A new math

Discuss Physics, Astronomy, Cosmology, Biology, Chemistry, Archaeology, Geology, Math, Technology

Moderator: Moderators

JohnA
Banned
Banned
Posts: 752
Joined: Fri Sep 13, 2013 5:11 am

Post #21

Post by JohnA »

Divine Insight wrote:
JohnA wrote: You claimed that QM can explain the macro universe. So, tell me how does QM explain gravity (me standing on earth and not floating away)?
It doesn't explain it in detail. But in theory it could. It could explain it in terms of subatomic particles called gravitons. In fact, this is the proposal in the Standard Model. It's not a completed or experimentally verified hypothesis, but it's a hypothesis that is at least compatible with the theory and plausible within that theory.

There is nothing in General Relativity that even remotely allows for quantum effects.

So my point is that QM is potentially upward compatible to the macro world, at least in theory. But the opposite is not true of GR.

You seem to always avoid my questions.

How many physicists do you know who are searching for Continuum Theory to replace Quantum Mechanics? :-k
JohnA wrote: Which areas of math do you reject? And Why.
I reject the a set theory based on an idea of an Empty Set.

The reason I reject this is because it is extremely logically flawed. It's based on totally illogical constructs, and it produces absurd conclusions. It is a formalism that by its very own predictions has proven itself to be false by contradiction.

The very idea that there are endless collections that are more endless than other endless conclusions is itself an absurd conclusion. Thus it proves itself to be a false formalism by it's own absurd contradictions.

It's also totally unnecessary.

There are many other areas of mathematics that I disagree with. There is no need to speak of "Absolute Negative Numbers". That's an absurdity too. The negative property of a quantity is a relative property that requires an external context.

Things like negativity are not absolute properties of quantities such as a set or collection of objects. On the contrary negativity is only produced when one set is doing something relative to another set. Therefore negative is not an "absolute" property of the concept of quantity. It's a relative property between sets.

Yet our current mathematical formalism treats negative quantities as though they are some sort of absolute concept, which they are not.

We also don't need to treat irrational relationship as though they are cardinal properties of sets. That's absurd, and totally unproductive. There is no such thing as a collection of things that has the quantitative property of pi for example. Unless you treat distance as though it's a thing, but that's a folly that we should have avoided early on. Unfortunately we didn't so now we're stuck with this folly.
JohnA wrote: Which areas of science do you reject? And Why.
I can't think of too much of anything in actual science that I reject. Now I do have some problems with calling something like String Theory "Science". It's far from science, and most physicists will own up to that. In fact, many very prominent scientists question whether String Theory is "science" or "philosophy".

I can argue that String Theory is nothing more than an attempt to continue mathematics beyond where mathematics may even apply physically. If QM is true, then mathematics as we know it may break down at the Planck scale. If that's the case then describing "strings" that are smaller than the Planck scale to be vibrating according to known wave mechanics is silly. Yet this is what String Theory depends upon.

So I don't view String Theory as valid "science". But I accept the more obvious things like evolution, the age of the Earth, and even the age of the universe, and possible a "Big Bang" of some sort. Although it's unclear precisely how we should think of the "Big Bang".
JohnA wrote: Which areas of logic do you reject? And Why.
I don't know of any logic that I reject. I do, however, realize that 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.
JohnA wrote: Which areas or words of dictionaries do you reject? And Why.
Like most professionals I prefer to use dictionaries that are created specifically for the discipline under study. I would never run out and get a layman's dictionary to be used in a mathematics class. I would get a dictionary of mathematical terms for that. And even then I would realize that it's only a guide.

I have used mathematics dictionaries quite often throughout my life. I've have found disagreements between dictionaries published by different publishers. I have also found contradictions, or at least ambiguities within single dictionaries when looking up terms used in various definitions.

I have also come to the realization that dictionaries of any sort cannot be trusted to be perfect nor complete. After all, if they were complete, then the subjects they are defining would need to be complete as well. And we know that's not the case.
JohnA wrote: A conditional statement refer to logic and math (subset of logic which uses by logical reasoning)
A conditional statement, symbolized by p -> q, is an if-then statement in which p is a hypothesis and q is a conclusion.
The conditional is defined to be true unless a true hypothesis leads to a false conclusion.
Conditional statements are part of Discrete Mathematics!
Conditional statements are used in Discrete Mathematics.

You are right a conditional statement is defined to be true unless a true hypothesis least to a false conclusion. But it is also considered to be true if the hypothesis is simply false.

See:

Image

And this is exactly why I am using a conditional statement for this purpose.

I claim that my conditional statement offered in my first post of this thread is TRUE.

Well there are three conditions where the statement is TRUE, and only one where it is FALSE.

If you reject the truth of the hypothesis P, then the conditional statement is given a truth value of TRUE.

Therefore if you disagree with P, you automatically must conceded that my conditional statement is logically true. You simply don't care because you reject the hypothesis. It doesn't matter to you that it's true precisely because you have rejected the hypotheses.

The only case where it can be false is when you accept the hypothesis to be TRUE, and then refuse to accept that the conclusion is also TRUE.

I am simply saying that if you accept the truth of the hypothesis then I can show why the conclusion necessarily has to be true. I haven't had a need to do that yet because no one is willing to accept the truth of the hypothesis.

This is precisely why I have chosen to present it in this form.

There is no point in my even bothering to argue with people who reject the hypothesis. That's just a total waste of time for everyone involved.

You don't seem to understand this.

If you reject the truth of P, then you're wasting our time to continue to argue with me about it. You have already conceded Q when you have rejected P.

This is precisely what I have chosen this form to present my case.

This was no accident. ;)
JohnA wrote: This is what I disagree with:

This is very sneaky of you to define your 'argument' using a Conditional statement since the only way we can show it false is when the hypothesis (p) is true and the conclusion (q) is false.
But that is precisely what you will need to show if you wish to discuss this topic with me. ;)
JohnA wrote: But your forgot to say:

1) You need to demonstrate there is a cause-and-effect relationship between the hypothesis and conclusion of your conditional statement.
Your conditional statement (you can even use truth tables if you wish) that one hypothesis / premise is enough to make a conclusion is unfounded. You need a valid sound argument (at least 2 P's and 1 C) for this nonsense you are trying to conclude.
All of that comes later John.

You need to accept the truth of P before we can even begin to move in that direction.

If you reject P before we start, then what's the point in even bothering to move forward? You've already conceded at that point.
JohnA wrote: 2) There are problems using conditional statements in normal English language to make conclusions:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Material_c ... onditional
So? Just because there can be problems doesn't mean there has to be in every case.

All I'm doing with this conditional statement is trying to weed out unreasonable people. Clearly it doesn't always work for that intended purpose. :lol:

My purpose it to try to get off on a good solid start. There's nothing "sneaky" about it at all. If you reject P, fine. How many times do I need to say that?

If you reject the truth of P, then I have nothing to prove to you. I'm not even interested in trying to prove anything to you at that point.

It's just a way to avoid superfluous arguments like you keep presenting.

But clearly, like I say, even this approach doesn't appear to be working in your case.
JohnA wrote: 3) Now, you said you are not trying to make a conclusion, yet conditional statements refer to a hypothesis and conclusion (if hypothesis true, then conclusion = true). You even stated that you want to make a conclusion in your 1st post in this thread!
No John you are totally wrong. I'm not demanding that that Q must be true.

All I'm saying is that if you accept P then I can show that Q is true.

Clearly you aren't understanding. There is nothing in this conditional statement that demands that anything needs to be true or false.

I'm the one who is claiming that this conditional statement is TRUE. Therefore it's up to me to prove it.

However, if you reject the truth of P, then I'm done. The conditional statement is then automatically TRUE (see the truth table above). Anytime P is said to be false, the conditional statement then takes on the truth value of TRUE.

That's precisely why I chose a conditional statement as the format John.
JohnA wrote: 4) Conditional statements rely on discrete math, which your reject (both in saying you reject parts of math and that conditional statement are math indeed).
No they don't. They are logic, not math. They don't rely on a concept of quantity at all. They have nothing to do with the concept of number. They are Boolean. they are either TRUE or FALSE, no numbers or quantitative ideas are required at all.

But then again, I suppose you do have a point academically speaking, because the "Mathematical Community" thinks it OWNS LOGIC. :roll:

In fact, you have already spoken before like as if there is no difference between logic and mathematics, if you reject one you automatically reject the other. That seemed to be your view on that.

I disagree with that view as well.

So we're back to a point where we can simply agree to disagree again.
JohnA wrote: You reject / ignore this for some UNKNOWN reason, offering obtuse obscure projections of obscurantism.


Therefore, I reject your conditional statement "argument" since it is logically flawed. I reject P and Q and P -> Q. Happy now?
If you reject P then my conditional statement P -> Q is TRUE.

Look at the TRUTH TABLE for P -> Q John.

Image

If you reject P as being False, then P -> Q is automatically TRUE.

Are you going to deny the TRUTH TABLE?
OK, so you were not accurate when you said that QM can explain the macro universe. I will accept your retraction of your claim when you offer it.

Continuum Theory: Call me boring, but I read science that has been accepted to the point where the author and source becomes irrelevant to the knowledge gained. I do not see scientists as authorities. I do not read conjectures such as gravitons can by some DI mystical experience explain GR or Newton's Gravity at the macro scale.

And gravity is not the only thing that QM can not explain in the macro world.

On your rejection of stuff:
Math:
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.
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. LOL. Obscurantism here we go again.
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 ( - am not referring to a god or 'DI mystical spirits').

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

That is just rubbish and I think you know this. I already told you about that recent astrophysical experiment that showed that Lorentz symmetry holds even below the Planck length. Why on earth would Math break down at the Planck scale? Gee. Don't even answer, as you and I both know that your claim is pure rubbish.

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

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!



AH. am glad we cleared that up. OK, so you were not accurate when you said that conditional statements are not part of math. I I will accept your retraction of your claim when you offer it.


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.....

User avatar
Divine Insight
Savant
Posts: 18080
Joined: Thu Jun 28, 2012 10:59 pm
Location: Here & Now
Been thanked: 4 times

Post #22

Post by Divine Insight »

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. ;)
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. ;)

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. ;)
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:

Image

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.
[center]Image
Spiritual Growth - A person's continual assessment
of how well they believe they are doing
relative to what they believe a personal God expects of them.
[/center]

JohnA
Banned
Banned
Posts: 752
Joined: Fri Sep 13, 2013 5:11 am

Post #23

Post by JohnA »

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. ;)
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. ;)

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. ;)
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:

Image

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."

User avatar
Divine Insight
Savant
Posts: 18080
Joined: Thu Jun 28, 2012 10:59 pm
Location: Here & Now
Been thanked: 4 times

Post #24

Post by Divine Insight »

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. :roll:

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:

Image

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.
[center]Image
Spiritual Growth - A person's continual assessment
of how well they believe they are doing
relative to what they believe a personal God expects of them.
[/center]

JohnA
Banned
Banned
Posts: 752
Joined: Fri Sep 13, 2013 5:11 am

Post #25

Post by JohnA »

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. :roll:

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:

Image

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.

User avatar
Divine Insight
Savant
Posts: 18080
Joined: Thu Jun 28, 2012 10:59 pm
Location: Here & Now
Been thanked: 4 times

Post #26

Post by Divine Insight »

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? :-k

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? :-k

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.

Image

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:

Image

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.
[center]Image
Spiritual Growth - A person's continual assessment
of how well they believe they are doing
relative to what they believe a personal God expects of them.
[/center]

JohnA
Banned
Banned
Posts: 752
Joined: Fri Sep 13, 2013 5:11 am

Post #27

Post by JohnA »

[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.

User avatar
Divine Insight
Savant
Posts: 18080
Joined: Thu Jun 28, 2012 10:59 pm
Location: Here & Now
Been thanked: 4 times

Post #28

Post by Divine Insight »

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? :-k
[center]Image
Spiritual Growth - A person's continual assessment
of how well they believe they are doing
relative to what they believe a personal God expects of them.
[/center]

JohnA
Banned
Banned
Posts: 752
Joined: Fri Sep 13, 2013 5:11 am

Post #29

Post by JohnA »

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? :-k
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.

User avatar
micatala
Site Supporter
Posts: 8338
Joined: Sun Feb 27, 2005 2:04 pm

Post #30

Post by micatala »

OK, let's just consider DI's conditional statement. I think P is false, but I will set that aside for the time being.
"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.
" . . . the line separating good and evil passes, not through states, nor between classes, nor between political parties either, but right through every human heart . . . ." Alexander Solzhenitsyn

Post Reply