Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 18, 2013 10:48:50 GMT -5
<stab> if there is such a thing as an 'idea' and if no thing is true then no idea is true. </stab> You injected the if statements into the sentence in order to have if statements in the sentence. Yes, or, I 'unmasked' a declarative statement, showing it's underlying if-then logical nature. Declarations require logic. Logic is built on if/then. Just speculating. Isn't this a Wittgenstein thing? I don't know. "The main point is the theory of what can be expressed (gesagt) by prop[osition]s—i.e. by language—(and, which comes to the same thing, what can be thought) and what can not be expressed by pro[position]s, but only shown (gezeigt); which, I believe, is the cardinal problem of philosophy."
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Jun 18, 2013 16:51:21 GMT -5
Our logic always is based on the "if-->then" operator. Within the "if" are instantiated all the rules we work with, including that of "truth". That's how we very well can speak of necessary conclusions ("then"), given such and such conditions ("if"). At the same time we thus can understand that saying "no idea is true" must be false, because "truth" has already been instantiated within the "if", there is no "truth" prior to the "if". I'm not following. Where is the "if" in "no idea is true"? "if-then" can be viewed declaratively as a descriptive rule and the truth of the rule is determined by whether or not it's description matches the world being modeled. if condition/test/rule then branch/conclusion/action else alternative Within the "if" are instantiated all the rules we work with,
|
|
|
The Rose
Jun 18, 2013 17:09:11 GMT -5
via mobile
Post by topology on Jun 18, 2013 17:09:11 GMT -5
I'm not following. Where is the "if" in "no idea is true"? "if-then" can be viewed declaratively as a descriptive rule and the truth of the rule is determined by whether or not it's description matches the world being modeled. if condition/test/rule then branch/conclusion/action else alternative Within the "if" are instantiated all the rules we work with, That if-then-else is imperative. Imperative meaning giving commands to alter state from one moment to the next. Declarative rules describe a state-space, much in the same way that a grammar describes a set of strings. A regexp does not indicate how to unfold the pattern to get a particular string, it simply describes the pattern.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Jun 18, 2013 17:15:35 GMT -5
You injected the if statements into the sentence in order to have if statements in the sentence. Yes, or, I 'unmasked' a declarative statement, showing it's underlying if-then logical nature. Declarations require logic. Logic is built on if/then. Just speculating. Isn't this a Wittgenstein thing? I don't know. "The main point is the theory of what can be expressed (gesagt) by prop[osition]s—i.e. by language—(and, which comes to the same thing, what can be thought) and what can not be expressed by pro[position]s, but only shown (gezeigt); which, I believe, is the cardinal problem of philosophy." The language of logic is boolean algebra. Boolean variables have one of two values, either true or false: they are binary, that is, of base 2. I'm sure that there are more sophisticated ways to do this but the general form of a paradox ican expressed in terms of two equations: A=0 A=1 In other words, it doesn't make any sense. Analyses such as these applied to this type of structure seems to me like trying to nail jello to the wall, capture smoke in a bottle, eat a song or smell an idea. No offense intended toward the Model-T.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Jun 18, 2013 17:23:51 GMT -5
if condition/test/rule then branch/conclusion/action else alternative That if-then-else is imperative. Imperative meaning giving commands to alter state from one moment to the next. Declarative rules describe a state-space, much in the same way that a grammar describes a set of strings. A regexp does not indicate how to unfold the pattern to get a particular string, it simply describes the pattern. The pattern is not what parses the string though ... there's still an algorithm that gets run. Using dem tings is just sooooo empowerin'! They make Merlins of us all.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 18, 2013 17:29:49 GMT -5
Yes, or, I 'unmasked' a declarative statement, showing it's underlying if-then logical nature. Declarations require logic. Logic is built on if/then. Just speculating. Isn't this a Wittgenstein thing? I don't know. "The main point is the theory of what can be expressed (gesagt) by prop[osition]s—i.e. by language—(and, which comes to the same thing, what can be thought) and what can not be expressed by pro[position]s, but only shown (gezeigt); which, I believe, is the cardinal problem of philosophy." The language of logic is boolean algebra. Boolean variables have one of two values, either true or false: they are binary, that is, of base 2. I'm sure that there are more sophisticated ways to do this but the general form of a paradox ican expressed in terms of two equations: A=0 A=1 In other words, it doesn't make any sense. Analyses such as these applied to this type of structure seems to me like trying to nail jello to the wall, capture smoke in a bottle, eat a song or smell an idea. No offense intended toward the Model-T. Actually the language of logic can also be language, as in this statement... Something from Nothing is a logical impossibility.
|
|
|
Post by ???????? ???????????? on Jun 18, 2013 17:45:30 GMT -5
Our logic always is based on the "if-->then" operator. Within the "if" are instantiated all the rules we work with, including that of "truth". That's how we very well can speak of necessary conclusions ("then"), given such and such conditions ("if"). At the same time we thus can understand that saying "no idea is true" must be false, because "truth" has already been instantiated within the "if", there is no "truth" prior to the "if". I'm not following. Where is the "if" in "no idea is true"? For example: "If truth is an entity external to ideas, then no idea is true." So the "if" there is an implicit rule, without this rule "no idea is true" is just a declaration, but if we want to take it seriously it needs to be a conclusion, and a conclusion requires a set of rules, therefore an "if". It's never about objective rules of the world, or if it is about the world, then the world for us is our mind, i.e. it's always only about the implicit rules of our logic (this is the meaning of self-inquiry). Or, the negative proof is that even if we say that all we're dealing with are declarations, then we still have to look at the supporting implicit structure that transports this idea and we will discover that this idea too must be based on if-then logic, for if it weren't then we wouldn't be able reflect on the notion that all sentences are declarations.
|
|
|
Post by ???????? ???????????? on Jun 18, 2013 17:49:22 GMT -5
You injected the if statements into the sentence in order to have if statements in the sentence. Yes, or, I 'unmasked' a declarative statement, showing it's underlying if-then logical nature. Declarations require logic. Logic is built on if/then. Just speculating. Isn't this a Wittgenstein thing? I don't know. "The main point is the theory of what can be expressed (gesagt) by prop[osition]s—i.e. by language—(and, which comes to the same thing, what can be thought) and what can not be expressed by pro[position]s, but only shown (gezeigt); which, I believe, is the cardinal problem of philosophy." I think it's the problem of empirical evidence. Wittgenstein's issue here seems to be that we perceive something and the perception seems to inform our ideas, and we can't account for how this translation from perception to conceptual representation works. My position is that anything at all can be evidence, i.e. all we're really doing is picking a sentence and give it the label "evidence", the function of this label is that it forces us to give priority to the evidence-sentences over sentences that don't carry this label. So it's never really about what we can perceive, as cognitive entities we're in mind from start to finish, and we use "but I've seen it with my own eyes!" only as an excuse to give a sentence the evidence-label.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Jun 18, 2013 17:59:22 GMT -5
The language of logic is boolean algebra. Boolean variables have one of two values, either true or false: they are binary, that is, of base 2. I'm sure that there are more sophisticated ways to do this but the general form of a paradox ican expressed in terms of two equations: A=0 A=1 In other words, it doesn't make any sense. Analyses such as these applied to this type of structure seems to me like trying to nail jello to the wall, capture smoke in a bottle, eat a song or smell an idea. No offense intended toward the Model-T. Actually the language of logic can also be language, as in this statement... Something from Nothing is a logical impossibility. tell that to the guy that discovered the pressure exerted in a vacuum due to quantum fluctuation
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Jun 18, 2013 18:00:49 GMT -5
I'm not following. Where is the "if" in "no idea is true"? For example: "If truth is an entity external to ideas, then no idea is true." So the "if" there is an implicit rule, without this rule "no idea is true" is just a declaration, but if we want to take it seriously it needs to be a conclusion, and a conclusion requires a set of rules, therefore an "if". It's never about objective rules of the world, or if it is about the world, then the world for us is our mind, i.e. it's always only about the implicit rules of our logic (this is the meaning of self-inquiry). Or, the negative proof is that even if we say that all we're dealing with are declarations, then we still have to look at the supporting implicit structure that transports this idea and we will discover that this idea too must be based on if-then logic, for if it weren't then we wouldn't be able reflect on the notion that all sentences are declarations. Actually the statement is what it is, yes, a declaration. Positing some question that leads to it seems to me to be quite superfluous.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
The Rose
Jun 18, 2013 18:04:31 GMT -5
via mobile
Post by Deleted on Jun 18, 2013 18:04:31 GMT -5
Actually the language of logic can also be language, as in this statement... Something from Nothing is a logical impossibility. tell that to the guy that discovered the pressure exerted in a vacuum due to quantum fluctuation Everything you mentioned are 'things', vacumn, pressure, quantumn flatulation... Not 'Nothing'...hehehe
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Jun 18, 2013 18:04:43 GMT -5
Yes, or, I 'unmasked' a declarative statement, showing it's underlying if-then logical nature. Declarations require logic. Logic is built on if/then. Just speculating. Isn't this a Wittgenstein thing? I don't know. "The main point is the theory of what can be expressed (gesagt) by prop[osition]s—i.e. by language—(and, which comes to the same thing, what can be thought) and what can not be expressed by pro[position]s, but only shown (gezeigt); which, I believe, is the cardinal problem of philosophy." I think it's the problem of empirical evidence. Wittgenstein's issue here seems to be that we perceive something and the perception seems to inform our ideas, and we can't account for how this translation from perception to conceptual representation works. My position is that anything at all can be evidence, i.e. all we're really doing is picking a sentence and give it the label "evidence", the function of this label is that it forces us to give priority to the evidence-sentences over sentences that don't carry this label. So it's never really about what we can perceive, as cognitive entities we're in mind from start to finish, and we use "but I've seen it with my own eyes!" only as an excuse to give a sentence the evidence-label. You're specifically referring here to the sentence "no idea is true"?
|
|
|
The Rose
Jun 18, 2013 18:05:11 GMT -5
via mobile
Post by topology on Jun 18, 2013 18:05:11 GMT -5
Yes, or, I 'unmasked' a declarative statement, showing it's underlying if-then logical nature. Declarations require logic. Logic is built on if/then. Just speculating. Isn't this a Wittgenstein thing? I don't know. "The main point is the theory of what can be expressed (gesagt) by prop[osition]s—i.e. by language—(and, which comes to the same thing, what can be thought) and what can not be expressed by pro[position]s, but only shown (gezeigt); which, I believe, is the cardinal problem of philosophy." The language of logic is boolean algebra. Boolean variables have one of two values, either true or false: they are binary, that is, of base 2. I'm sure that there are more sophisticated ways to do this but the general form of a paradox ican expressed in terms of two equations: A=0 A=1 In other words, it doesn't make any sense. Analyses such as these applied to this type of structure seems to me like trying to nail jello to the wall, capture smoke in a bottle, eat a song or smell an idea. No offense intended toward the Model-T. There are many logics, not just Boolean.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Jun 18, 2013 18:08:44 GMT -5
tell that to the guy that discovered the pressure exerted in a vacuum due to quantum fluctuation Everything you mentioned are 'things', vacumn, pressure, quantumn flatulation... Not 'Nothing'...hehehe Well, strictly speaking yes, you're right, because the objectification starts at the word nothing ... the objectification begins with positing a source and what you've objectified isn't really what you had in mind. Still don't give you solid ground for your opener though.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Jun 18, 2013 18:09:54 GMT -5
The language of logic is boolean algebra. Boolean variables have one of two values, either true or false: they are binary, that is, of base 2. I'm sure that there are more sophisticated ways to do this but the general form of a paradox ican expressed in terms of two equations: A=0 A=1 In other words, it doesn't make any sense. Analyses such as these applied to this type of structure seems to me like trying to nail jello to the wall, capture smoke in a bottle, eat a song or smell an idea. No offense intended toward the Model-T. There are many logics, not just Boolean. Isn't that the "what is truth?" bunny-hole?
|
|