The God thread

[Mr. GreyMan]

But, an implicit assumption in that process is that mathematical principles (most importantly, the Law of Identity) can be applied to those representations of reality (integrated through time).
This isn't a trivial assumption.

Additionally, your words highlight the issue of not knowing whether or not the original premises are true. The only ways we have to determine the truth of assumptions like "F = ma" always lead us back to induction. And we all know about the problem of induction.


But, to put the first part more flippantly:

Originally Posted by RichardGarfinkle

Because mathematical deduction never produces false results from true premises we preserve the same level of truth.

Prove it.

[RichardGarfinkle]

Originally Posted by Mr. GreyMan

But, an implicit assumption in that process is that mathematical principles (most importantly, the Law of Identity) can be applied to those representations of reality (integrated through time).
This isn't a trivial assumption.

Additionally, your words highlight the issue of not knowing whether or not the original premises are true. The only ways we have to determine the truth of assumptions like "F = ma" always lead us back to induction. And we all know about the problem of induction.


But, to put the first part more flippantly:

Prove it.

To what standard of proof. It's pretty easy to show that the basic methods of the propositional calculus are a minimal set of truth preserving rules in a consistent system. In effect one can prove the necessity of having all those methods in a consistent system, but that requires accepting the concept of consistency as basic.

If you're not willing to do that, I'll have to ask what you are willing to take as basic,

[Mr. GreyMan]

It was a trick request ment to highlight one of my major points:
That logic has proven that logic cannot validate logic.

And, since logic is the only tool at our disposal to validate such things, that puts us in a bit of a bind epistemologically.

[RichardGarfinkle]

Originally Posted by Mr. GreyMan

It was a trick request ment to highlight one of my major points:
That logic has proven that logic cannot validate logic.

And, since logic is the only tool at our disposal to validate such things, that puts us in a bit of a bind epistemologically.

In a sene you're right, but the basic aspects of logic can be seen as a minimal set of consistency principles.

Simple example. If object a has property f then there exists an object with property f. If you didn't allow that deduction then your idea of deduction would be inconsistent.

In some ways the basics of logic add up to a definition of proof rather than a provable structure themselves. They're a minimal set of tools for what deduction should be.

[Mr. GreyMan]

Originally Posted by RichardGarfinkle

In a sene you're right, but the basic aspects of logic can be seen as a minimal set of consistency principles.

Sure, it can be seen as a lot of things. I was simply talking about what it is, however.

Originally Posted by RichardGarfinkle

Simple example. If object a has property f then there exists an object with property f. If you didn't allow that deduction then your idea of deduction would be inconsistent.

In some ways the basics of logic add up to a definition of proof rather than a provable structure themselves. They're a minimal set of tools for what deduction should be.

I believe we're starting to talk in circles, but I also believe we both understand what the other person is trying to comunicate at this point.

I am satisfied with that. I hope you are as well.

[RichardGarfinkle]

Originally Posted by Mr. GreyMan

Sure, it can be seen as a lot of things. I was simply talking about what it is, however.

I believe we're starting to talk in circles, but I also believe we both understand what the other person is trying to comunicate at this point.

I am satisfied with that. I hope you are as well.

No problem, except I left the second s out of the word sense, leaving me either senseless or insene.

[Mr. GreyMan]

I did not even notice; I am very bad at proofreading.