It doesn't need to be true unless YOU can SHOW that it's true.

This is basic Logic 101 John, come on!

JohnA wrote:

Not only that, but if you substitute DI with JohnA, and remember that I am not offering a conditional statement, then regardless if Q is true or false (Math is flawed or not), you still suggest that P->Q is still True. So, you are stating this is still true "If JohnA offers a conditional statement, then Math is flawed." That is just absurd. You are merely begging the question since you already decided that Math is flawed and will persist even if you or I offer a conditional statement.


But no one ever said that this conditional statement HAS TO BE TRUE John.

It could be true that JohnA offered a conditional statement but Q (i.e. Math is flawed) is FALSE. In which case the whole conditional statement is then FALSE.

JohnA wrote:

You are using faulty logic DI. And for that you tell me to get lost?
You should say: "Well thank you JohnA, you helped me today, I should not straw man you."


You are so wrong about conditional statements John.

EVERY conditional statement does not need to be TRUE.

The Truth Table allows for a condition to exist where the conditional statement is FALSE.

See:



When P is TRUE and Q is FALSE the conditional statement overall is then FALSE.

So you are not understanding the logical truth values of conditional statements.

I used this particular conditional statement precisely because of how this logical truth table works.

I chose it precisely because of how it works out.

The only way it can be false is when you accept the TRUTH of P, AND reject the TRUTH of Q.

You have already chosen to reject the TRUTH of P.

Therefore this conditional statement is TRUE FOR YOU! Like it or not.

But all this really means John is that you couldn't give a hoot less about the truth value of Q.

That's all it means to you.

And that is precisely why I chose it.

If you reject the truth of P, then you are stating that you couldn't care less about the truth of Q.

Therefore you have no interest in this topic.

This topic is solely concerned with the truth value of Q.

A topic that you clearly have no interest in at all since you flatly reject P.

I'm not interested in arguing over P.

That's precisely why I place this conditional statement as a prerequisite for debate.

If you want to argue over P, find someone else to argue with.

I'm not interested in arguing over P.

That's the WHOLE POINT John.

Goto top, bottom
View user's profile 
Post BBCode URL - Right click and save to clipboard to use later in post Post 24: Wed Oct 23, 2013 6:45 pm
Reply

Like this post
Divine Insight wrote:

JohnA wrote:

You were the one that previously rejected the Standard Model. And now you tried to say that hypothetical theoretical gravitons in the standard Model show state that QM applies to the macro world via GR. You are arguing using something you reject, and this something is hypothetical anyway. How on earth is that logical?


To begin with it doesn't matter whether I accept or reject a particular model. If a model is widely accepted and it make certain conjectures and hypotheses then it's perfectly legitimate of me to point that out. I don't need to necessarily agree with.

Besides where did I reject the Standard Model? It's not even a "Theory" it's just a model of what has been observed. Rolling Eyes

I don't reject the Standard Model of particle physics. But I will be quick to point out the FACT that even physicists themselves no longer believe that these things are actually "particles". That's a given. That's not my own personal rejection.

JohnA wrote:

I reject your conditional statement since it can not conclude anything. The hypothetical proposition (P-Q) is invalid, your hypothesis P has not been demonstrated and your conclusion Q has not been demonstrated.


I don't need to demonstrate the hypothesis P. I am given you that one John.

You are more than FREE to reject the hypothesis of my conditional statement. I won't argue with you over that. That's the whole POINT to this conditional statement in the first place, which you still aren't understanding.

JohnA wrote:

P is not a proposition, it is a hypothesis.


It's BOTH. And you are free to accept it or reject it. You have chosen to reject.

And that's the WHOLE POINT of the conditional statement. Once you have rejected the Hypothesis you are FREE to go on your merry way. You clearly have absolutely no interest in the truth value of Q at that point.

JohnA wrote:

You need to show cause-and-effect for P -> Q, addressing the problems with using Discrete Math in English Language to show your hypothetical proposition is valid and sound.
Your conclusion Q needs to be demonstrated.
You cannot have a conclusion without having a valid sound argument.


You are wrong. I am ALLOWING for you to reject the TRUTH of P.

I'm GIVING that to you.

You are MORE THAN WELCOME to reject the TRUTH of P.

That's the whole point John.

I don't need to prove P to you. If you reject it, all that says is that you have no interest in the truth value of Q.

JohnA wrote:

Consider this example:
Given;
P: DI offers a conditional statement
Q: Math is flawed.
Problem; What does P->Q represent?


This is a perfectly legitimate conditional statement. But it's YOUR STATEMENT.

Therefore it UP TO YOU, to prove that this statement is true overall.

I personally don't feel that there is enough information in your hypothesis. What conditional statement are you referring to in your hypothesis? My original one?

Fine, I accept that your P is TRUE.

Now it's UP TO YOU to demonstrate how that leads to YOUR CONCLUSION Q = Mathe is flawed.

If you can do that, then you will have succeeded in proving to me that your conditional statement is TRUE overall. If you can't demonstrate this, then I have no reason to accept your claim that Q is TRUE.

JohnA wrote:

The sentence, "DI offers a conditional statement" is the hypothesis and the sentence, "Math is flawed" is the conclusion. Thus, the conditional P->Q represents the hypothetical proposition, "If DI offers a conditional statement, then Math is flawed." However, as you can see from the truth table above, DI offering a conditional statement does not guarantee that math is flawed! In other words, there is not always a cause-and-effect relationship between the hypothesis and conclusion of a conditional statement.


That's not a problem John. Because this conditional statement has the option of being FALSE!

It doesn't need to be true unless YOU can SHOW that it's true.

This is basic Logic 101 John, come on!

JohnA wrote:

Not only that, but if you substitute DI with JohnA, and remember that I am not offering a conditional statement, then regardless if Q is true or false (Math is flawed or not), you still suggest that P->Q is still True. So, you are stating this is still true "If JohnA offers a conditional statement, then Math is flawed." That is just absurd. You are merely begging the question since you already decided that Math is flawed and will persist even if you or I offer a conditional statement.


But no one ever said that this conditional statement HAS TO BE TRUE John.

It could be true that JohnA offered a conditional statement but Q (i.e. Math is flawed) is FALSE. In which case the whole conditional statement is then FALSE.

JohnA wrote:

You are using faulty logic DI. And for that you tell me to get lost?
You should say: "Well thank you JohnA, you helped me today, I should not straw man you."


You are so wrong about conditional statements John.

EVERY conditional statement does not need to be TRUE.

The Truth Table allows for a condition to exist where the conditional statement is FALSE.

See:



When P is TRUE and Q is FALSE the conditional statement overall is then FALSE.

So you are not understanding the logical truth values of conditional statements.

I used this particular conditional statement precisely because of how this logical truth table works.

I chose it precisely because of how it works out.

The only way it can be false is when you accept the TRUTH of P, AND reject the TRUTH of Q.

You have already chosen to reject the TRUTH of P.

Therefore this conditional statement is TRUE FOR YOU! Like it or not.

But all this really means John is that you couldn't give a hoot less about the truth value of Q.

That's all it means to you.

And that is precisely why I chose it.

If you reject the truth of P, then you are stating that you couldn't care less about the truth of Q.

Therefore you have no interest in this topic.

This topic is solely concerned with the truth value of Q.

A topic that you clearly have no interest in at all since you flatly reject P.

I'm not interested in arguing over P.

That's precisely why I place this conditional statement as a prerequisite for debate.

If you want to argue over P, find someone else to argue with.

I'm not interested in arguing over P.

That's the WHOLE POINT John.


Again, your 'argument' is flawed because whether I reject P or not, it has nothing to you accepting Q. THAT IS THE 1ST CENTRAL problem. And you have not shown p->Q is valid.

DI,
For me to convince me of anything, I need:
1) Logic - the logic needs to be valid
2) Arguments - the argument needs to be valid
3) Evidence - that would make the argument sound.

I honestly think Philosophy is rubbish since it can not prove or disprove anything. That is why I rely on evidence to make rubbish philosophical arguments sound. And you need to have the logic in place then the argument will be valid too. I do not accept arguments. I do not accept valid arguments. I only accept sound and valid arguments which necessitates using the scientific method to analyze the evidence

You are stuck at 1). And I have shown that your logic is flawed. Not that valid conditional statements are flawed (besides not addressing 2 and 3 thus can not be sound), but that you application of Discrete Math conditional statement for your "argument" is flawed/invalid.


You can continue and assume whatever you want (your straw man that I say you P is false therefore it does not apply to me - even-though you will still keep on arguing your invalid logic is valid). My position on your P has nothing to do with the fact that YOUR Discrete Math conditional statement 'argument' is illogical.

Goto top, bottom
View user's profile 
Post BBCode URL - Right click and save to clipboard to use later in post Post 25: Tue Nov 05, 2013 12:49 pm
Reply

Like this post
JohnA wrote:

Again, your 'argument' is flawed because whether I reject P or not, it has nothing to you accepting Q. THAT IS THE 1ST CENTRAL problem. And you have not shown p->Q is valid.


You keep arguing that my conditional statement is invalid logic and "strawman". But it's not. That is your own strawman argument.


JohnA wrote:

DI,
For me to convince me of anything, I need:
1) Logic - the logic needs to be valid


My logic is valid. You reject my hypothesis P, therefore, for you, the truth value of my conclusion Q is totally irrelevant.

What I don't understand is why you can't understand this very simple point.

JohnA wrote:

2) Arguments - the argument needs to be valid


My arguments are valid. But they aren't going to appear to be valid to you because you have already rejected my hypothesis. Which in this case is paramount to my conclusion.

There is my conditional statement from the OP.

"IF modern mathematical formalism is supposed to correctly describe the quantitative nature of our physical universe, THEN our current modern mathematical formalism is wrong".

What I'm saying in layman's terms is simply this. If mathematical formalism is supposed to correctly describe the quantitative nature of our physical universe then our current modern mathematical formalism is wrong.

So what are you doing? You are rejecting the idea that mathematical formalism is supposed to correctly describe the quantitative nature of our physical universe.

And then you are challenging me prove that mathematical formalism is wrong anyway.

But duh? If you remove my hypothesis from the picture then how could I show that mathematical formalism is "wrong"? What would it mean for mathematical formalism to be "wrong"? Wrong about what?

I'm saying that IF mathematical formalism is supposed to correctly describe the quantitative nature of our physical universe THEN it's wrong.

So if you reject my hypothesis P, then it makes no sense for you to still hold me to the task of proving the conclusion Q.

I can't prove that mathematics is wrong in general. In fact, I'm not even making that claim. If you allow that mathematics does not need to correctly describe the true nature of our physical universe, and you're content with that situation, then how could I prove that to be wrong? Think

We'd be arguing pure philosophy at that point. I'd need to argue with you entirely against your purely subjective opinion that mathematics doesn't need to correctly describe the quantitative physical universe.

Why would I even bother? That would be pure philosophy. We would just be arguing about personal subjective opinions at that point. We be arguing over nothing more than what we each believe mathematics ought to be. And that would be nothing more than a purely philosophical subjectively opinionated debate.

This is precisely why I put my challenge in the form of this conditional statement. I have no interest in arguing purely subjective philosophical opinions with people.

JohnA wrote:

3) Evidence - that would make the argument sound.


And I have plenty of evidence. But you haven't heard any of it yet, and you most likely never will hear any of it because you have missed the point of my conditional statement right off the bat. You are still stuck in philosophical arguments concerning personal subjective opinions.

If you reject my hypothesis P : Modern mathematical formalism is supposed to correctly describe the quantitative nature of our physical universe


They you have already rejected the very essence of my argument of why I believe mathematics to be wrong.

Look at it this way John. Suppose the hypothesis is instead H: Modern mathematical formalism does not need to correctly describe the quantitative nature of our physical universe


Fine, if that's your view, then I cannot say that modern mathematical formalism is wrong given that hypothesis. Wrong with respect to what? Think

So if you are demanding that I prove or show evidence for why mathematical formalism is wrong after you have already rejected my hypothesis P, then you haven't even begun to understand what I'm trying to say.

I do not claim that mathematical formalism is wrong if it's not supposed to correctly describe the quantitative nature of the physical universe.

If you allow that mathematical formalism doesn't need to do that, then how can I say that it's wrong? I'm saying that it's only wrong if it claims to correctly describe the quantitative nature of the physical universe.

So before we could even remotely begin to move forward in a meaningful discussion you would need to understand and accept my hypothesis P. If you refuse to do that then it's absurd for me to even begin to discuss my conclusion Q with you.

I am only claiming that my conclusion Q is true if P is true.

If you reject P, then you have no interest in my conclusion Q.

This is precisely why I have put it in the form of this conditional statement. To weed out any need to argue with people who reject P.

But you claim to reject P. So we're done. My conditional statement remains "True" just as I had stated.

Look at the truth table.



If you reject P as being False, then my conditional statement is True.

The only people who need to argue with my conditional statement are those people who accept the truth of P, but reject the truth of Q.

That's the whole point to putting it in the form of this conditional statement John.

JohnA wrote:

I honestly think Philosophy is rubbish since it can not prove or disprove anything.


Fine, then you should appreciate my conditional statement all the more. I have no interest in arguing with people over whether or not mathematics should correctly describe the quantitative nature of our physical universe. Apparently that view is entirely a philosophical view that anyone can subjectively chose to accept or reject on a whim.

I have no desire to argue philosophy, and that's precisely why I chose to limit my discussions to only those who accept the truth of P.

If you reject P, then, at that point you are only interested in arguing philosophy.

If you accept the truth of P, then we can move forward to see why mathematical formalism fails in this specific situation.

JohnA wrote:

That is why I rely on evidence to make rubbish philosophical arguments sound. And you need to have the logic in place then the argument will be valid too. I do not accept arguments. I do not accept valid arguments. I only accept sound and valid arguments which necessitates using the scientific method to analyze the evidence


If what you say here is true, then you too should reject current modern mathematical formalism because currently it is NOT a science and cannot be validated using scientific methods.

On the contrary, I am proposing that mathematics CAN be made scientific, but in order to do this we must first accept the truth of P. Without allowing P to be true it would be futile to try to make mathematics scientific.

JohnA wrote:

You are stuck at 1). And I have shown that your logic is flawed. Not that valid conditional statements are flawed (besides not addressing 2 and 3 thus can not be sound), but that you application of Discrete Math conditional statement for your "argument" is flawed/invalid.


It's not flawed at all. On the contrary you are simply misunderstanding it. My conditional statement is not stating any concrete result. Therefore it is neither an argument, nor is it an absolute statement about anything. It's Truth Value needs to be demonstrated.

Look at the truth table again John:



This conditional statement can either be true or false. And the truth table shows exactly when it is true, and when it is false.

It's only false in ONE situation. And that is when P is TRUE and Q is FALSE.

If you reject the truth value of P, then you've already concluded that the conditional statement is indeed TRUE (albeit uninteresting and meaningless to you).

The truth value of Q is no longer important to you at that point. In other words, as soon as you reject P you are basically saying that you have absolutely no interest at all in the truth value of Q. It no longer matters whether it's true or false. This is the case because by rejecting the truth of P, you have rendered the truth value of Q irrelevant.

That is precisely why I chose this conditional statement John.

I have no interest in arguing personal philosophies over whether people subjectively accept the truth of P or not.

JohnA wrote:

You can continue and assume whatever you want (your straw man that I say you P is false therefore it does not apply to me - even-though you will still keep on arguing your invalid logic is valid). My position on your P has nothing to do with the fact that YOUR Discrete Math conditional statement 'argument' is illogical.


You're rejection of P coupled with your continual insistence that you want to argue with me over this conditional statement simply tells me that all you want to do is argue purely subjective philosophical rubbish (to use your own descriptive adjective).

If you reject P, AND you understand the truth table of this conditional statement, then you should have absolutely no desire to even discuss anything further with me on this matter.

The fact that you are still arguing over this tells me that you either don't understand how to read truth tables, or you just want to argue over meaningless subjective philosophical rubbish (as you call it).

If you reject the truth of P we're done.

I'm only interested in discussing the truth value of Q with people who have already accepted that P at least should be true.

The whole purpose of my conditional statement is to discourage needless arguments over subjective opinionated philosophical rubbish.

In short, John, all my conditional statement is saying it that I have no desire to waste time arguing with people who reject the truth of P.

You reject the truth of P.

So you should have bowed out way back on the first page.

Goto top, bottom
View user's profile 
Post BBCode URL - Right click and save to clipboard to use later in post Post 26: Tue Nov 05, 2013 7:31 pm
Reply

Like this post
[Replying to post 25 by Divine Insight]

Am sorry, you are still failing at the logic bit. I pointed this out already.
Am not going to take this bait and show your points inconsistent, your straw man is not helping your case.
I pointed out the 3 things you need to do to convince me of your claim.
You are trying to use math (discrete Math in language) to show math is flawed. That is not coherent. That is a fundamental failure of logic on your part.

Goto top, bottom
View user's profile 
Post BBCode URL - Right click and save to clipboard to use later in post Post 27: Tue Nov 05, 2013 7:40 pm
Reply

Like this post
JohnA wrote:

I pointed out the 3 things you need to do to convince me of your claim.


I don't need to convince you of anything John. You have already rejected the hypothesis of my conditional statement. And that's precisely why I put it in that form.

Once you reject that, I no longer need to convince you of anything. You're not among the people that I am interested in trying to convince.

What part of that are you not understanding? Think

Goto top, bottom
View user's profile 
Post BBCode URL - Right click and save to clipboard to use later in post Post 28: Tue Nov 05, 2013 7:48 pm
Reply

Like this post
Divine Insight wrote:

JohnA wrote:

I pointed out the 3 things you need to do to convince me of your claim.


I don't need to convince you of anything John. You have already rejected the hypothesis of my conditional statement. And that's precisely why I put it in that form.

Once you reject that, I no longer need to convince you of anything. You're not among the people that I am interested in trying to convince.

What part of that are you not understanding? Think

The bit that you refuse to accept is that you are straw manning me. I do not have to accept or reject your P. That is because you fail at the logic bit. Trying to use math to show math is fallacious, it's a fundamental failure of logic on your part. I can explain it to you, but I can not make you understand it. That is your job.

Goto top, bottom
View user's profile 
Post BBCode URL - Right click and save to clipboard to use later in post Post 29: Tue Nov 05, 2013 9:10 pm
Reply

Like this post
OK, let's just consider DI's conditional statement. I think P is false, but I will set that aside for the time being.

Quote:

"IF modern mathematical formalism is supposed to correctly describe the quantitative nature of our physical universe, THEN our current modern mathematical formalism is wrong".


I need a precise definition of "wrong."

Do you mean "logically inconsistent?"

Or, do you by contrast mean that mathematics makes assertions that are contrary to other known facts, either about the physical world or not?

Do you mean something else altogether?

You should be able to provide a fairly simple, short paragraph definition of what exactly you mean, here.

Goto top, bottom
View user's profile 
Post BBCode URL - Right click and save to clipboard to use later in post Post 30: Tue Nov 05, 2013 9:33 pm
Reply

Like this post
JohnA wrote:

The bit that you refuse to accept is that you are straw manning me. I do not have to accept or reject your P. That is because you fail at the logic bit. Trying to use math to show math is fallacious, it's a fundamental failure of logic on your part. I can explain it to you, but I can not make you understand it. That is your job.


I'm not straw manning you at all John. You're just not understanding what I'm saying and why I began with my conditional statement.

My conditional statement has nothing at all to do with any proofs, arguments, or logic involved in demonstrating any conclusions about mathematics. The mere fact that you think it does only reveals that you don't understand what I'm saying at all.

All I'm saying in this conditional statement is that I have no desire to waste time arguing with anyone who doesn't already accept that mathematics should correctly describe the quantitative nature the physical universe.

That's all this conditional statement is saying. Period.

Why would I want to bother arguing with people who aren't at least on the same page that I'm on?

I offer this conditional statement for one reason and one reason only: To weed out people who are going to argue that mathematics doesn't need to correctly describe the quantitative nature of physical reality.

In other words, if you reject the hypothesis of my conditional statement then you are on an entirely different page from me. You clearly aren't concerned with whether mathematics correctly describes physical reality or not.

So why would I even want to bother discussing this topic with you?

You have already shown that you aren't even interested in accepting my prime hypothesis.

That is the ONLY PURPOSE of this conditional statement John. It's doesn't "prove" anything about anything. It's not a logical conclusion. It can either be true or false at this point.

If you reject the hypothesis then look at the Truth Table John. You have accepted the truth of the conditional statement by default.

The only way you can argue that the statement is false it to assert that P is TRUE and Q is FALSE. And it is only those people that I'm interested in debating with.

You have already rejected the truth of P, therefore you're out. You're in a group that I don't care to discuss the matter with. Apparently you are happy with a mathematics that does not correctly describe the true nature of the physical universe.

And that's fine. There's no problem with that. I just have no reason to argue with you on that. If you're happy with P being false, then more power to you. I'm not going to waste my time trying to convince you otherwise, because at that point we'd just be arguing subjective philosophical opinions. Something that even you claim to reject as "rubbish".

I don't want to waste my time on that "rubbish" either. And that's precisely why I have constructed my conditional statement exactly as I have constructed it. I did this specifically to weed out useless philosophical arguments that amount to nothing more than subjective opinions.

You can't even get past this initial simple thing. I'm not sure if I would even want to bother discussing the rest of it with you even if were you to accept the truth of P at this point. You have already demonstrated to me that you have trouble understanding the simplest ideas.

My conditional statement is simply stating that I'm not interested in discussing the matter with anyone who rejects P.

That's all it's saying and it's not making any statements or conclusions about mathematics in general at all. Before it can do that P must be accepted as being TRUE and then a demonstration that Q is either True or False must follow that.

But you have rejected P already, so you're done.

Look at the truth table John:



Once you have rejected the truth of P, the truth value of Q no longer matters.

Goto top, bottom
View user's profile 
Display posts from previous:   

Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next

Jump to:  
Facebook
Tweet

 




On The Web | Ecodia | Hymn Lyrics Apps
Facebook | Twitter

Powered by phpBB © phpBB Group.   Produced by Ecodia.

Igloo   |  Lo-Fi Version